Sorry to hear your PS2 -> VGA adaptor isn't so hot.
I happen to have one (the Redant model) and couldn't be happier. Crisp and clear pictures on my monitor. It does run at 60Hz, but you can't expect a scan rate convertor in a $60 CDN item... But it does have a passthrough for the PS2 cable incase you want it on a Big Screen TV at the same time.
I've never seen a game play in Black & White. The only times I've heard of this problem is with Messiah hacked US consoles...:-) But you're in Europe, so I suppose this isn't your problem.
The Redant model actually does have a "soften" switch, though, in case you find that the picture is "too good" (since you will see the grainyness of 640x480 gameplay if you're sitting close).
>i think a quality os that is a pleasure for the whole family to use is worth the difference in cost and frustration.
No argument on the quality OS part, but I just don't think the extra cost justifies the ease of use, especially when one family member is taking a windows XP course, another could pass their MSCE in no time (if they cared to), and the other just doesn't use anything other than a Web Browser.
It all depends on what you're used to, and what you want from your computer. For my parents, it's windows. For me, Linux. And that means no Mac, unfortunately.:-/
(a) - No windows means not many games (b) - No decent video means crappy performance on the games you get (c) - No DVD (d) - Crappy sound (e) - No monitor and it doesn't hook up to my 51" TV
That should just about cover it...
The $200 WalMart PC is mostly for internet stuff/office stuff -- email, web, usenet, OpenOffice, etc. Not good for new 3D games at all.
>Of course you have to disagree. Your livelihood is made on the lie that I'm exposing.
My life is founded on a conspiracy theory? Uhhhh, sure...... And Roswell really happened.
I'm not a full time salesman anymore anyways -- I mostly do consulting right now (its probably the best odd job possible for a college student:-).
>Even companies like Gateway and Dell ship crappy products that don't last very long.
In fact, they often ship crappy products.
>You can get PCs of comparable quality to Macintoshes from IBM and probably Toshiba (and maybe HP before they merged with compaq.)
(cough) Aptiva (cough) and whatever HP calls their low-end machines. No way these guys make 100% good PCs.
It all comes down to price. Pay enough and you will get a good quality PC.
Fact is, the price to get a good quality PC is lower than the price for a similar Mac.
Of course, you need to go to the correct retailers. Dell, IBM, Gateway, Compaq, (insert big box store/name here) are just often not the correct retailers. The correct retailer is, almost always, for a home user, your local computer shop. Listen to what they say, and DON'T tell them to build you something on the cheap.
They'll come up with a system that outperforms a Mac, and at a price that's affordable.
>The reason for this (and the reason it will always bee like this) is the PowerPC is much cheaper for Apple and quality PC commodity parts cost the same for it and for PC manufacturers.
So the entire basis of your reasoning that Macs are cheaper than PCs is based on the price of the processor and operating system?
I have news for you: The C3 costs less than $35 US (my guess, considering motherboards using it are ridiculously low in price), and is a 100% x86 compatible CPU. Do currently produced PowerPC CPUs cost less than that for a consumer?
>So, apple doesn't have to pay for windows and gets faster processors for less money and passes the savings on to us.
No, Apple users have to pay for Jaguar. No, Apple users don't get faster processors at all. Mac processors currently look so pathetic to Apple themselves they are considering moving to the x86 platform, or at least away from PowerPC stuff (check slashdot's history in the past month for stories corroborating this). Here's the list price for Jaguar, BTW: $129 USD. It actually costs more than windows: $92 US.
I still don't see how a Mac is cheaper. Even if the CPU was free, PCs can easily beat out a $35 price margin. Even if the OS was free (which is certainly doesn't appear to be anymore) with some work one can build a quality PC that performs as well for less.
I still see no evidence that a Mac system is cheaper than a PC system in any way.
>Best example I'll use is this, I on average replace 3 powersupplies a month.
I did too, but none of them cost over $40 CDN each.
Cheap junk will get you that... In fact, I've seen junk power supplies blow up motherboards, and stink out rooms when they set on fire (the cheap ones usually have fake CSA stickers -- I've stuck them on cases by hand before, under direction from da boss [fortunately this was a slightly different issue, not totally dealing with power supplies]).
>I have yet to even hear about a mac with a powersupply going out let alone have to replace one (mac/pc ratio is 1/4).
Oh, to a certain degree Mac stuff is good (although they have had quality issues -- my other comments detail that). It's just you are paying more than your fair share of a premium for it.
For example, I can get a nice Enermax power supply that is CSA certified, and won't blow up on me for $80 CDN, but an iMac supply would cost $10 more (and probably doesn't have nearly the power capacity of the Enermax power supply).
>I just wish quality meant more in PC construction besides high-end servers.
Agreed. But most of that rests on the customers shoulders. They go in a store and say "I want a good computer to do my homework and play games on". When they're told that will cost them $1,500 they then proceed to say the most stupid thing that will come out of their mouths "Do you have anything cheaper?".
Oh yes, they sure do. And you'll pay with it through the life of your system, and the length of your warranty.
Stick with what they told you to buy in the first place, and you'll be fine.
My favourite example would be the customers that come in saying they want a high-end motherboard (Asus A7A266 at the time) and leave with an PcChips/ECS K7S5A because $200 was "too much" for them to afford. It might be so, but don't blame when when the motherboard toasts next year.
Another good one are the customers that would save $10 on a case, leaving me, the tech, to hammer in part of the power supply so their bargain-basement-too-big-to-fit-crappy-cases CD-ROM could fit (there's NO WAY in HELL that'll be happening at my store, though).
>For example, if someone commits murder in the US, there is a good chance the Canadians will return the person.
Not always. Canada is _very_ picky about deporting anyone to a country if their crime could carry the death pentaly as a "sentence", such as many US states.
>You're such an idiot. apple is the only profitable computer company.
That's a gas.
>Yes, actually, the iBook beats your celeron and costs less.
It isn't a celeron (I screwed up -- it is actually a mobile PIII). Either way, though... let's see those iBooks, and pretend my laptop only has a celeron for fairness...
Here's a link that shows the price at $1,300 for the iBook, and its features, at about the time I purchased my laptop. Now, $1,300 would be the price you need to be at to be correct, if I were talking US$, but I'm talking $CDN. But $2000 CDN is still somewhat less than what I paid.
So, I'm assuming this is what you are talking about.
What it lacks:
- Memory (a paltry 128 MB is only 50% of the memory standard in my laptop)
- Video (my latop has an ATI Radeon, so I can do 3D well enough to most all play games released at the time of the laptop)
- Space (10 GB is 33% of what my laptop can store).
- Video (1024x768? Give me a break. Not even close to 1400x1050)
- Media Drive (beats me what's standard for $1,300 -- but I bet it isn't the cream of the crop CD-RW/DVD drive)
- Floppy Drive (none? Even as an option for the media bay? Now that's stupid)
- Expandability (ZERO PC-Card slots? What is this, 1990?)
- Software (I don't see a big list of software there, so I think I would be safe to assume it doesn't come with much other than the OS)
Extra features:
- Less weight (4.9 lbs is a little bit nicer than 5.2, but nothing to write home about).
Tell me again why this unit compares with mine? I just don't see it.
Apple computers are a rip-off, and will continue to be as long as Apple has no competition in their market sector.
>Like I said, you're a bigot, you don't care about the facts, you're just going to rant and rave.
Like I said, you're a zealot, you don't care about the facts, you're just going to rant and rave.
>You probably think Microsoft bougth a big chunk of apple with that "investment" of $150Million...
Since we're putting words into each other's mouths, you probably think that laptop could do everything mine could, and that the list price is way off.
>I understand why slashdot readers are linux fans, but do they have to be so stupid?
I understand why you are a Mac Zealot, but why do you have to ignore the facts when I present them to clearly?
>Where are the programmer,s the people who can recompile their kernel?
I recompile my own kernels. You're talking to a slack user since well before the 3.0 series.
>The people with basic computer architecture knowledge?
I could run circles around you on computer architecture. Just ask.
>Buying a machine with a celeron is like buying a PowerPC 603-- EG: A Mac laptop of about 1996 vintage would beat your celeron in a laptop.
Tis true (not all of it though). My mistake. I meant to say PIII. Here's my actual unit, for your reference (although mine only had 256 MB RAM).
>PC laptops (non-transmeta anyway) are particularly hobbled due to the x86 really high power draw.
HUH? I get 3 1/2 hours from my battery, and my laptop is virtually the identical weight to that iBook, but carries far more features.
You're WAY in left field now. x86 technology has used the same technology as Mac (RISC) since, oh, 1995 or so. Get into this millenium, will you?
>You talk about truth and zeolotry? Get a fucking education first, man.
Got a better one than you it appears.
>When you understand the words I'm using, then you can talk about truth
When you aren't blinded by zealotry, maybe I'll be better able to understand you.
You've made it clear you are illiterate, since you refuse to read my links. Therefore you aren't worth my time. Go back to highschool, illiterate Mac Zealot. Shame on you for using your lack of reading skills against me.
Been there, done that, enjoyed the ride, couldn't stay on the boat due to College requirements. Will be running my (soon to be) full-time business on Linux, though, since then I can dictate what gets used and what doesn't.
I've seen a Mac. Tried a Mac. Liked the interface, even though I'm not a fan of the hardware. Couldn't afford it. Will probably buy one, along with one windows machine for compatibility with other companies, for the company if I can justify the cost for the tasks it can perform.
I think I'm not all that different from other slashdotters.
>Both point to articls about Steve Jobs getting apple back on track financially.
But the company ISN'T on track financially. They're on Microsoft (R) brand life support.
Jobs dumped the Newton as a bitch-slap, and up to now I see no evidence to prove otherwise.
Apple only exists because of Microsoft and Artists. And if Microsoft goes, I strongly doubt the Artists are going to pony up enough to keep those Macs coming.
>But then, something tells me you're of the group who will spend twice as much money on a machine that performs half as well as a macintosh and think that you got a better deal on a faster machine.
My fastest machine is a 1 Ghz Celeron laptop with CD-RW/DVD, 256 Mb RAM, 1400x1050 screen, 30 GB HDD, sound, firewire, NTSC video out, Li-Ion battery, and it's only 5.2 lbs. It included works, win xp, StudioDV, encyclopedia, money, and lots of other software goodies.
Was there a laptop Mac that could reach that level of performance, features, and software (similar is fine -- I don't care who makes it, I just want the same function) for only $2,599 CDN in December 2001 (when I purchased the laptop)? In fact, since you accuse me of spending twice as much, you'll need to find me one for $1,300 CDN. Feel free to use xe.net to convert the prices to your home currency. I'd be very interested in the answer.
If you can't do that, I say again (like to your other reply), your Mac zealotry is sheilding you from the truth.
And so on. It doesn't matter if they were cracks or mold lines -- either way they show a lack of quality assurance. If this were my car and Apple said "Oh, those ripples on the bodywork are just caused by the type of paint we used" I'd still say it stinks.
>ARe you really so stupid you believe what you're shovelling?
Are you so blinded by your mac fanatacism that you can't admit Apple could have made mistakes in its engineering of the G4 Cube?
>You cant even remember the show, and what steve said was "Mcirosoft, just doesn't have a sense of style"
You can't remember the part where he ignores Woz, his partner, for the company. A total lack of sympathy is an emotional problem, IMHO.
Not to mention the Newton thing -- what's your excuse for that? Or did you skip over it because you have no answer and are again blinded by Mac zealotry?
>In other words, after the first year, you are paying $3.50 a meg after 15 per month (that's 500K a day...)
That's hundreds of times better than RIM Blackberry service charges.
Rogers charges $25/month for 70,000 characters of service per month in RIM's hometown. Even after converting that to American dollars, it's still an insane cost to send emails -- it works out more per email than the cost of sending snail mail there.
I might be interested at rates like those for HipTop, though.
>From disagreement to Hardcore Socialism in one step.
Maybe it's just me, but when people start accusing me of using "Reaganomics" when I think I'm just trying to explain Capitalism 101 I get a little displeased.
Heck, I'm Canadian, and I wasn't even a teenager when Reagan was Prez, so maybe I am using Reaganomics. Maybe it isn't even so bad. Beats the hell out of me. But by the tone of your sentence, I think we would both agree it was a slight at me.
>That may certainly be true for some of the money--but a case could hardly be made that this is to be expected for all, or even a substantial percentage, of it.
No disagreement on this...
>And that's what bothers me about this sort of blanket apologism: the message that "It all gets to the little guy in the end, and that's why the big guys should have and spend it".
I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just looking at the decisions the guy buying the painting/useless stuff could make, and where the money will end up:
The choices/consequnces were:
- Don't spend it. Keep it, and in xx years, when he dies, his family gets it. How they spend it is unclear -- however, one can assume a family with family members this rich is likely to have all the money they need already, anyways, and would just pocket the money too. Net effect: $0 to charity.
- Put the money in an investment. The money gets used by various companies to purchase goods and services. Regular people get paid to do these jobs, and lots of people benefit. It's unclear if the charity will get much money, but I think it would be safe to assume that some of it would eventually land in the hands of that charity. Net effect: Slighty more than $0 to charity.
- Money gets spent on the painting. Money made by original owner of painting could go to anything, but at least some of it goes to workers at the sale, and one can assume the money made by the sellor will be spent on running their trade, and so more workers are paid. Again, we can assume slightly more than $0 goes to charity, but possibly less than the investment option.
- Money goes straight to the charity. Obviously, this is best for the charity, but we already know most people don't give something away for nothing, so expecting someone to do that is a pipe dream.
Best, most likely, choices: Investment, or buying the painting.
But that's just the way I see it...
>"Decorate Expensively for the Poor!" doesn't really work.
Someone at the "bottom" always gets paid, though. The plubmer moving the pipes in the way of making the house look nice, the electrician putting power in for the new super-expensive-power-eating-lamps, the people at the power plant for his new lighting system, people at the wallpaper company for making the wallpaper, guy at the burger joint when the decorter gets hungry, etc, etc.
If everyone would participate, a system where everyone donated their money to various causes (including the "feed everyone" cause) would work. But I think world history shows this is impossible, and that such a system often contradicts basic freedoms, so we have to make the next best choice.
I think the current system is it. Just my $0.02, and you don't need to take it all that seriously...
>Just because so many kiddies online are so emotional about things
I'm sure not when it comes to Apple. I don't use one, and never plan to if the company continues its hard-line "PC is crap, but we'll develop for it anyways" stance. It just seems so incorrect and wrong. Perhaps that's just me getting emotional, though.
>steve jobs must be super sensitive as well.
There was a PBS special explaining that he does have an emotional problem of some sort... Or so it would appears. I think it was called "Geeks" or "Nerds" 1.0.
Because Apple said it best themselves: They "think different." ie: They don't follow common business sense all that well, just well enough to (sort of) survive.
But on average a Briton earns far less than an American, and a Canadian slightly less than a Briton.
Here's a link with some slightly out of date data (but I doubt it's changed much in 4 years). GNP per capita would be income.
Canadian prices seem to fit the level of income well, as do US prices. I don't know why the UK has such a discrepancy (higher prices, lower income) -- maybe an economics major could tell us more...
>Barnes and Noble or Chapters might rake in more at 33% off the cover price of bestsellers but they'll get no loyalty from their customers.
Chapters is the only local bookstore where I could find books on building speaker boxes, basic-advanced electronics, learning to speak chinese, and Perl/Tk all in one place.
You can be assured the small-timer bookstores went out of business because, quite simply, they sucked. Until Chapters was here, I couldn't get a book on basic Photography without waiting x months 'till I looked in a Barnes and Noble in the US of A.
>I can walk up to you and suggest that you do all sorts of depraved and evil things, but until I start going around to other people and getting them to think you're some kind of freak, you have no basis to say you've been "slandered".
Quite right. He should have said libel. Slander isn't nearly serious enough for being falsely reported to the FBI for a non-offense.
It kept them on life support for a year when they implemented file-name blocking -- then they could say "look at all the free stuff we can offer -- and it isn't even warez"...
Of course, that just wasn't enough to get people to use their software. I guess all that spyware in Kazaa really does attact people to using it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to hear your PS2 -> VGA adaptor isn't so hot.
:-) But you're in Europe, so I suppose this isn't your problem.
I happen to have one (the Redant model) and couldn't be happier. Crisp and clear pictures on my monitor. It does run at 60Hz, but you can't expect a scan rate convertor in a $60 CDN item... But it does have a passthrough for the PS2 cable incase you want it on a Big Screen TV at the same time.
I've never seen a game play in Black & White. The only times I've heard of this problem is with Messiah hacked US consoles...
The Redant model actually does have a "soften" switch, though, in case you find that the picture is "too good" (since you will see the grainyness of 640x480 gameplay if you're sitting close).
>i think a quality os that is a pleasure for the whole family to use is worth the difference in cost and frustration.
:-/
No argument on the quality OS part, but I just don't think the extra cost justifies the ease of use, especially when one family member is taking a windows XP course, another could pass their MSCE in no time (if they cared to), and the other just doesn't use anything other than a Web Browser.
It all depends on what you're used to, and what you want from your computer. For my parents, it's windows. For me, Linux. And that means no Mac, unfortunately.
That's easy:
(a) - No windows means not many games
(b) - No decent video means crappy performance on the games you get
(c) - No DVD
(d) - Crappy sound
(e) - No monitor and it doesn't hook up to my 51" TV
That should just about cover it...
The $200 WalMart PC is mostly for internet stuff/office stuff -- email, web, usenet, OpenOffice, etc. Not good for new 3D games at all.
>Of course you have to disagree. Your livelihood is made on the lie that I'm exposing.
:-).
My life is founded on a conspiracy theory? Uhhhh, sure...... And Roswell really happened.
I'm not a full time salesman anymore anyways -- I mostly do consulting right now (its probably the best odd job possible for a college student
>Even companies like Gateway and Dell ship crappy products that don't last very long.
In fact, they often ship crappy products.
>You can get PCs of comparable quality to Macintoshes from IBM and probably Toshiba (and maybe HP before they merged with compaq.)
(cough) Aptiva (cough) and whatever HP calls their low-end machines. No way these guys make 100% good PCs.
It all comes down to price. Pay enough and you will get a good quality PC.
Fact is, the price to get a good quality PC is lower than the price for a similar Mac.
Of course, you need to go to the correct retailers. Dell, IBM, Gateway, Compaq, (insert big box store/name here) are just often not the correct retailers. The correct retailer is, almost always, for a home user, your local computer shop. Listen to what they say, and DON'T tell them to build you something on the cheap.
They'll come up with a system that outperforms a Mac, and at a price that's affordable.
>The reason for this (and the reason it will always bee like this) is the PowerPC is much cheaper for Apple and quality PC commodity parts cost the same for it and for PC manufacturers.
So the entire basis of your reasoning that Macs are cheaper than PCs is based on the price of the processor and operating system?
I have news for you: The C3 costs less than $35 US (my guess, considering motherboards using it are ridiculously low in price), and is a 100% x86 compatible CPU. Do currently produced PowerPC CPUs cost less than that for a consumer?
>So, apple doesn't have to pay for windows and gets faster processors for less money and passes the savings on to us.
No, Apple users have to pay for Jaguar. No, Apple users don't get faster processors at all. Mac processors currently look so pathetic to Apple themselves they are considering moving to the x86 platform, or at least away from PowerPC stuff (check slashdot's history in the past month for stories corroborating this). Here's the list price for Jaguar, BTW: $129 USD. It actually costs more than windows: $92 US.
I still don't see how a Mac is cheaper. Even if the CPU was free, PCs can easily beat out a $35 price margin. Even if the OS was free (which is certainly doesn't appear to be anymore) with some work one can build a quality PC that performs as well for less.
I still see no evidence that a Mac system is cheaper than a PC system in any way.
>Best example I'll use is this, I on average replace 3 powersupplies a month.
I did too, but none of them cost over $40 CDN each.
Cheap junk will get you that... In fact, I've seen junk power supplies blow up motherboards, and stink out rooms when they set on fire (the cheap ones usually have fake CSA stickers -- I've stuck them on cases by hand before, under direction from da boss [fortunately this was a slightly different issue, not totally dealing with power supplies]).
>I have yet to even hear about a mac with a powersupply going out let alone have to replace one (mac/pc ratio is 1/4).
Oh, to a certain degree Mac stuff is good (although they have had quality issues -- my other comments detail that). It's just you are paying more than your fair share of a premium for it.
For example, I can get a nice Enermax power supply that is CSA certified, and won't blow up on me for $80 CDN, but an iMac supply would cost $10 more (and probably doesn't have nearly the power capacity of the Enermax power supply).
>I just wish quality meant more in PC construction besides high-end servers.
Agreed. But most of that rests on the customers shoulders. They go in a store and say "I want a good computer to do my homework and play games on". When they're told that will cost them $1,500 they then proceed to say the most stupid thing that will come out of their mouths "Do you have anything cheaper?".
Oh yes, they sure do. And you'll pay with it through the life of your system, and the length of your warranty.
Stick with what they told you to buy in the first place, and you'll be fine.
My favourite example would be the customers that come in saying they want a high-end motherboard (Asus A7A266 at the time) and leave with an PcChips/ECS K7S5A because $200 was "too much" for them to afford. It might be so, but don't blame when when the motherboard toasts next year.
Another good one are the customers that would save $10 on a case, leaving me, the tech, to hammer in part of the power supply so their bargain-basement-too-big-to-fit-crappy-cases CD-ROM could fit (there's NO WAY in HELL that'll be happening at my store, though).
>For example, if someone commits murder in the US, there is a good chance the Canadians will return the person.
Not always. Canada is _very_ picky about deporting anyone to a country if their crime could carry the death pentaly as a "sentence", such as many US states.
And you're golden. A carefully placed wood screw or two, or a couple of pan-ties is all you'll likely need to replace your old one.
:-)
Yeah, I'm sure you thought of that too.
>I assume it's probably much easier to create a single speed motor than a variable speed one, but what would the disadvantages be?
Wear and tear on the spindle motor, and possible head crashes.
Ask any admin who's turned off a server that's been on for a few years and seen the drives not spin up.
HDDs tend to be like light bulbs, IMHO. They just seem to break when you turn them on, not while you're using them...
>But if you're looking at $1500 computers, then you get more Mac for your money then by buying a comparable quality PC.
Sorry, as a PC salesman, I strongly have to disagree with you there.
A quality PC can easily be made for less than the equivalent mac, no doubt about it, including the labour to build it. Ask me and I will show...
Of course, if you choose not to buy at your local computer shop, you don't know what you're getting.
>You're such an idiot. apple is the only profitable computer company.
That's a gas.
>Yes, actually, the iBook beats your celeron and costs less.
It isn't a celeron (I screwed up -- it is actually a mobile PIII). Either way, though... let's see those iBooks, and pretend my laptop only has a celeron for fairness...
Here's a link that shows the price at $1,300 for the iBook, and its features, at about the time I purchased my laptop. Now, $1,300 would be the price you need to be at to be correct, if I were talking US$, but I'm talking $CDN. But $2000 CDN is still somewhat less than what I paid.
So, I'm assuming this is what you are talking about.
What it lacks:
- Memory (a paltry 128 MB is only 50% of the memory standard in my laptop)
- Video (my latop has an ATI Radeon, so I can do 3D well enough to most all play games released at the time of the laptop)
- Space (10 GB is 33% of what my laptop can store).
- Video (1024x768? Give me a break. Not even close to 1400x1050)
- Media Drive (beats me what's standard for $1,300 -- but I bet it isn't the cream of the crop CD-RW/DVD drive)
- Floppy Drive (none? Even as an option for the media bay? Now that's stupid)
- Expandability (ZERO PC-Card slots? What is this, 1990?)
- Software (I don't see a big list of software there, so I think I would be safe to assume it doesn't come with much other than the OS)
Extra features:
- Less weight (4.9 lbs is a little bit nicer than 5.2, but nothing to write home about).
Tell me again why this unit compares with mine? I just don't see it.
Apple computers are a rip-off, and will continue to be as long as Apple has no competition in their market sector.
>Like I said, you're a bigot, you don't care about the facts, you're just going to rant and rave.
Like I said, you're a zealot, you don't care about the facts, you're just going to rant and rave.
>You probably think Microsoft bougth a big chunk of apple with that "investment" of $150Million...
Since we're putting words into each other's mouths, you probably think that laptop could do everything mine could, and that the list price is way off.
>I understand why slashdot readers are linux fans, but do they have to be so stupid?
I understand why you are a Mac Zealot, but why do you have to ignore the facts when I present them to clearly?
>Where are the programmer,s the people who can recompile their kernel?
I recompile my own kernels. You're talking to a slack user since well before the 3.0 series.
>The people with basic computer architecture knowledge?
I could run circles around you on computer architecture. Just ask.
>Buying a machine with a celeron is like buying a PowerPC 603-- EG: A Mac laptop of about 1996 vintage would beat your celeron in a laptop.
Tis true (not all of it though). My mistake. I meant to say PIII. Here's my actual unit, for your reference (although mine only had 256 MB RAM).
>PC laptops (non-transmeta anyway) are particularly hobbled due to the x86 really high power draw.
HUH? I get 3 1/2 hours from my battery, and my laptop is virtually the identical weight to that iBook, but carries far more features.
You're WAY in left field now. x86 technology has used the same technology as Mac (RISC) since, oh, 1995 or so. Get into this millenium, will you?
>You talk about truth and zeolotry? Get a fucking education first, man.
Got a better one than you it appears.
>When you understand the words I'm using, then you can talk about truth
When you aren't blinded by zealotry, maybe I'll be better able to understand you.
You've made it clear you are illiterate, since you refuse to read my links.
Therefore you aren't worth my time.
Go back to highschool, illiterate Mac Zealot.
Shame on you for using your lack of reading skills against me.
>or switch to a Linux desktop
Been there, done that, enjoyed the ride, couldn't stay on the boat due to College requirements. Will be running my (soon to be) full-time business on Linux, though, since then I can dictate what gets used and what doesn't.
I've seen a Mac. Tried a Mac. Liked the interface, even though I'm not a fan of the hardware. Couldn't afford it. Will probably buy one, along with one windows machine for compatibility with other companies, for the company if I can justify the cost for the tasks it can perform.
I think I'm not all that different from other slashdotters.
>Both point to articls about Steve Jobs getting apple back on track financially.
But the company ISN'T on track financially. They're on Microsoft (R) brand life support.
Jobs dumped the Newton as a bitch-slap, and up to now I see no evidence to prove otherwise.
Apple only exists because of Microsoft and Artists. And if Microsoft goes, I strongly doubt the Artists are going to pony up enough to keep those Macs coming.
>But then, something tells me you're of the group who will spend twice as much money on a machine that performs half as well as a macintosh and think that you got a better deal on a faster machine.
My fastest machine is a 1 Ghz Celeron laptop with CD-RW/DVD, 256 Mb RAM, 1400x1050 screen, 30 GB HDD, sound, firewire, NTSC video out, Li-Ion battery, and it's only 5.2 lbs. It included works, win xp, StudioDV, encyclopedia, money, and lots of other software goodies.
Was there a laptop Mac that could reach that level of performance, features, and software (similar is fine -- I don't care who makes it, I just want the same function) for only $2,599 CDN in December 2001 (when I purchased the laptop)? In fact, since you accuse me of spending twice as much, you'll need to find me one for $1,300 CDN. Feel free to use xe.net to convert the prices to your home currency. I'd be very interested in the answer.
If you can't do that, I say again (like to your other reply), your Mac zealotry is sheilding you from the truth.
>Why is it people think they can just make up whatever crap they want about apple and people will believe it?
I didn't author any of those links. Sorry you seem to think the entire world is against you (including PBS).
>The G4 Cube had no quality problems that I've ever heard of
Please search the web a little, and/or read more magazines, or talk to more people. Your choice.
I'll provide you with some G4 Cube problem links:
One
Two
Three - Admittance from Steve Jobs himself that G4 Cubes don't have the quality users expect from Apple
Four
Five
And so on. It doesn't matter if they were cracks or mold lines -- either way they show a lack of quality assurance. If this were my car and Apple said "Oh, those ripples on the bodywork are just caused by the type of paint we used" I'd still say it stinks.
>ARe you really so stupid you believe what you're shovelling?
Are you so blinded by your mac fanatacism that you can't admit Apple could have made mistakes in its engineering of the G4 Cube?
>You cant even remember the show, and what steve said was "Mcirosoft, just doesn't have a sense of style"
You can't remember the part where he ignores Woz, his partner, for the company. A total lack of sympathy is an emotional problem, IMHO.
Not to mention the Newton thing -- what's your excuse for that? Or did you skip over it because you have no answer and are again blinded by Mac zealotry?
>In other words, after the first year, you are paying $3.50 a meg after 15 per month (that's 500K a day...)
That's hundreds of times better than RIM Blackberry service charges.
Rogers charges $25/month for 70,000 characters of service per month in RIM's hometown. Even after converting that to American dollars, it's still an insane cost to send emails -- it works out more per email than the cost of sending snail mail there.
I might be interested at rates like those for HipTop, though.
>Of course, it couls have been a reference to "Pygmalion," the source material for "My Fair Lady."
:-)
Well, it could have been, but take a look at your Re: line... "My fair ice block".
Yeah, but it still doesn't explain why UK gas prices are 3x those of the USA/Canada...
>From disagreement to Hardcore Socialism in one step.
Maybe it's just me, but when people start accusing me of using "Reaganomics" when I think I'm just trying to explain Capitalism 101 I get a little displeased.
Heck, I'm Canadian, and I wasn't even a teenager when Reagan was Prez, so maybe I am using Reaganomics. Maybe it isn't even so bad. Beats the hell out of me. But by the tone of your sentence, I think we would both agree it was a slight at me.
>That may certainly be true for some of the money--but a case could hardly be made that this is to be expected for all, or even a substantial percentage, of it.
No disagreement on this...
>And that's what bothers me about this sort of blanket apologism: the message that "It all gets to the little guy in the end, and that's why the big guys should have and spend it".
I'm not apologizing for them. I'm just looking at the decisions the guy buying the painting/useless stuff could make, and where the money will end up:
The choices/consequnces were:
- Don't spend it. Keep it, and in xx years, when he dies, his family gets it. How they spend it is unclear -- however, one can assume a family with family members this rich is likely to have all the money they need already, anyways, and would just pocket the money too. Net effect: $0 to charity.
- Put the money in an investment. The money gets used by various companies to purchase goods and services. Regular people get paid to do these jobs, and lots of people benefit. It's unclear if the charity will get much money, but I think it would be safe to assume that some of it would eventually land in the hands of that charity. Net effect: Slighty more than $0 to charity.
- Money gets spent on the painting. Money made by original owner of painting could go to anything, but at least some of it goes to workers at the sale, and one can assume the money made by the sellor will be spent on running their trade, and so more workers are paid. Again, we can assume slightly more than $0 goes to charity, but possibly less than the investment option.
- Money goes straight to the charity. Obviously, this is best for the charity, but we already know most people don't give something away for nothing, so expecting someone to do that is a pipe dream.
Best, most likely, choices: Investment, or buying the painting.
But that's just the way I see it...
>"Decorate Expensively for the Poor!" doesn't really work.
Someone at the "bottom" always gets paid, though. The plubmer moving the pipes in the way of making the house look nice, the electrician putting power in for the new super-expensive-power-eating-lamps, the people at the power plant for his new lighting system, people at the wallpaper company for making the wallpaper, guy at the burger joint when the decorter gets hungry, etc, etc.
If everyone would participate, a system where everyone donated their money to various causes (including the "feed everyone" cause) would work. But I think world history shows this is impossible, and that such a system often contradicts basic freedoms, so we have to make the next best choice.
I think the current system is it. Just my $0.02, and you don't need to take it all that seriously...
Yeah, Steve Jobs has never acted like a petulant child before, so why would he now?
>Just because so many kiddies online are so emotional about things
I'm sure not when it comes to Apple. I don't use one, and never plan to if the company continues its hard-line "PC is crap, but we'll develop for it anyways" stance. It just seems so incorrect and wrong. Perhaps that's just me getting emotional, though.
>steve jobs must be super sensitive as well.
There was a PBS special explaining that he does have an emotional problem of some sort... Or so it would appears. I think it was called "Geeks" or "Nerds" 1.0.
>What he DOES care about is quality products
Ask a G4 cube owner about that...
>Why do people believe such rumors?
Because Apple said it best themselves: They "think different." ie: They don't follow common business sense all that well, just well enough to (sort of) survive.
You may be amazed at this...
But on average a Briton earns far less than an American, and a Canadian slightly less than a Briton.
Here's a link with some slightly out of date data (but I doubt it's changed much in 4 years). GNP per capita would be income.
Canadian prices seem to fit the level of income well, as do US prices. I don't know why the UK has such a discrepancy (higher prices, lower income) -- maybe an economics major could tell us more...
>Barnes and Noble or Chapters might rake in more at 33% off the cover price of bestsellers but they'll get no loyalty from their customers.
Chapters is the only local bookstore where I could find books on building speaker boxes, basic-advanced electronics, learning to speak chinese, and Perl/Tk all in one place.
You can be assured the small-timer bookstores went out of business because, quite simply, they sucked. Until Chapters was here, I couldn't get a book on basic Photography without waiting x months 'till I looked in a Barnes and Noble in the US of A.
>Ha. Watch the illiterate Slashdot masses totally miss that one...
Why would they? "My Fair Lady" was talkie, you know.
>I can walk up to you and suggest that you do all sorts of depraved and evil things, but until I start going around to other people and getting them to think you're some kind of freak, you have no basis to say you've been "slandered".
Quite right. He should have said libel. Slander isn't nearly serious enough for being falsely reported to the FBI for a non-offense.
>That didn't save napster.
:)
It kept them on life support for a year when they implemented file-name blocking -- then they could say "look at all the free stuff we can offer -- and it isn't even warez"...
Of course, that just wasn't enough to get people to use their software. I guess all that spyware in Kazaa really does attact people to using it.
>The PS can and will find KaZaA traffic on whatever port it wants to use. It can't hide.
Note to self: Email root@kazaa.com and suggest they add some very light (ohhh, let's say 12-byte XOR) encryption to their transfer protocols...