Yeah, your company bought decent quality hardware.
That's not what people are talking about when they say "althon $600". They never give a brand, never a citation for a source.
I pointed out that IBM makes great hardware. Others do as well. But gateway is crap. The no-name crap is crap.
Comparing prices between a quality manufacturer such as IBM or Apple and a no-name crap producer is an unreasonable comparison.
But near as I can tell, PC people care more about initial purchase price than the actual cost of the system (ie: including price for replacement power supplies, the monitor, etc.)
Certainly all these "comparisons" which are made up on the spot never mention a manufacturer.
I never said statistics were suspect, I just pointed out that IDC has an agenda and is paid to say what they say... they provide no mechanism by which they come up with their numbers to give them credebility.
Consumer reports, however, is a neutral party.
Are you unable to tell the difference between pointing out the lack of credibility of one source and the idea that all statistics are suspect?
That's really ironic... especially since liberalism is based on a fundamental failure to understand economics.
Yes, lets get rid of corporate welfare. Lets get rid of all welfare. There's no reason to be financing the government's defense budget beyond what is needed for actual defense. (One of the few legitimate uses for government.)
And, as usual, you demand numbers, tell me in advance that you will choose to ignore numbers I provide from people you don't like (namely the cato institute) but provide no numbers, logic, or reason to back your assertions.
Your hatred of corporations is silly-- its a form of self hatred. All corporate transactions are voluntary-- while government's immposition of its will is never voluntary-- its done by force.
ITs ironic how many of the parts of the "universal declaration of human rights" advocate the violation of human rights.
An example: Everyone has the right to two weeks vacation. Bullshit-- that is a violation of human rights-- everyone has the right to agree to what ever employment terms are mutually agreeable to BOTH of them.
I really think Liberals don't even understand what human rights are. Its perplexing the amount of oppression they advocate in the guise of "human rights"... but here's a easy way to tell the difference-- if you're compelling someone to do something that is not in their best interest, you are violating their human rights.
And if the war on poverty is over, then why do we keep welfare around?
This did not happen. They used HD cameras for the entire shoot. They had film cameras along only because the insurance company required them for backup purposes, but they were never used.
This is right out of Lucas's mouth when talking about the CinAlta cameras on Sony's promotional DVD.
Did you make this up, or are you just spreading false information?
Sheesh. They should have dropped Mac OS in 1997. They bought NeXT in 1996. They were ready to go with Rhapsody in 1997, but developers were unwilling to make the switch wholesale... so we've spent the last 5 years with Apple creating carbon, supporting both OSes, updating classic Mac OS, creating the classic environment, and doing everything they could to support the legacy Macintosh market.
Its been 5 frigging years. Its about time we moved over to Unix and dropped total support for the legacy software.
Its not like nobody had warning, and its not like classic won't still run fine.
I think they've been more than generous enough. Remember copeland was supposed to ship in 1997... they had reason to ship next as the new OS in 1997, as it would have moved them to a modern platform way back then.
They have spent, essentially, the entirety of the last 5 years software wise supporting legacy Macintosh.
Anyone still using OS 9 day to day is free to keep doing so, but don't expect new hardware to be hobbled to maintain that support.
hey ended up having to include an interperater/emulator for 68k apps in later versions of Mac0S.
Sheesh, I am ever amazed at the ignorance of people who post on slashdot. T he 68k emulator was there from the beginning with the powerPC switch. Hell, the excellence of that switch shows just how Apple is one of the few companies in the world that can move technolgoy forward... meanwhile the entirety of the x86 hasn't given up backwards compatibility (and the performance sluggishness that comes with it) all the way back to the 4004 in the early 70s!
If Apple does not include functionality to use OS7/8/9 apps in OSX, then it will hurt them.
Again, they already did. Hell, I've run System 6 apps and even much much older. Its already in there.
And what possible reason could anyone have for running an old os on their shiny new top of the line computer? Next thing you know they'll be complaining that the old os doesn't completely support the new featuers of the hardware. Sheesh.
You wanna run the old os, well you've got an old machine to run it on.
it would be like dell producing computers that will not run 95/98 or older linux kernels..
No, it would be like Dell making machines and not testing them with win 95. Which, dell probably doesn't.
People aren't flipping out cause there's no reason to flip out. you get OS X free with the new box you're buying, so by definition you can run the latest software.
There's no possible reason you could wnat to run the old software, unless you're a crufty crumudgen you just wants to run obsolete software for the hell of it.
OS X runs really ancient apps in classic mode. So why keep support for an obsolete operating system?
ounds like a great argument for open-source to me.
And that would get you exactly what? An operating system that never advances? The ability to not upgrade to the latest os if you don't want to? Something you have on the mac today....
This is just silly. OS 9 apps run great on OS X. All the apps I've tried, and I've tried some clunky-never been updated in years, written for OS 6 apps (and actually written for OS 2 apps!) and they have all worked fine.
Yeah, you'd rather they starved. That's always the case.
The liberals who want to help the poor-- what do they do? They spend three trillion dollars in the "war on poverty" in the US and produce a much larger percentage in poverty than before they started.
The idiocy is that there are actually people who aren't on the take who think these stupid on the face of them schemes will help people. You're just a sucker rooting for the mugger who's taking all our money and getting fat on it... meanwhile, eliminating opportunity for the people who are poor to get jobs.
Great example: minimum wage. Yeah, lets get rid of jobs.... sheesh. Not to mention that all of this violates fundamental human rights.
I have the right to earn $2 an hour if I want to. Who are you to insist that I must be out of a job instead?
Aw, got a bad case of Jaguar envy, do you? I understand.
Hey, but guess what-- you can have a Mac too. Just buy one. all the leading geeks are doing it, and its become the clear Unix desktop leader... so you'll be ahead of the masses rather than lagging behind them.
Don't worry, we won't hold your past transgressions against you.
And you'll save money to boot! Jaguar was free, iMovie, iCal, iTunes, 2 years of iTools, iPhoto, AppleWorks and the other software cost $129.
Actually, I got Jaguar for free. Many apple users do.
If you're just upgrading,yeah, you have to pay. but you always do with quality software. At least its not like Windows, where they auto-deduct $50 form your account every month in rental fees.
No, they don't corner the market. Sun and Toshiba and IBM all make quality hardware. When it comes to hardware, Microsoft makes good stuff too, but they don't make PCs. Intel makes quality motherboards. I'm sure there are others, though they slip my mind right now.
But machines built by throwing parts together from random manufacturers are generally of low quality. Dell, Gateway, and all the no-name, and white box makers do this. Bought a gateway once, as part of a company buy. We bought four machines, and no two of them had the same motherboard, hard drives, power supply-- they were all different brands. The only thing the same was the case. I called for support once to find out what serial chip they had and the guy couldnt' tell me, to quote "We used so many different motherboards in that model there's no way I could tell you."
This is why PCs don't last... as one person pointed out in this thread they apparently have an intitial failure rate of 7-15 percent. Amazing! and people buy this crap?
So, yes, comparing a dell to an apple is like comparing a yugo to a mercedes. At least compare IBM or another quality manufacturer.
The problem in this whole exercise is that both Linux and Macintosh are probably close to the error bar size no matter how you measure it.
Actually, that's just speculation. For a long time, the Mac represented %32 of the total addressable consumer market for personal computers.
About three years ago (unfortunately, I don't have a reference and I really would like to find it again to re-read it) I read a study showing that the Mac market for application software was about twice as profitable than the PC market. This because even though you charge the same price for both versions, there is less competition in the Mac area, more sales, and a lower cost to develop your application for that platform.
Marketing dweebs are a lot like stock analysts (and IT reporters) they have a herd mentality-- if tall their golf buddies are putting their products on teh windows platform, they'll jump in too-- never mind that the increased competition means LESS sales, not more.
For instance, Disney's Lion King CD rom lost money on windows, but was profitable on the MAc. Mac sales covered the entirety of development costs and the whole profit margin-- the PC version lost money on a adjusted gross revenue basies (ie not even including development costs) because the tech support was more expensive PER AVERAGE SALE than the revenue generated by that sale, on the PC side.
Its not as simple as "more pcs out there, better market".
And I assume those numbers are made up as well, aren't they?
We all know you don't have a CLUE what the installed base is.... there's no WAY you could know what any of the two hundred machines managed by my co-workers and I are running, for instance.
I don't deny you provide a lot of detail-- thats' what gets the suckers to buy the reports.
Lots of detail makes people think they are getting something, other than numbers pulled from the air.
But given your methodology (actually, complete lack of it) anyone with any horse sense knows you are fabricating your numbers.
Actually, that is not what you said. What you said was you print what people tell you to print-- and you check it with them before you print it!
In other words, you are a PR agency, who masquerades press releases as "Research"
You have failed to provide a SINGLE example of actually doing any research. Asking CEOs what percentage of market share they have is NOT research.
If the quotes are misquotes, then why are you defending them?
Rebut them if you are being misquoted. Lord knows its obvious that most computer journalists don't know squat about technology-- but you are FEEDING Them misinformation, not disputing it.
I've pointed out this issue to numerous writers for eWeek, Upside, CNET, etc, etc. Yet they all claim that you have shown these things to be facts.
Therefore, you ARE responsible for this misinformation. Retract it or defend it, but stop dodging the issue.
NONE of the "research" You talked about even addresses the question, let alone is a source for hard facts. SEC filings tell you part of the picture-- if you were making stock recommendations it would be relevant. But they tell you nothing about market share because market share is more than just what was sold this year.
Hell, why am I even responding-- you refuse to respond on the issue, you just insist that you do research. Yet you provide no reason to believe you.
In what way is this mythical Athlon you talk about "better"
Its certainly not faster, and at that price its going to be far less reliable, and come with less software, and lower quality software to boot.
When did "top of the line" start meaning "fly by night computer good for all of 14 months befoer the power supply fails, from some company without a name"?
Well THAT Dan Kusnetsky just responded to my pointing out that these numbers are made up, on this very same thread, claiming that they are, well, made up.
But he hasn't dared to respond to your catching him in his blatant hypocracy. Too bad.
Yeah, he says what he's paid to say. That's actually ok for PR flacks. There's honor in *that* position.
Foisting it off as *research* or having any quality of *fact* however, is a fraud and lacks honor.
But annual sales are irrelevant, as I pointed out.
They tell you nothing about total market share-- only what was sold this year.
But that number is given as total market share, which is a bald faced lie on the face of it, when in actuality, the number of machines that are in use at a given point is the total market share.
Plus, there's no way to tell how many of those machines have a different operating system installed on them after they leave the factory.
Hell, windows is counted multiple times for the same machine in many cases-- every time a box is sold its counted as if it was a new install, as if you could even buy a machine without windows up until a few years ago.
Apple can't even tell you the number of machines running OS 9 or OS X or Linux because they don't control them.
And as the IDG guy just revealed- they do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to determine what OS is installed on the machine by the customer.
Apple has an opinion about how many are running OS X vs OS 9, but the numbers for microsoft are absurd-- a single computer can be counted a half dozen times in its lifetime, showing up as 5 seats of Windows when it really is only one.
Yep, like you said, they are produced out of thin air.
Unit shipments are not listed in SEC filings. Executives are going to tell you what they want you to think. Public comments are the executives telling you what they want you to think. Hell, every single bit of your "reasearch" is disclosures from companies who are advertising (Press releases that you call "public comments"), Advertising (disclosures to the SEC), advertising (telling you over beers).
There isn't a single example of real research in that whole list. And to top it all off, you give the companies the results to make sure you got down correctly exactly what it was they wanted you to say.
Don't bullshit me, I was one of the "executives" consulted by you guys. I know the score.
As you just confirmed, these numbers are fabricated, from end to end.
Hell, if they weren't you'd provide raw data... but we know you'll never do that.
But since you're here personally-- SHAME ON YOU. What kind of a pathetic existance it must be to lie for a living? I hold lawyers in higher regard... and soothsayers on wall street-- at least they know how to read financial statements, even if their opinions are swayed by their business relationships-- at least they DISCLOSE IT.
Shame on you, Dan Kusnetzky. You are a liar, AND a fraud.
Oh. please don't give me that lying crap. iMacs are expandable. You just wnat an excuse to compare apple's high end to the low end no brand piece of shit, won't last two years computers out there.
Pretty desperate and shameless.
As for performance, you're wrong. The fastest personal computers in the world are made by Apple. AMD is starting to catch up, but is still way behind.
Sure, they have their Intel designed benchmarks, designed to highlight the processors clock speed, but little else. But that's a desperate lie as well..
Anyone reasonable competent in the science of computer architecture, knows the x86 architecture is well past its useful life and pathetically poor when it comes to performance. Especially when you include price in the equation.
IT is only thru deliberate misrepresentation, outright lies, and you're desire to suspend reality (or ignore it) that you can say such a thing without being laughed out of the room.
PT Barnum was right, and I own lots of intel stock, but when it comes time to buy my own machines, I buy quality and performance. And hey, I get it for less to boot! Imagine that.
Naw, I just ignore it when people like you make shit up. For instance, a Dell box or a whitebox -- really the same-- is not the same quality of a Mac. Tehy won't last two years, let alone 6.
Plus, it is convenient that you provided no citatiosn, no examples.... I'm certain that these boxes are lacking. Every time I do this comparison, the dell costs more, and has a poorer video card, or less memory or whatever.
Nevermind that Dell puts out crap.
You might as well be telling me that I should be buying a Yugo cause I'd save a lot of money compared to a Mercedes-- after all they both have four wheels and will go 60 MPH. They must be the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, your company bought decent quality hardware.
That's not what people are talking about when they say "althon $600". They never give a brand, never a citation for a source.
I pointed out that IBM makes great hardware. Others do as well. But gateway is crap. The no-name crap is crap.
Comparing prices between a quality manufacturer such as IBM or Apple and a no-name crap producer is an unreasonable comparison.
But near as I can tell, PC people care more about initial purchase price than the actual cost of the system (ie: including price for replacement power supplies, the monitor, etc.)
Certainly all these "comparisons" which are made up on the spot never mention a manufacturer.
I never said statistics were suspect, I just pointed out that IDC has an agenda and is paid to say what they say... they provide no mechanism by which they come up with their numbers to give them credebility.
Consumer reports, however, is a neutral party.
Are you unable to tell the difference between pointing out the lack of credibility of one source and the idea that all statistics are suspect?
Personally I'd like to see Mac OS open sourced, but its unlikely to happen since it would cannibalize Apple's software sales.
Which is a really funny thing to say given that Darwin IS open sourced!
Just keep telling yourself that.
That's really ironic... especially since liberalism is based on a fundamental failure to understand economics.
Yes, lets get rid of corporate welfare. Lets get rid of all welfare. There's no reason to be financing the government's defense budget beyond what is needed for actual defense. (One of the few legitimate uses for government.)
And, as usual, you demand numbers, tell me in advance that you will choose to ignore numbers I provide from people you don't like (namely the cato institute) but provide no numbers, logic, or reason to back your assertions.
Your hatred of corporations is silly-- its a form of self hatred. All corporate transactions are voluntary-- while government's immposition of its will is never voluntary-- its done by force.
ITs ironic how many of the parts of the "universal declaration of human rights" advocate the violation of human rights.
An example: Everyone has the right to two weeks vacation. Bullshit-- that is a violation of human rights-- everyone has the right to agree to what ever employment terms are mutually agreeable to BOTH of them.
I really think Liberals don't even understand what human rights are. Its perplexing the amount of oppression they advocate in the guise of "human rights"... but here's a easy way to tell the difference-- if you're compelling someone to do something that is not in their best interest, you are violating their human rights.
And if the war on poverty is over, then why do we keep welfare around?
Sheesh. Denial aint just a river in egypt.
This did not happen. They used HD cameras for the entire shoot. They had film cameras along only because the insurance company required them for backup purposes, but they were never used.
This is right out of Lucas's mouth when talking about the CinAlta cameras on Sony's promotional DVD.
Did you make this up, or are you just spreading false information?
Sheesh. They should have dropped Mac OS in 1997.
They bought NeXT in 1996. They were ready to go with Rhapsody in 1997, but developers were unwilling to make the switch wholesale... so we've spent the last 5 years with Apple creating carbon, supporting both OSes, updating classic Mac OS, creating the classic environment, and doing everything they could to support the legacy Macintosh market.
Its been 5 frigging years. Its about time we moved over to Unix and dropped total support for the legacy software.
Its not like nobody had warning, and its not like classic won't still run fine.
I think they've been more than generous enough. Remember copeland was supposed to ship in 1997... they had reason to ship next as the new OS in 1997, as it would have moved them to a modern platform way back then.
They have spent, essentially, the entirety of the last 5 years software wise supporting legacy Macintosh.
Anyone still using OS 9 day to day is free to keep doing so, but don't expect new hardware to be hobbled to maintain that support.
You want a modern machine, use the modern OS.
Excuse me while I say "Sheesh!"
How can a machine that's cheaper be too expensive?
If you were going Linux it would be one thing, but since you're paying for windows, you're really paying a lot more and getting a lot less.
You should go out and buy a mac. You won't regret it.
hey ended up having to include an interperater/emulator for 68k apps in later versions of Mac0S.
Sheesh, I am ever amazed at the ignorance of people who post on slashdot. T he 68k emulator was there from the beginning with the powerPC switch. Hell, the excellence of that switch shows just how Apple is one of the few companies in the world that can move technolgoy forward... meanwhile the entirety of the x86 hasn't given up backwards compatibility (and the performance sluggishness that comes with it) all the way back to the 4004 in the early 70s!
If Apple does not include functionality to use OS7/8/9 apps in OSX, then it will hurt them.
Again, they already did. Hell, I've run System 6 apps and even much much older. Its already in there.
And what possible reason could anyone have for running an old os on their shiny new top of the line computer? Next thing you know they'll be complaining that the old os doesn't completely support the new featuers of the hardware. Sheesh.
You wanna run the old os, well you've got an old machine to run it on.
it would be like dell producing computers that will not run 95/98 or older linux kernels..
No, it would be like Dell making machines and not testing them with win 95. Which, dell probably doesn't.
People aren't flipping out cause there's no reason to flip out. you get OS X free with the new box you're buying, so by definition you can run the latest software.
There's no possible reason you could wnat to run the old software, unless you're a crufty crumudgen you just wants to run obsolete software for the hell of it.
OS X runs really ancient apps in classic mode. So why keep support for an obsolete operating system?
Sheesh.
ounds like a great argument for open-source
to me.
And that would get you exactly what? An operating system that never advances? The ability to not upgrade to the latest os if you don't want to? Something you have on the mac today....
This is just silly. OS 9 apps run great on OS X. All the apps I've tried, and I've tried some clunky-never been updated in years, written for OS 6 apps (and actually written for OS 2 apps!) and they have all worked fine.
This whining is just silly.
Yeah, you'd rather they starved. That's always the case.
The liberals who want to help the poor-- what do they do? They spend three trillion dollars in the "war on poverty" in the US and produce a much larger percentage in poverty than before they started.
The idiocy is that there are actually people who aren't on the take who think these stupid on the face of them schemes will help people. You're just a sucker rooting for the mugger who's taking all our money and getting fat on it... meanwhile, eliminating opportunity for the people who are poor to get jobs.
Great example: minimum wage. Yeah, lets get rid of jobs.... sheesh. Not to mention that all of this violates fundamental human rights.
I have the right to earn $2 an hour if I want to. Who are you to insist that I must be out of a job instead?
Aw, got a bad case of Jaguar envy, do you? I understand.
Hey, but guess what-- you can have a Mac too. Just buy one. all the leading geeks are doing it, and its become the clear Unix desktop leader... so you'll be ahead of the masses rather than lagging behind them.
Don't worry, we won't hold your past transgressions against you.
And you'll save money to boot! Jaguar was free, iMovie, iCal, iTunes, 2 years of iTools, iPhoto, AppleWorks and the other software cost $129.
Actually, I got Jaguar for free. Many apple users do.
If you're just upgrading
So, I assume you drive a Yugo, right? You want the cheap "quality" hardware-- and Yugo's got it!
Interesting that you talk about Linux eroding Apples market-- funny also given that Apple is pretty clearly the largest volume seller of Unix boxes.
Just keep wishful thinking. A yugo's just like a mercedes! Yeah!
No, they don't corner the market. Sun and Toshiba and IBM all make quality hardware. When it comes to hardware, Microsoft makes good stuff too, but they don't make PCs. Intel makes quality motherboards. I'm sure there are others, though they slip my mind right now.
But machines built by throwing parts together from random manufacturers are generally of low quality. Dell, Gateway, and all the no-name, and white box makers do this. Bought a gateway once, as part of a company buy. We bought four machines, and no two of them had the same motherboard, hard drives, power supply-- they were all different brands. The only thing the same was the case. I called for support once to find out what serial chip they had and the guy couldnt' tell me, to quote "We used so many different motherboards in that model there's no way I could tell you."
This is why PCs don't last... as one person pointed out in this thread they apparently have an intitial failure rate of 7-15 percent. Amazing! and people buy this crap?
So, yes, comparing a dell to an apple is like comparing a yugo to a mercedes. At least compare IBM or another quality manufacturer.
Wow. That's a shocking number! I never realized it was that bad.
The problem in this whole exercise is that both Linux and Macintosh are probably close to the error bar size no matter how you measure it.
Actually, that's just speculation. For a long time, the Mac represented %32 of the total addressable consumer market for personal computers.
About three years ago (unfortunately, I don't have a reference and I really would like to find it again to re-read it) I read a study showing that the Mac market for application software was about twice as profitable than the PC market. This because even though you charge the same price for both versions, there is less competition in the Mac area, more sales, and a lower cost to develop your application for that platform.
Marketing dweebs are a lot like stock analysts (and IT reporters) they have a herd mentality-- if tall their golf buddies are putting their products on teh windows platform, they'll jump in too-- never mind that the increased competition means LESS sales, not more.
For instance, Disney's Lion King CD rom lost money on windows, but was profitable on the MAc. Mac sales covered the entirety of development costs and the whole profit margin-- the PC version lost money on a adjusted gross revenue basies (ie not even including development costs) because the tech support was more expensive PER AVERAGE SALE than the revenue generated by that sale, on the PC side.
Its not as simple as "more pcs out there, better market".
And I assume those numbers are made up as well, aren't they?
We all know you don't have a CLUE what the installed base is.... there's no WAY you could know what any of the two hundred machines managed by my co-workers and I are running, for instance.
I don't deny you provide a lot of detail-- thats' what gets the suckers to buy the reports.
Lots of detail makes people think they are getting something, other than numbers pulled from the air.
But given your methodology (actually, complete lack of it) anyone with any horse sense knows you are fabricating your numbers.
Actually, that is not what you said. What you said was you print what people tell you to print-- and you check it with them before you print it!
In other words, you are a PR agency, who masquerades press releases as "Research"
You have failed to provide a SINGLE example of actually doing any research. Asking CEOs what percentage of market share they have is NOT research.
If the quotes are misquotes, then why are you defending them?
Rebut them if you are being misquoted. Lord knows its obvious that most computer journalists don't know squat about technology-- but you are FEEDING Them misinformation, not disputing it.
I've pointed out this issue to numerous writers for eWeek, Upside, CNET, etc, etc. Yet they all claim that you have shown these things to be facts.
Therefore, you ARE responsible for this misinformation. Retract it or defend it, but stop dodging the issue.
NONE of the "research" You talked about even addresses the question, let alone is a source for hard facts. SEC filings tell you part of the picture-- if you were making stock recommendations it would be relevant. But they tell you nothing about market share because market share is more than just what was sold this year.
Hell, why am I even responding-- you refuse to respond on the issue, you just insist that you do research. Yet you provide no reason to believe you.
In what way is this mythical Athlon you talk about "better"
Its certainly not faster, and at that price its going to be far less reliable, and come with less software, and lower quality software to boot.
When did "top of the line" start meaning "fly by night computer good for all of 14 months befoer the power supply fails, from some company without a name"?
Well THAT Dan Kusnetsky just responded to my pointing out that these numbers are made up, on this very same thread, claiming that they are, well, made up.
But he hasn't dared to respond to your catching him in his blatant hypocracy. Too bad.
Yeah, he says what he's paid to say. That's actually ok for PR flacks. There's honor in *that* position.
Foisting it off as *research* or having any quality of *fact* however, is a fraud and lacks honor.
But annual sales are irrelevant, as I pointed out.
They tell you nothing about total market share-- only what was sold this year.
But that number is given as total market share, which is a bald faced lie on the face of it, when in actuality, the number of machines that are in use at a given point is the total market share.
Plus, there's no way to tell how many of those machines have a different operating system installed on them after they leave the factory.
Hell, windows is counted multiple times for the same machine in many cases-- every time a box is sold its counted as if it was a new install, as if you could even buy a machine without windows up until a few years ago.
Apple can't even tell you the number of machines running OS 9 or OS X or Linux because they don't control them.
And as the IDG guy just revealed- they do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to determine what OS is installed on the machine by the customer.
Apple has an opinion about how many are running OS X vs OS 9, but the numbers for microsoft are absurd-- a single computer can be counted a half dozen times in its lifetime, showing up as 5 seats of Windows when it really is only one.
Yep, like you said, they are produced out of thin air.
Unit shipments are not listed in SEC filings. Executives are going to tell you what they want you to think. Public comments are the executives telling you what they want you to think. Hell, every single bit of your "reasearch" is disclosures from companies who are advertising (Press releases that you call "public comments"), Advertising (disclosures to the SEC), advertising (telling you over beers).
There isn't a single example of real research in that whole list. And to top it all off, you give the companies the results to make sure you got down correctly exactly what it was they wanted you to say.
Don't bullshit me, I was one of the "executives" consulted by you guys. I know the score.
As you just confirmed, these numbers are fabricated, from end to end.
Hell, if they weren't you'd provide raw data... but we know you'll never do that.
But since you're here personally-- SHAME ON YOU. What kind of a pathetic existance it must be to lie for a living? I hold lawyers in higher regard... and soothsayers on wall street-- at least they know how to read financial statements, even if their opinions are swayed by their business relationships-- at least they DISCLOSE IT.
Shame on you, Dan Kusnetzky. You are a liar, AND a fraud.
Oh. please don't give me that lying crap. iMacs are expandable. You just wnat an excuse to compare apple's high end to the low end no brand piece of shit, won't last two years computers out there.
Pretty desperate and shameless.
As for performance, you're wrong. The fastest personal computers in the world are made by Apple. AMD is starting to catch up, but is still way behind.
Sure, they have their Intel designed benchmarks, designed to highlight the processors clock speed, but little else. But that's a desperate lie as well..
Anyone reasonable competent in the science of computer architecture, knows the x86 architecture is well past its useful life and pathetically poor when it comes to performance. Especially when you include price in the equation.
IT is only thru deliberate misrepresentation, outright lies, and you're desire to suspend reality (or ignore it) that you can say such a thing without being laughed out of the room.
PT Barnum was right, and I own lots of intel stock, but when it comes time to buy my own machines, I buy quality and performance. And hey, I get it for less to boot! Imagine that.
Naw, I just ignore it when people like you make shit up. For instance, a Dell box or a whitebox -- really the same-- is not the same quality of a Mac. Tehy won't last two years, let alone 6.
Plus, it is convenient that you provided no citatiosn, no examples.... I'm certain that these boxes are lacking. Every time I do this comparison, the dell costs more, and has a poorer video card, or less memory or whatever.
Nevermind that Dell puts out crap.
You might as well be telling me that I should be buying a Yugo cause I'd save a lot of money compared to a Mercedes-- after all they both have four wheels and will go 60 MPH. They must be the same.