You could not add a HD or boards; all the design brilliance was devoted to making it small and cool without a fan.
Intriguingly enough, considering the Mac market as a whole, the unhackability is most likely what made it fail. I didn't buy one for two reasons: It had only one processor, and - more importantly - there was no in-system hard drive expandability.
(I did get a G4 dual processor 450 tower, which I'm very happy with).
... but, according to The Register, you're something like 12th in broadband availability, and Oftel (the UK's "winged watchdog" for telcoms regulation) is asleep at the switch.
So you'll get a cool phone but no DSL connection:-(.
D
(The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/ - a sardonic take on IT news from the UK).
ironically enough, made in a satirical article I read:
Microsoft NYET:
http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2006,3,7,1,06 01,01.html
But you probably want a slightly more serious take.
Microsoft.NET is an way of tying together web services using XML. For example, let us suppose you want to make a plane reservation. Go to Microsoft(tm) Encarta(tm), make the reservation, and watch it pop up in your Microsoft(tm) Outlook(tm) calendar.
Furthermore, by using your Microsoft(tm) Passport(tm), you can log on to web services using the same user ID and password, with everything stored securely [ahem] and reliably [cough] on Microsoft(tm)'s servers. It is even possible that some of these services might not be run by Microsoft(tm). For instance, Microsoft and Verisign/Network Solutions recently inked a pact in which NSI provided security for Passport. In exchange, MS will include NSI in their Passport service and (one must presume) pay them some money.
The upshot of this is that if Microsoft(tm) Passport(tm) was to go down, much of the commercial Internet would do likewise. In addition, Microsoft will get a lot of information about the web sites you visit and the transactions you performed on those sites.
Note how this ties in with the infamous Smart Tags(tm). Whenever smart tags appear in your browser, unless you explicitly change them, they will point to Microsoft(tm) sites. Much of what.NET(tm) is all about is driving traffic to Microsoft(tm) services.
I will freely admit to grave doubts about.NET; all it takes is one serious outage and people will flee it in droves. Could you imagine if your site's online transaction abilities were down for a whole week? This is betting your tail on a function you do not control, and having to confront an angry boss saying "But you said this thing would work! Off with your head!"
I've confronted an angry boss on matters far less serious than that, and I'm not anxious to do it again. I would think that sheer self-preservation will limit the success of.NET.
The only domain name I have which matters is, of course, amazing.com, which I registered back in 1994. As far as I know, I have to deal with NSI for renewals.
why, then, did VeriSign basically turn over its entire authentication process to Microsoft and start deploying Windows 2000 servers in its core business?
See this report from The Register for the grisly details.
I suppose you could say this is because VeriSign and Network Solutions are insane, deranged companies, and there is most likely truth to this. But I'm not convinced; I HAVE TO deal with these idiots for my domain names, and now I have to rely on.NET to do it. Ick.
When I go to a bookstore, I go for the experience of poking around and finding the book I want. The ability to be able to check out and access the entire book is vital for me when I want to consider which book to buy.
If you replace this with kiosks in bookstores containing minimal information, then quite honestly I'd might as well buy from amazon.
I do think this is a good thing, though, since it would mean only one copy of each book could be on the shelves. Then I would simply take a look at it, decide to buy, take it to the checkout, and they'd punch the button and give me a nice clean fresh copy. Cool; I often hesitate to buy books because they are in poor condition in the store, having been pawed by hundreds of hands.
Before really loving this technology, though, remember it means the death of $5 remaindered hardcover books. Also, I wonder how this works with the increasing use of glossy paper and colour printing in today's books; look at the computer section of any bookstore and you'll see a few dozen books on Adobe Photoshop that are printed this way. That's bound to dramatically increase the cost of this machine, or limit its ability to serve stores and customers.
I have to agree with this; I run MacOS X and love it - it really does combine the power of Unix with the beauty of the Mac and mainstream application support (through Classic, granted, but the apps are coming). I have the usual suspects (mySQL, etc) running quite happily on my machine, so it will work great for most situations where I would use Linux.
The main difference is that the GUI is so much prettier and more elegant, which has definitely won me over to both the Apple platform as opposed to Linux.
Even MacOS 9.x is surprisingly stable if you know how to configure it properly. Hint: Assign your applications plenty of RAM and they won't crash and burn when they run out. I would count 9 as more stable than Windows 9x/ME when properly configured.
I'm probably going to get a Titanium PowerBook in the next month or two because I really need the larger screen and faster processor. But the iBook is pretty darn cool at its price point.
Seems to me it would be easier to get at the rootkit author than the person who pulled the trigger. Most of them have email addresses at least.
The real problem with making rootkit authors liable is that I suspect most of them don't have enough money to pay damages. Nobody's going to make a 13-year old kid pay $2,000 for a week of my time plus $30,000 in lost sales - and yet an attack can easily damage a system that much and more.
Yours is by far the best post on this subject defending rootkit developers so far.
I don't know if I really want to destroy people's lives for making rootkits, but I sure wish they wouldn't be developed; I've had three systems damaged by them, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been if someone hadn't created the rootkit.
Full disclosure sounds great in principle, and I'm uncomfortable with the suppression of free speech, but it really, really shouldn't be trivial to destroy someone's web server and force the system administrator to spend a week or more trying to figure out what happened and clean things up.
You could say that it's the admin's fault for not keeping up with exploits; but that's a full-time job in and of itself. Should it take that kind of effort simply to publish stuff on the web? I'd say that's an equivalent restriction on free speech, one that is truly evil since it affects anyone who can afford to run a web server, but not the time to scope out vunerabilities and fix them. There are a heck of a lot more people in that category than there are security enthusiasts who would be affected by a ban.
I come from the old ITS background at MIT; I loathe security with a passion. I'm nostalgic for the good old days when if someone did break in it was for curiosity's sake and nothing would be damaged. Now we have people who know nothing of what they are doing, capable of doing mean-spirited, evil stuff. I think that is, simply, wrong, and helping them is likewise wrong. And that's exactly what rootkit developers do. They are aiding and abetting evil; should they get away with it?
Does this mean that if I switched my system software from, say, Linux to Solaris, the system would be more secure since there are fewer people who know SPARC assembly language?
The security expert we hired when there was a breakin into our company's Linux servers said no, but I'm curious to hear what you folks think.
Personally, after having had the experience of having my personal system broken into multiple times, I think the creators of rootkits should be sued within an inch of their lives, shot, boiled in oil and eaten by cannibals. Yes, I hate them that much. Making it trivial to break into someone else's system SHOULD be a criminal offense.
People like me who want to run a hobby server on the web should not have to spend massive amounts of time making their systems secure; eliminating rootkits and published exploits would eliminate 90% plus of successful incursions, because most of them are done by illiterate bozos who don't have a clue. My personal systems would be of absolutely no interest to a professional, but to some pathetic idiot who wants to prove his manhood by cracking a system, they are sitting ducks.
I know of at least two woman who have wanted to introduce me to that show. Since I am incredibly lazy in TV terms, preferring to use it for watching my own productions, I have yet to see it - but it does appeal to the fair sex.
If Microsoft dies, it will most likely be because of the new anti-piracy system that watches for changes in your hardware configuration and makes you call Microsoft for approval.
I think even the general public will get majorly pissed about this one. If anything has the potential for making customers flee, it's:
"We are sorry, but something has changed in your system that makes us feel you are stealing our software. If your use of the software is legitimate, please call Microsoft at (800) 555-1212 for instructions."
I know their language is smoother than that, but it's not that MUCH smoother, and people are going to realize this is what is meant.
Anyone who blew $500-odd on Office is going to be really angry at this one.
I just hope this won't make the next version of Office for the Mac, because I really want to pick up a MacOS X compatible version. Is there any comparable product being developed for MacOS X I should try instead? Mesa looks pretty nice, but that's just the spreadsheet component.
Why not use RTF? Yes, it can be read by people using Microsoft products.
Are there DOC file readers for Linux, or is the format too much of a moving target? And what about asking partners/vendors to send stuff in the XML format generated by Word? I seem to remember Word was transitioning to such a format, and that should be a piece of cake to switch to.
My IS department is properly cynical about many Microsoft things, but as long as our accounting system runs under Windows, we really don't have much choice for the bulk of our desktops.
We could shift some workstations to iMacs or Linux, but it would mean more stuff for the IS fellow to learn, and that would make things a lot more difficult. As long as everyone uses the same crummy product, he only has to learn, well, the same crummy product. And I can see his point, surely.
In short, I don't think the IS department feels it has much choice, even though Office runs just fine on a Macintosh, and an iMac would cost about the same as the cheap "network computer-style" systems he bought for our low-level people. It's a simple matter of not wanting to ascend another learning curve; no secret bribes or anything from are needed from Microsoft to keep him there.
I am a member of the luxury class. I live in a neighborhood with an average income about double that of the US as a whole. I drive a Mercedes-Benz S-Class sedan. (1991; I am not a member of the super-luxury class just yet:-( ).
I can't stand SUVs because they're ugly. My Mercedes has just as many luxury gadgets, but rides and handles a lot better. I drove a Mercedes ML SUV during a Mercedes road-test event, and although it accelerated fine, it was noticably tippy on the corners. And I understand that's one of the better-handling SUVs.
D
----
The "Roundup Ready" Seeds
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Since you seem well-informed, I have a few questions.
(1) Aren't seeds cheap to the point of absurdity? I seem to remember a few hundred seeds cost, say, under a dollar, a puny percentage of the price of sowing and reaping the crops. I would think paying that dollar every year and in return getting seeds more resistant to pesticides and therefore easier to care for makes a lot of sense, and isn't anything like the indentured servitude anti-GM folks claim.
(2) In what possible way could these seeds harm the environment? Have there been any actual cases of this happening? Why are people so emotional about this issue?
People have been breeding seeds for various characteristics for centuries. I don't see this as being such a big deal. I think that if we could alter genes and come up with better results, we should do it. Heck, if anyone would offer to alter my genetic makeup so I could lose weight without much loathed diet and exercise changes, I'd be the first person in line. That's the sort of thing this promises - technology that can bring more happiness to the world.
I was there New Years' Eve 1999-2000. There was a huge party atmosphere and a fair amount of Mardi Gras style exhibitionism (I give you beads, you show your tits).
Since this is technically illegal, I could see the cameras being used to enforce that type of law; for the first time, it could be practical to do so, given a sufficient database of shots. Nobody actually at Ybor City wants to have it enforced, as far as I know, but a group of prudes could make it happen.
Needless to say, I would not appreciate that sort of thing. I'm sure it would reduce the revenues of Ybor City businesses, too.
The criminal element would simply avoid Ybor City or only go there masked. If you have any sense, I'm quite sure this sort of thing is trivial to defeat. I saw masks on many of the people in Ybor during New Years', so no, the answer would not be to detain anyone with a mask.
The gist is that Microsoft itself is probably spending about $ 200 million, relying on $300 million from Intel and unspecified amounts from resellers and smaller companies to make up the $1 billion total.
So it may not be as hard to counteract as it looks. I predict that Microsoft's genuinely spooky registration process is going to severely limit sales of these products. Consider the poor sap whose copy of XP expired on the plane while he was a thousand-odd miles away from his CD. He wrote a column on Ziff Davis Anchordesk about it, and boy was he pissed - even though a reboot cured the problem.
We'll see, but issues like that seem like ones that will upset "real people", not just geeks.
Doesn't the console-oriented (edit each command line locally on terminals and press [enter] to send the whole string) nature of the 400 make it basically impossible to run an operating system other than OS/400 or similar?
But they can't, as long as they're using the PPC processor. Unless they wanted compatibility with LinuxPPC, but that wouldn't get them anywhere considering the lack of packaged software for it.
As the nice fellow says, prices are down even more than when I last looked. I found Mac-compatible PC133 at $ 78 per 512MB board, so the 1.5GB maximum capacity would now cost $ 234, a drop of over $100 from when I last checked. Wow.
Anyone care to speculate over the type of RAM used by the new Macs that will (hopefully) be unveiled at Macworld? Someone on Maccentral was talking about a possible switch to DDR - anyone know what that would do? I'd hate to buy this much RAM and not have it work in my next system:-(.
The most expensive possible PowerMac G4 configuration is $ 12,406. Sadly, they give you $1,000 in "Promotion Savings" after charging you $2,000 for 1.5GB RAM; this did not help my "quest for the skies". However, considering that you could get 1.5GB RAM for about $375 elsewhere (see http://www.ramseeker.com ) I fear that I am not very impressed.
The most expensive PowerBook G4 configuration is $5,345. Sadly, they give you $ 700 in "Promotion Savings". Note that this includes 1GB RAM at their inflated prices; you'd be nuts to actually order it that way. I sure wish they could give me more than a puny 30GB disk; aren't notebooks up to 48GB by now? Oh well; perhaps when they freshen the line in September.
Slashdot Mirror
You could not add a HD or boards; all the design brilliance was devoted to making it small and cool without a fan.
Intriguingly enough, considering the Mac market as a whole, the unhackability is most likely what made it fail. I didn't buy one for two reasons: It had only one processor, and - more importantly - there was no in-system hard drive expandability.
(I did get a G4 dual processor 450 tower, which I'm very happy with).
D
----
... but, according to The Register, you're something like 12th in broadband availability, and Oftel (the UK's "winged watchdog" for telcoms regulation) is asleep at the switch.
:-(.
So you'll get a cool phone but no DSL connection
D
(The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/ - a sardonic take on IT news from the UK).
----
Microsoft NYET: http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2006,3,7,1,06 01,01.html
But you probably want a slightly more serious take.
Microsoft .NET is an way of tying together web services using XML. For example, let us suppose you want to make a plane reservation. Go to Microsoft(tm) Encarta(tm), make the reservation, and watch it pop up in your Microsoft(tm) Outlook(tm) calendar.
Furthermore, by using your Microsoft(tm) Passport(tm), you can log on to web services using the same user ID and password, with everything stored securely [ahem] and reliably [cough] on Microsoft(tm)'s servers. It is even possible that some of these services might not be run by Microsoft(tm). For instance, Microsoft and Verisign/Network Solutions recently inked a pact in which NSI provided security for Passport. In exchange, MS will include NSI in their Passport service and (one must presume) pay them some money.
The upshot of this is that if Microsoft(tm) Passport(tm) was to go down, much of the commercial Internet would do likewise. In addition, Microsoft will get a lot of information about the web sites you visit and the transactions you performed on those sites.
Note how this ties in with the infamous Smart Tags(tm). Whenever smart tags appear in your browser, unless you explicitly change them, they will point to Microsoft(tm) sites. Much of what .NET(tm) is all about is driving traffic to Microsoft(tm) services.
I will freely admit to grave doubts about .NET; all it takes is one serious outage and people will flee it in droves. Could you imagine if your site's online transaction abilities were down for a whole week? This is betting your tail on a function you do not control, and having to confront an angry boss saying "But you said this thing would work! Off with your head!"
I've confronted an angry boss on matters far less serious than that, and I'm not anxious to do it again. I would think that sheer self-preservation will limit the success of .NET.
D
----
This is nothing new :-(.
http://www.around.com/microspeak.html
is ancient (1997 I believe) but still speaks volumes about Microsoft corporate culture.
D
----
The only domain name I have which matters is, of course, amazing.com, which I registered back in 1994. As far as I know, I have to deal with NSI for renewals.
Sigh.
D
----
See this report from The Register for the grisly details.
I suppose you could say this is because VeriSign and Network Solutions are insane, deranged companies, and there is most likely truth to this. But I'm not convinced; I HAVE TO deal with these idiots for my domain names, and now I have to rely on .NET to do it. Ick.
D
----
When I go to a bookstore, I go for the experience of poking around and finding the book I want. The ability to be able to check out and access the entire book is vital for me when I want to consider which book to buy.
If you replace this with kiosks in bookstores containing minimal information, then quite honestly I'd might as well buy from amazon.
I do think this is a good thing, though, since it would mean only one copy of each book could be on the shelves. Then I would simply take a look at it, decide to buy, take it to the checkout, and they'd punch the button and give me a nice clean fresh copy. Cool; I often hesitate to buy books because they are in poor condition in the store, having been pawed by hundreds of hands.
Before really loving this technology, though, remember it means the death of $5 remaindered hardcover books. Also, I wonder how this works with the increasing use of glossy paper and colour printing in today's books; look at the computer section of any bookstore and you'll see a few dozen books on Adobe Photoshop that are printed this way. That's bound to dramatically increase the cost of this machine, or limit its ability to serve stores and customers.
D
----
I have to agree with this; I run MacOS X and love it - it really does combine the power of Unix with the beauty of the Mac and mainstream application support (through Classic, granted, but the apps are coming). I have the usual suspects (mySQL, etc) running quite happily on my machine, so it will work great for most situations where I would use Linux.
The main difference is that the GUI is so much prettier and more elegant, which has definitely won me over to both the Apple platform as opposed to Linux.
D
----
Not under Linux, or even MacOS X.
Even MacOS 9.x is surprisingly stable if you know how to configure it properly. Hint: Assign your applications plenty of RAM and they won't crash and burn when they run out. I would count 9 as more stable than Windows 9x/ME when properly configured.
I'm probably going to get a Titanium PowerBook in the next month or two because I really need the larger screen and faster processor. But the iBook is pretty darn cool at its price point.
D
D
----
But how do you determine who these people are?
Seems to me it would be easier to get at the rootkit author than the person who pulled the trigger. Most of them have email addresses at least.
The real problem with making rootkit authors liable is that I suspect most of them don't have enough money to pay damages. Nobody's going to make a 13-year old kid pay $2,000 for a week of my time plus $30,000 in lost sales - and yet an attack can easily damage a system that much and more.
So what to do that's effective? You tell me.
D
----
Yours is by far the best post on this subject defending rootkit developers so far.
I don't know if I really want to destroy people's lives for making rootkits, but I sure wish they wouldn't be developed; I've had three systems damaged by them, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been if someone hadn't created the rootkit.
Full disclosure sounds great in principle, and I'm uncomfortable with the suppression of free speech, but it really, really shouldn't be trivial to destroy someone's web server and force the system administrator to spend a week or more trying to figure out what happened and clean things up.
You could say that it's the admin's fault for not keeping up with exploits; but that's a full-time job in and of itself. Should it take that kind of effort simply to publish stuff on the web? I'd say that's an equivalent restriction on free speech, one that is truly evil since it affects anyone who can afford to run a web server, but not the time to scope out vunerabilities and fix them. There are a heck of a lot more people in that category than there are security enthusiasts who would be affected by a ban.
I come from the old ITS background at MIT; I loathe security with a passion. I'm nostalgic for the good old days when if someone did break in it was for curiosity's sake and nothing would be damaged. Now we have people who know nothing of what they are doing, capable of doing mean-spirited, evil stuff. I think that is, simply, wrong, and helping them is likewise wrong. And that's exactly what rootkit developers do. They are aiding and abetting evil; should they get away with it?
D
----
Does this mean that if I switched my system software from, say, Linux to Solaris, the system would be more secure since there are fewer people who know SPARC assembly language?
The security expert we hired when there was a breakin into our company's Linux servers said no, but I'm curious to hear what you folks think.
Personally, after having had the experience of having my personal system broken into multiple times, I think the creators of rootkits should be sued within an inch of their lives, shot, boiled in oil and eaten by cannibals. Yes, I hate them that much. Making it trivial to break into someone else's system SHOULD be a criminal offense.
People like me who want to run a hobby server on the web should not have to spend massive amounts of time making their systems secure; eliminating rootkits and published exploits would eliminate 90% plus of successful incursions, because most of them are done by illiterate bozos who don't have a clue. My personal systems would be of absolutely no interest to a professional, but to some pathetic idiot who wants to prove his manhood by cracking a system, they are sitting ducks.
D
----
I know of at least two woman who have wanted to introduce me to that show. Since I am incredibly lazy in TV terms, preferring to use it for watching my own productions, I have yet to see it - but it does appeal to the fair sex.
D
----
If Microsoft dies, it will most likely be because of the new anti-piracy system that watches for changes in your hardware configuration and makes you call Microsoft for approval.
I think even the general public will get majorly pissed about this one. If anything has the potential for making customers flee, it's:
"We are sorry, but something has changed in your system that makes us feel you are stealing our software. If your use of the software is legitimate, please call Microsoft at (800) 555-1212 for instructions."
I know their language is smoother than that, but it's not that MUCH smoother, and people are going to realize this is what is meant.
Anyone who blew $500-odd on Office is going to be really angry at this one.
I just hope this won't make the next version of Office for the Mac, because I really want to pick up a MacOS X compatible version. Is there any comparable product being developed for MacOS X I should try instead? Mesa looks pretty nice, but that's just the spreadsheet component.
D
----
Why not use RTF? Yes, it can be read by people using Microsoft products.
Are there DOC file readers for Linux, or is the format too much of a moving target? And what about asking partners/vendors to send stuff in the XML format generated by Word? I seem to remember Word was transitioning to such a format, and that should be a piece of cake to switch to.
D
----
It doesn't cost them any significant amount of money to keep up, so why are they doing this?
:-(.
Seems to me this is bad for employee morale, and that's going to be bad enough as it is
D
----
My IS department is properly cynical about many Microsoft things, but as long as our accounting system runs under Windows, we really don't have much choice for the bulk of our desktops.
We could shift some workstations to iMacs or Linux, but it would mean more stuff for the IS fellow to learn, and that would make things a lot more difficult. As long as everyone uses the same crummy product, he only has to learn, well, the same crummy product. And I can see his point, surely.
In short, I don't think the IS department feels it has much choice, even though Office runs just fine on a Macintosh, and an iMac would cost about the same as the cheap "network computer-style" systems he bought for our low-level people. It's a simple matter of not wanting to ascend another learning curve; no secret bribes or anything from are needed from Microsoft to keep him there.
D
----
I can't stand SUVs because they're ugly. My Mercedes has just as many luxury gadgets, but rides and handles a lot better. I drove a Mercedes ML SUV during a Mercedes road-test event, and although it accelerated fine, it was noticably tippy on the corners. And I understand that's one of the better-handling SUVs.
D
----
Since you seem well-informed, I have a few questions.
(1) Aren't seeds cheap to the point of absurdity? I seem to remember a few hundred seeds cost, say, under a dollar, a puny percentage of the price of sowing and reaping the crops. I would think paying that dollar every year and in return getting seeds more resistant to pesticides and therefore easier to care for makes a lot of sense, and isn't anything like the indentured servitude anti-GM folks claim.
(2) In what possible way could these seeds harm the environment? Have there been any actual cases of this happening? Why are people so emotional about this issue?
People have been breeding seeds for various characteristics for centuries. I don't see this as being such a big deal. I think that if we could alter genes and come up with better results, we should do it. Heck, if anyone would offer to alter my genetic makeup so I could lose weight without much loathed diet and exercise changes, I'd be the first person in line. That's the sort of thing this promises - technology that can bring more happiness to the world.
D
----
I was there New Years' Eve 1999-2000. There was a huge party atmosphere and a fair amount of Mardi Gras style exhibitionism (I give you beads, you show your tits).
Since this is technically illegal, I could see the cameras being used to enforce that type of law; for the first time, it could be practical to do so, given a sufficient database of shots. Nobody actually at Ybor City wants to have it enforced, as far as I know, but a group of prudes could make it happen.
Needless to say, I would not appreciate that sort of thing. I'm sure it would reduce the revenues of Ybor City businesses, too.
The criminal element would simply avoid Ybor City or only go there masked. If you have any sense, I'm quite sure this sort of thing is trivial to defeat. I saw masks on many of the people in Ybor during New Years', so no, the answer would not be to detain anyone with a mask.
D
----
MS To Blow Imaginary $1 billion hyping WinXP to stardom
The gist is that Microsoft itself is probably spending about $ 200 million, relying on $300 million from Intel and unspecified amounts from resellers and smaller companies to make up the $1 billion total.
So it may not be as hard to counteract as it looks. I predict that Microsoft's genuinely spooky registration process is going to severely limit sales of these products. Consider the poor sap whose copy of XP expired on the plane while he was a thousand-odd miles away from his CD. He wrote a column on Ziff Davis Anchordesk about it, and boy was he pissed - even though a reboot cured the problem.
We'll see, but issues like that seem like ones that will upset "real people", not just geeks.
D
----
Doesn't the console-oriented (edit each command line locally on terminals and press [enter] to send the whole string) nature of the 400 make it basically impossible to run an operating system other than OS/400 or similar?
D
----
But they can't, as long as they're using the PPC processor. Unless they wanted compatibility with LinuxPPC, but that wouldn't get them anywhere considering the lack of packaged software for it.
D
----
As the nice fellow says, prices are down even more than when I last looked. I found Mac-compatible PC133 at $ 78 per 512MB board, so the 1.5GB maximum capacity would now cost $ 234, a drop of over $100 from when I last checked. Wow.
:-(.
Anyone care to speculate over the type of RAM used by the new Macs that will (hopefully) be unveiled at Macworld? Someone on Maccentral was talking about a possible switch to DDR - anyone know what that would do? I'd hate to buy this much RAM and not have it work in my next system
D
----
Darn. Now you can't even get close.
The most expensive possible PowerMac G4 configuration is $ 12,406. Sadly, they give you $1,000 in "Promotion Savings" after charging you $2,000 for 1.5GB RAM; this did not help my "quest for the skies". However, considering that you could get 1.5GB RAM for about $375 elsewhere (see http://www.ramseeker.com ) I fear that I am not very impressed.
The most expensive PowerBook G4 configuration is $5,345. Sadly, they give you $ 700 in "Promotion Savings". Note that this includes 1GB RAM at their inflated prices; you'd be nuts to actually order it that way. I sure wish they could give me more than a puny 30GB disk; aren't notebooks up to 48GB by now? Oh well; perhaps when they freshen the line in September.
D
----