To hell with the humidity sniffers and the rest. I most want a phone with a battery good for at least three days at my current usage patterns, which right now give me like 1/2 a day. I hate having to tether my phone to a charger everywhere I go during the day.
I have an idea. Stop making the phone thinner so you can brag about it being the thinnest. How about make a version of the top phone that's actually thicker, and then brag about battery life? You know, how Motorola did with the Razr Max?
People, you have to remember also that for $499 you get a 5-server license for MacOS X Server. That means you can install the OS on five separate MACHINES with that one license. That works out to around $100 per machine, for one HELL of a system. I would say a $100 system compares favorably with LinuxPPC or any other free OS, especially to businesses. As far as performance goes, I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that MacOS X performs about the same as LinuxPPC on the same hardware, give or take a little. There may be some reasons I would want to run LinuxPPC on a machine, but there are a lot more reasons I would go with MacOS X at $100 per machine. And remember, there is _no_ user limit to how many users can be simultaneously connected to that machine for that $100 per machine license, unlike NT with its stupid 5 or 10 user limit or whatever it is for the $900 license for NT. Microsoft, look out!!
You miss the point. They compared with normal, Red Hat Linux running on a PII-450. There is no way to compare the OSes on the _same_ hardware, because they aren't releasing MacOS X Server for Intel-based hardware, just PowerPC processors (G3 PowerMacs to be specific). They were comparing "comparably priced" hardware, and their numbers are probably right. A 400 MHz G3 running MacOS X Server and Apache probably does outperform a PII-450 running Red Hat Linux and Apache. However, that is not all there is in the PC world, either. For example, you can run the Red Hat Linux on a _dual_ PII-450, and almost assuredly beat MacOS X Server hands down, because MacOS X Server and G3s don't run with SMP (yet, that comes this Fall). If you ran a quad-Xeon with 1024K caches, Linux, and Apache, you would probably run rings around the G3 400 and MacOS X Server. The point isn't that the fastest possible PowerMac and MacOS X Server beats the fastest possible PC running Red Hat Linux, because this is not true. The point is that MacOS X Server is very fast, and at least very competitive with Intel hardware for the money. Plus, the MacOS X Server machine is probably much easier to set up and run, and administer. MacOS X Server is one hell of an OS, and I am excited as I can be about it. It is a great time to be an Apple customer. Microsoft is technically outclassed by MacOS X Server in a very serious way, and that will be made even more severe later this year when MacOS X (consumer) is shipped. The Unix that underpins MacOS X Server is free, in source-code form, to anyone who wants it, and Microsoft will _never_ do anything like that. They would be too ashamed to let anyone see their code.
Slashdot Mirror
To hell with the humidity sniffers and the rest. I most want a phone with a battery good for at least three days at my current usage patterns, which right now give me like 1/2 a day. I hate having to tether my phone to a charger everywhere I go during the day.
I have an idea. Stop making the phone thinner so you can brag about it being the thinnest. How about make a version of the top phone that's actually thicker, and then brag about battery life? You know, how Motorola did with the Razr Max?
People, you have to remember also that for $499 you get a 5-server license for MacOS X Server. That means you can install the OS on five separate MACHINES with that one license. That works out to around $100 per machine, for one HELL of a system. I would say a $100 system compares favorably with LinuxPPC or any other free OS, especially to businesses. As far as performance goes, I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that MacOS X performs about the same as LinuxPPC on the same hardware, give or take a little. There may be some reasons I would want to run LinuxPPC on a machine, but there are a lot more reasons I would go with MacOS X at $100 per machine. And remember, there is _no_ user limit to how many users can be simultaneously connected to that machine for that $100 per machine license, unlike NT with its stupid 5 or 10 user limit or whatever it is for the $900 license for NT. Microsoft, look out!!
You miss the point. They compared with normal, Red Hat Linux running on a PII-450. There is no way to compare the OSes on the _same_ hardware, because they aren't releasing MacOS X Server for Intel-based hardware, just PowerPC processors (G3 PowerMacs to be specific). They were comparing "comparably priced" hardware, and their numbers are probably right. A 400 MHz G3 running MacOS X Server and Apache probably does outperform a PII-450 running Red Hat Linux and Apache. However, that is not all there is in the PC world, either. For example, you can run the Red Hat Linux on a _dual_ PII-450, and almost assuredly beat MacOS X Server hands down, because MacOS X Server and G3s don't run with SMP (yet, that comes this Fall). If you ran a quad-Xeon with 1024K caches, Linux, and Apache, you would probably run rings around the G3 400 and MacOS X Server. The point isn't that the fastest possible PowerMac and MacOS X Server beats the fastest possible PC running Red Hat Linux, because this is not true. The point is that MacOS X Server is very fast, and at least very competitive with Intel hardware for the money. Plus, the MacOS X Server machine is probably much easier to set up and run, and administer. MacOS X Server is one hell of an OS, and I am excited as I can be about it. It is a great time to be an Apple customer. Microsoft is technically outclassed by MacOS X Server in a very serious way, and that will be made even more severe later this year when MacOS X (consumer) is shipped. The Unix that underpins MacOS X Server is free, in source-code form, to anyone who wants it, and Microsoft will _never_ do anything like that. They would be too ashamed to let anyone see their code.