Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I don't think that it is right to sell machines that you know can't do basic stuff irrespective of the vendor/maker. You don't seem to have a problem with it. Case closed.
Sorry about the big paragraph, it was formatted difeerently and had seperate paragraphs, I didn't know that when submitted it would look like that, I will try again below.
" So you're saying that because Apple makes the OS, they're not allowed to sell underpowered machines, like everyone else does on the low-end of the price scale? "
1/ Everyone doing it doesn't make it right.
2/ it is not because Apple makes the OS, it is because Apple makes Everything! (Or at least they choose everything)
"Cheap = slow."
Agreed, but how slow is the question, my fundamental problem is that I don't think that computers should be sold with OSes that they cannot run. Again, I do not expect screaming fast gaming and number crunching but at least the ability to perform simple 2D tasks. Lets at least agree that it is something that would be the ideal or should be happening in the market place.
"You don't see people doing Vista reviews on 1.0 GHz Celerons and complaining that Dell didn't make a good machine, or that the OS manufacturer did anything "wrong"."
1/ I just went to Dell's site where their lowest end computer the Dimension C521 is $359 without monitor and has 512Mb ram and is coupled to a Sempron 3400+ and Vista Home Basic. I doubt that this performs basic 2D tasks sluggishly. If someone went and manually configured the system to have Vista Premium and found Aero to be slow......... it would definitely be their problem and not Dell's (and definitely not Microsoft's). With that said if there was a review of such a lowend pc and I am wrong and it performs basic stuff poorly, then Dell needs thrashing too. Incidentally for $439 you can have a model with 1GB and a dual core AMD X2.
2/ Although he set out to use and review OSX, I see nothing wrong with him complaining about the total package, especially since that is how you get OSX,legally. It would be a poor reviewer who doesn't mention the problems with hardware mismatch or cost of ownership issues. with that said from what I recall of the review, he more blames Apple for selling machines with mismatched hardware than OSX for being a bad OS.
"Many people don't need fast machines, and Apple knows this."
Agreed, this is something that I preach, when my computer was down for a while I used a friend's Celeron 533 on an Asus CUSL2 with XP Pro plus a 32mb 1st gen Radeon and it was quite fast and responsive for all basic tasks. Word processing, the desktop, internet surfing, listening to music and watching movies (standard def)were all quite satisfactory.Of course high end gaming and heavy multitasking were quite different from my other system. I have also used computers with Pentium IIs that once they have enough ram run XP happily, for basic tasks. So I understand that one does not need a quadcore processor to get decent performance. The problem here is that Apple goes a bit too low with their hardware choices, especially considering the OS choice. They need to make more Ram standard, or have the older OS or a stripped down OS for the lowend.
"Apple's under no obligation to make the cheap end of the spectrum perform as well as the high-end. In fact, it'd hurt their sales of the high-end."
1/ I agree that Apple is under no obligation but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't make entry level systems that run basic tasks acceptably.
2/ Apple's high end sales should not be hurt at all. the highend should be targetting basic-plus, advanced functionality, heavy multitasking abilities, not to mention 3D which is a different kettle of fish. One should not have to go highend to get reasonable performance in a basic word processing task. Just have a look at Dell's web site and how the different categories of systems are marketed, highend machines target different areas.
3/ It is in our power as computer enthusiasts to encourage OEMs and even more so Apple (who has full control)to release better lowend machines, in fact if they do I think it would help Apple tremendously as people try
" So you're saying that because Apple makes the OS, they're not allowed to sell underpowered machines, like everyone else does on the low-end of the price scale? "
1/ Everyone doing it doesn't make it right.
2/ it is not because Apple makes the OS, it is because Apple makes Everything! (Or at least they choose everything)
"Cheap = slow."
Agreed, but how slow is the question, my fundamental problem is that I don't think that computers should be sold with OSes that they cannot run. Again, I do not expect screaming fast gaming and number crunching but at least the ability to perform simple 2D tasks. Lets at least agree that it is something that would be the ideal or should be happening in the market place.
"You don't see people doing Vista reviews on 1.0 GHz Celerons and complaining that Dell didn't make a good machine, or that the OS manufacturer did anything "wrong"."
1/ I just went to Dell's site where their lowest end computer the Dimension C521 is $359 without monitor and has 512Mb ram and is coupled to a Sempron 3400+ and Vista Home Basic. I doubt that this performs basic 2D tasks sluggishly. If someone went and manually configured the system to have Vista Premium and found Aero to be slow......... it would definitely be their problem and not Dell's (and definitely not Microsoft's). With that said if there was a review of such a lowend pc and I am wrong and it performs basic stuff poorly, then Dell needs thrashing too. Incidentally for $439 you can have a model with 1GB and a dual core AMD X2.
2/ Although he set out to use and review OSX, I see nothing wrong with him complaining about the total package, especially since that is how you get OSX,legally. It would be a poor reviewer who doesn't mention the problems with hardware mismatch or cost of ownership issues. with that said from what I recall of the review, he more blames Apple for selling machines with mismatched hardware than OSX for being a bad OS.
"Many people don't need fast machines, and Apple knows this."
Agreed, this is something that I preach, when my computer was down for a while I used a friend's Celeron 533 on an Asus CUSL2 with XP Pro plus a 32mb 1st gen Radeon and it was quite fast and responsive for all basic tasks. Word processing, the desktop, internet surfing, listening to music and watching movies (standard def)were all quite satisfactory.Of course high end gaming and heavy multitasking were quite different from my other system. I have also used computers with Pentium IIs that once they have enough ram run XP happily, for basic tasks. So I understand that one does not need a quadcore processor to get decent performance. The problem here is that Apple goes a bit too low with their hardware choices, especially considering the OS choice. They need to make more Ram standard, or have the older OS or a stripped down OS for the lowend.
"Apple's under no obligation to make the cheap end of the spectrum perform as well as the high-end. In fact, it'd hurt their sales of the high-end."
1/ I agree that Apple is under no obligation but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't make entry level systems that run basic tasks acceptably.
2/ Apple's high end sales should not be hurt at all. the highend should be targetting basic-plus, advanced functionality, heavy multitasking abilities, not to mention 3D which is a different kettle of fish. One should not have to go highend to get reasonable performance in a basic word processing task. Just have a look at Dell's web site and how the different categories of systems are marketed, highend machines target different areas.
3/ It is in our power as computer enthusiasts to encourage OEMs and even more so Apple (who has full control)to release better lowend machines, in fact if they do I think it would help Apple tremendously as people try to switch. Lets face it people will compare any new machine with their previous machine or their friend's machine in the same price range. If it runs basic tasks sluggishly while another machine at the same price range doesn't you know what sort of conclusions Joe Public will come to. If people don't lobby Apple on this they will continue as is and Joe Public will think that dollar for dollar Apple sucks. ( which doesn't have to be)
Again while I get the point you are trying to make this is exactly the point i am complaining about and he stressed :
" If he'd have based his opinion of how "sluggish" WinXP feels to him, and then borrowed the cheapest Celeron or Duron type machine with minimal RAM to even load the OS, let alone run applications... and THEN complain about performance problems -- His review would have been laughed out of existence. "
No problem with that at all, he would also be considered silly if he put it together but if he bought it the system builder would rightly get thrashed. Problem is, that the system builder is Apple who should fully know that their cute entry level machines are sluggish even on basic tasks. And that is the key, if the reviewer bought a lowend machine of any make and complained that he couldn't run several benchmarks and watch HD content at the same time and then blamed it on the OS we could then call him silly. But from what I saw it was basic tasks and Apple as a company deserves the blows that they get for their mismatched hardware. Again the point that the reviewer made is that Apple has no excuse considering the absolute control that they have over their products.
People who like macs and use them should be leading the charge against the practice otherwise it will not stop.
I must comment on your first point. While you say that the reviewer chose low-end systems and see that as a flaw. It doesn't negate the point he later makes that the systems should not be sold with an OS that they cannot run. He also makes the point that that folly is not good in the Windows world either but that MS can point to the system builders. In the case of Macs, Apple is soley at fault.
" but complaints about performance in the article must fall on deaf reader's ears who understand that Apple has ALWAYS under-powered their lower-priced machines. "
Now seriously, because Apple has always done something stupid makes it ok, or means that we or anyone else shouldn't complain? It is reprehensible that the sole owner of the ip and hardware should release such mismatched products which are further compounded by great difficulty when it comes to upgrades.
Your second point shows that you may know more about macs than the reviewer, but looking in from the outside I really cannot consider the macs' system wrt closing programs to be intuitive. Most well written Windows programs do exactly what they say when you hit that close icon in the window (or at least they are supposed to:) ) and when they are not supposed to they will often give a popup (which can be disabled)telling you that the program is still there or you will see it in the system tray. The Mac's system from reading the review and what you posted doesn't sound at all geared to the mac-neophyte or basic computer user. Many of whom will have the programs consistently running and eating into the already paltry ram on their cute entry level systems.
For me the biggest issue for anyone considering a Mac for non-gaming use (we know it cannot go there) is the fact that there is not nearly as much free or opensource decent software that can easily be found. I use alot of such stuff on my XP and Linux machines (I'm a linux n00b:) ) so I know what a big deal this can be. I found it surprising considering how close OSX is to Unix and BSD, why is it that there are not more programs? Is it difficult to write them, does Steve Jobs frown on free stuff? Or is it just a marketshare thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Cool :)
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I don't think that it is right to sell machines that you know can't do basic stuff irrespective of the vendor/maker. You don't seem to have a problem with it. Case closed.
Sorry about the big paragraph, it was formatted difeerently and had seperate paragraphs, I didn't know that when submitted it would look like that, I will try again below.
......... it would definitely be their problem and not Dell's (and definitely not Microsoft's). With that said if there was a review of such a lowend pc and I am wrong and it performs basic stuff poorly, then Dell needs thrashing too. Incidentally for $439 you can have a model with 1GB and a dual core AMD X2.
" So you're saying that because Apple makes the OS, they're not allowed to sell underpowered machines, like everyone else does on the low-end of the price scale? "
1/ Everyone doing it doesn't make it right.
2/ it is not because Apple makes the OS, it is because Apple makes Everything! (Or at least they choose everything)
"Cheap = slow."
Agreed, but how slow is the question, my fundamental problem is that I don't think that computers should be sold with OSes that they cannot run. Again, I do not expect screaming fast gaming and number crunching but at least the ability to perform simple 2D tasks. Lets at least agree that it is something that would be the ideal or should be happening in the market place.
"You don't see people doing Vista reviews on 1.0 GHz Celerons and complaining that Dell didn't make a good machine, or that the OS manufacturer did anything "wrong"."
1/ I just went to Dell's site where their lowest end computer the Dimension C521 is $359 without monitor and has 512Mb ram and is coupled to a Sempron 3400+ and Vista Home Basic. I doubt that this performs basic 2D tasks sluggishly. If someone went and manually configured the system to have Vista Premium and found Aero to be slow
2/ Although he set out to use and review OSX, I see nothing wrong with him complaining about the total package, especially since that is how you get OSX,legally. It would be a poor reviewer who doesn't mention the problems with hardware mismatch or cost of ownership issues. with that said from what I recall of the review, he more blames Apple for selling machines with mismatched hardware than OSX for being a bad OS.
"Many people don't need fast machines, and Apple knows this."
Agreed, this is something that I preach, when my computer was down for a while I used a friend's Celeron 533 on an Asus CUSL2 with XP Pro plus a 32mb 1st gen Radeon and it was quite fast and responsive for all basic tasks. Word processing, the desktop, internet surfing, listening to music and watching movies (standard def)were all quite satisfactory.Of course high end gaming and heavy multitasking were quite different from my other system. I have also used computers with Pentium IIs that once they have enough ram run XP happily, for basic tasks. So I understand that one does not need a quadcore processor to get decent performance. The problem here is that Apple goes a bit too low with their hardware choices, especially considering the OS choice. They need to make more Ram standard, or have the older OS or a stripped down OS for the lowend.
"Apple's under no obligation to make the cheap end of the spectrum perform as well as the high-end. In fact, it'd hurt their sales of the high-end."
1/ I agree that Apple is under no obligation but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't make entry level systems that run basic tasks acceptably.
2/ Apple's high end sales should not be hurt at all. the highend should be targetting basic-plus, advanced functionality, heavy multitasking abilities, not to mention 3D which is a different kettle of fish. One should not have to go highend to get reasonable performance in a basic word processing task. Just have a look at Dell's web site and how the different categories of systems are marketed, highend machines target different areas.
3/ It is in our power as computer enthusiasts to encourage OEMs and even more so Apple (who has full control)to release better lowend machines, in fact if they do I think it would help Apple tremendously as people try
" So you're saying that because Apple makes the OS, they're not allowed to sell underpowered machines, like everyone else does on the low-end of the price scale? " 1/ Everyone doing it doesn't make it right. 2/ it is not because Apple makes the OS, it is because Apple makes Everything! (Or at least they choose everything) "Cheap = slow." Agreed, but how slow is the question, my fundamental problem is that I don't think that computers should be sold with OSes that they cannot run. Again, I do not expect screaming fast gaming and number crunching but at least the ability to perform simple 2D tasks. Lets at least agree that it is something that would be the ideal or should be happening in the market place. "You don't see people doing Vista reviews on 1.0 GHz Celerons and complaining that Dell didn't make a good machine, or that the OS manufacturer did anything "wrong"." 1/ I just went to Dell's site where their lowest end computer the Dimension C521 is $359 without monitor and has 512Mb ram and is coupled to a Sempron 3400+ and Vista Home Basic. I doubt that this performs basic 2D tasks sluggishly. If someone went and manually configured the system to have Vista Premium and found Aero to be slow ......... it would definitely be their problem and not Dell's (and definitely not Microsoft's). With that said if there was a review of such a lowend pc and I am wrong and it performs basic stuff poorly, then Dell needs thrashing too. Incidentally for $439 you can have a model with 1GB and a dual core AMD X2.
2/ Although he set out to use and review OSX, I see nothing wrong with him complaining about the total package, especially since that is how you get OSX,legally. It would be a poor reviewer who doesn't mention the problems with hardware mismatch or cost of ownership issues. with that said from what I recall of the review, he more blames Apple for selling machines with mismatched hardware than OSX for being a bad OS.
"Many people don't need fast machines, and Apple knows this."
Agreed, this is something that I preach, when my computer was down for a while I used a friend's Celeron 533 on an Asus CUSL2 with XP Pro plus a 32mb 1st gen Radeon and it was quite fast and responsive for all basic tasks. Word processing, the desktop, internet surfing, listening to music and watching movies (standard def)were all quite satisfactory.Of course high end gaming and heavy multitasking were quite different from my other system. I have also used computers with Pentium IIs that once they have enough ram run XP happily, for basic tasks. So I understand that one does not need a quadcore processor to get decent performance. The problem here is that Apple goes a bit too low with their hardware choices, especially considering the OS choice. They need to make more Ram standard, or have the older OS or a stripped down OS for the lowend.
"Apple's under no obligation to make the cheap end of the spectrum perform as well as the high-end. In fact, it'd hurt their sales of the high-end."
1/ I agree that Apple is under no obligation but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't make entry level systems that run basic tasks acceptably.
2/ Apple's high end sales should not be hurt at all. the highend should be targetting basic-plus, advanced functionality, heavy multitasking abilities, not to mention 3D which is a different kettle of fish. One should not have to go highend to get reasonable performance in a basic word processing task. Just have a look at Dell's web site and how the different categories of systems are marketed, highend machines target different areas.
3/ It is in our power as computer enthusiasts to encourage OEMs and even more so Apple (who has full control)to release better lowend machines, in fact if they do I think it would help Apple tremendously as people try to switch. Lets face it people will compare any new machine with their previous machine or their friend's machine in the same price range. If it runs basic tasks sluggishly while another machine at the same price range doesn't you know what sort of conclusions Joe Public will come to. If people don't lobby Apple on this they will continue as is and Joe Public will think that dollar for dollar Apple sucks. ( which doesn't have to be)
Again while I get the point you are trying to make this is exactly the point i am complaining about and he stressed : " If he'd have based his opinion of how "sluggish" WinXP feels to him, and then borrowed the cheapest Celeron or Duron type machine with minimal RAM to even load the OS, let alone run applications... and THEN complain about performance problems -- His review would have been laughed out of existence. " No problem with that at all, he would also be considered silly if he put it together but if he bought it the system builder would rightly get thrashed. Problem is, that the system builder is Apple who should fully know that their cute entry level machines are sluggish even on basic tasks. And that is the key, if the reviewer bought a lowend machine of any make and complained that he couldn't run several benchmarks and watch HD content at the same time and then blamed it on the OS we could then call him silly. But from what I saw it was basic tasks and Apple as a company deserves the blows that they get for their mismatched hardware. Again the point that the reviewer made is that Apple has no excuse considering the absolute control that they have over their products. People who like macs and use them should be leading the charge against the practice otherwise it will not stop.
I must comment on your first point. While you say that the reviewer chose low-end systems and see that as a flaw. It doesn't negate the point he later makes that the systems should not be sold with an OS that they cannot run. He also makes the point that that folly is not good in the Windows world either but that MS can point to the system builders. In the case of Macs, Apple is soley at fault. " but complaints about performance in the article must fall on deaf reader's ears who understand that Apple has ALWAYS under-powered their lower-priced machines. " Now seriously, because Apple has always done something stupid makes it ok, or means that we or anyone else shouldn't complain? It is reprehensible that the sole owner of the ip and hardware should release such mismatched products which are further compounded by great difficulty when it comes to upgrades. Your second point shows that you may know more about macs than the reviewer, but looking in from the outside I really cannot consider the macs' system wrt closing programs to be intuitive. Most well written Windows programs do exactly what they say when you hit that close icon in the window (or at least they are supposed to :) ) and when they are not supposed to they will often give a popup (which can be disabled)telling you that the program is still there or you will see it in the system tray. The Mac's system from reading the review and what you posted doesn't sound at all geared to the mac-neophyte or basic computer user. Many of whom will have the programs consistently running and eating into the already paltry ram on their cute entry level systems.
For me the biggest issue for anyone considering a Mac for non-gaming use (we know it cannot go there) is the fact that there is not nearly as much free or opensource decent software that can easily be found. I use alot of such stuff on my XP and Linux machines (I'm a linux n00b :) ) so I know what a big deal this can be. I found it surprising considering how close OSX is to Unix and BSD, why is it that there are not more programs? Is it difficult to write them, does Steve Jobs frown on free stuff? Or is it just a marketshare thing?