And though it may not matter to many of you. Apparently, Visor will be very Mac compatable right out of the box. No need to buy an axtra "Mac Pac". I don't know what this means towards Linux compatability.
I just went to the apple site, and for $2600 could get a 450 Mhz G3, Zip drive, 12 gig Ultra ATA HD, 64 meg of RAM, USB, 100Mhz bus, and four PCI slots (one has the video)
PLUS it comes with two Firewire ports, TWO USB ports, 10/100 enthernet, Top of the line video card, easy access case, for $50 bucks can get another 64mg RAM (third party), and since I don't know who put together your box, I am assuming it is another "generic" box, and who knows where the parts came from .
And this doesn't even count the added extra's you could get by buying from a re-seller.
Apples are pretty inexpensive now-a-days, all things considered.
Yep, no-one likes the mouse, "out-of-the-box". But most people I have spoken to that have bothered to use it for a week or two. Actually like it better.
The trick is that you no longer hold it with your finger tips; it's more like you rest your hand on it. It is more comfortable and puts your wrist at a better angle.
You would have a hard time using a mouse this way if there was more than one button, but luckily, there is only one needed.
I am getting tired of seeing all of this OSX is sooooo late. C'mon people, it is what, a couple of months behind initial. Get over it. It is a totally new implementation of the OS, it may take a few weeks longer to get out than originally planned. Yet chicken little is running around "the OS is fallins..."
Many of my Mac-addict friends agree that Apple would have done much better by releasing MacOS on x86 back in the Windows 1.0/2.0 days. The software was vastly superior to the early Windows stuff, and they could have taken advantage of the more common hardware to make a killing.
Well, maybe...
So Apple sells a bunch of OS, so what. It is not all that lucrative. MS follows up with various applications that make them the real money. Plus, part of the problem MS is having is dealing with so many different hardware combinations. That is why they finally gave hardware restrictions for NT. If Apple had gone x86, they would get to deal with the extra garbage also.
And don't get me started about how they killed off all the Mac clones...
C'mon people, lets get it straight. The clones were NOT increasing MacOS market share, all they were doing was taking away from Apple's markethshare. The clones did not have to pay for all of the R&D that they were benefiting from; for Apple to compete on the hardware front, they would have taken a bath on the R&D and development.
People wake up!!! MS is huge based on the applications they sell. NOT windows. Windows makes them on every desktop, so everyone thinks MS and buys the applications. For the most part, the OS is a losing proposition.
Apple does not make software!!! Yes, appleworks, but that is not their market, and never has been. The only real software they sell is the OS, and there is no way for that to be a big enough money maker to forgo the hardware sales.
I can buy hardware from a vendor other than Apple if I don't like Apple's prices/support/whatever, without having to go to an entirely different architecture. I can put my own PC together from parts I can get without buying them from Apple. "
Look, this is mostly a Linix site, so most people here like open. And I agree it has some very good merits. Yes it is good that a security bug can be found and fixed within hours/days. It is great that you can continually download bug fixes. But I DONT WANT TO. For many, myself included, a closed system works better. I don't want to have to keep so up to date with all the fixes. I like having just one GUI to contend with, and only one flavor of OS. (If you can use Mac OS 6, you can use 8.5)
For many, closed is better.
"I can put my own PC together from parts I can get without buying them from Apple. "
I dont want to build my own box. I want to just buy one that works. And if it doesn't, have one place to complain to. Not get a run around from the os company, hardware company, and whatever else may be the problem. I get this from a company that has influence in the chip and hardware and os and software dev. It provides a certain consistancy that I can rely on. Some people want to build their own car, getting components from different makers and making them work. (my mechanic does this.) But I just want to go to a dealership and get one that works, And IF it works the way I want, I don;t care if they made all the parts themselves.
Also, in many ways it IS better to have one company having influence in chip and hardware and OS and software dev. This is what has kept the mac fairly consistant, and mac apps fairly consistent. Many problems with windows and intel/etc boxes in general is you don't know what is in there. There is much more chance for parts to conflict. M$ knows this, and is why it is trying to start controling what hardware is used in the boxes.
" Lots of vendors make hardware for PC's because of its open architecture. "
Actually, there are lots of vendors making hardware for Macs also. Just not making entire machines. And the reason there are multiple PC box makers is because IBM and MS are not the same company. Therefore anyone could liscence MSWin and make a box. If IBM made the OS, or had a different agreement with MS, they would not have moved to cloning (IMHO)
Oh, c'mon. The most conservative estimate I have seen is 20-22 million machines. And many independent studies show that on average there are 2-3 users for every Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
And though it may not matter to many of you. Apparently, Visor will be very Mac compatable right out of the box. No need to buy an axtra "Mac Pac". I don't know what this means towards Linux compatability.
:-)
Now if it only came in rainbow colors...
:-) (Just kidding
I just went to the apple site, and for $2600 could get a 450 Mhz G3, Zip drive, 12 gig Ultra ATA HD, 64 meg of RAM, USB, 100Mhz bus, and four PCI slots (one has the video)
PLUS it comes with two Firewire ports, TWO USB ports, 10/100 enthernet, Top of the line video card, easy access case, for $50 bucks can get another 64mg RAM (third party), and since I don't know who put together your box, I am assuming it is another "generic" box, and who knows where the parts came from .
And this doesn't even count the added extra's you could get by buying from a re-seller.
Apples are pretty inexpensive now-a-days, all things considered.
Yep, no-one likes the mouse, "out-of-the-box". But most people I have spoken to that have bothered to use it for a week or two. Actually like it better.
The trick is that you no longer hold it with your finger tips; it's more like you rest your hand on it. It is more comfortable and puts your wrist at a better angle.
You would have a hard time using a mouse this way if there was more than one button, but luckily, there is only one needed.
I am getting tired of seeing all of this OSX is sooooo late. C'mon people, it is what, a couple of months behind initial. Get over it. It is a totally new implementation of the OS, it may take a few weeks longer to get out than originally planned. Yet chicken little is running around "the OS is fallins..."
Many of my Mac-addict friends agree that Apple would have done much better by releasing MacOS on x86 back in the Windows 1.0/2.0 days. The software was vastly superior to the early Windows stuff, and they could have taken advantage of the more common hardware to make a killing.
Well, maybe...
So Apple sells a bunch of OS, so what. It is not all that lucrative. MS follows up with various applications that make them the real money. Plus, part of the problem MS is having is dealing with so many different hardware combinations. That is why they finally gave hardware restrictions for NT. If Apple had gone x86, they would get to deal with the extra garbage also.
And don't get me started about how they killed off all the Mac clones...
C'mon people, lets get it straight. The clones were NOT increasing MacOS market share, all they were doing was taking away from Apple's markethshare. The clones did not have to pay for all of the R&D that they were benefiting from; for Apple to compete on the hardware front, they would have taken a bath on the R&D and development.
Shipping something that could even remotely ever run on something that isn't 100% Apple threatens their agenda.
Yeah! when will they finally make Quicktime/Filemaker pro/ webobjects/ available for other platforms....
Oh yeah, they are.
People wake up!!! MS is huge based on the applications they sell. NOT windows. Windows makes them on every desktop, so everyone thinks MS and buys the applications. For the most part, the OS is a losing proposition.
Apple does not make software!!!
Yes, appleworks, but that is not their market, and never has been. The only real software they sell is the OS, and there is no way for that to be a big enough money maker to forgo the hardware sales.
"Open is better because:
I can buy hardware from a vendor other than Apple if I don't like Apple's prices/support/whatever, without
having to go to an entirely different architecture. I can put my own PC together from parts I can get without
buying them from Apple. "
Look, this is mostly a Linix site, so most people here like open. And I agree it has some very good merits. Yes it is good that a security bug can be found and fixed within hours/days. It is great that you can continually download bug fixes. But I DONT WANT TO. For many, myself included, a closed system works better. I don't want to have to keep so up to date with all the fixes. I like having just one GUI to contend with, and only one flavor of OS. (If you can use Mac OS 6, you can use 8.5)
For many, closed is better.
"I can put my own PC together from parts I can get without buying them from Apple. "
I dont want to build my own box. I want to just buy one that works. And if it doesn't, have one place to complain to. Not get a run around from the os company, hardware company, and whatever else may be the problem. I get this from a company that has influence in the chip and hardware and os and software dev. It provides a certain consistancy that I can rely on.
Some people want to build their own car, getting components from different makers and making them work. (my mechanic does this.) But I just want to go to a dealership and get one that works, And IF it works the way I want, I don;t care if they made all the parts themselves.
Also, in many ways it IS better to have one company having influence in chip and hardware and OS and software dev. This is what has kept the mac fairly consistant, and mac apps fairly consistent. Many problems with windows and intel/etc boxes in general is you don't know what is in there. There is much more chance for parts to conflict. M$ knows this, and is why it is trying to start controling what hardware is used in the boxes.
" Lots of vendors make hardware for PC's because of its open architecture. "
Actually, there are lots of vendors making hardware for Macs also. Just not making entire machines. And the reason there are multiple PC box makers is because IBM and MS are not the same company. Therefore anyone could liscence MSWin and make a box. If IBM made the OS, or had a different agreement with MS, they would not have moved to cloning (IMHO)
Oh, c'mon. The most conservative estimate I have seen is 20-22 million machines. And many independent studies show that on average there are 2-3 users for every Mac.