One thing I haven't seen addressed here yet, is that this device appears to be "Mac-only". That's their choice, but it seems to be a really poor one. They just chopped of their potential marketshare by 95%.
First, let me preface this by saying, "this is not another Apple is going under" post. Apple has plenty of cash, I think they have some great products, and they aren't going out of business.
That said, I am both a shareholder and consumer of Apple products. When I read the announcement and specs I went straight to the Apple Store. At $199-$250, I would have bought two, immediately. Instead, at $399, I am buying zero, and expect that many other people will feel the same way.
I am very sad that Apple seems to be repeating the same mistake they made with the Cube - great, nifty product that anyone would love to own, except that it's burdened by an unbelievably poor price/performance ratio.
A laptop hard drive of that size in the quantity Apple buys is about $30 these days. I am more than willing to pay a premium for Apple designed hardware and software. This thing will undoubtedly have a great interface. But that is not worth $200 extra (double the price!).
I know Apple prices it's products to maximize profit. But I wish they'd realize they could make the same amount of money, and have more marketshare, if they'd sell 3 times as many at half the cost instead.
However, it is very important that programmers do listen to the feedback from usability engineers and use that feedback to make programs better.
You've hit on an important point - that developers must acknowledge and implement the feedback they receive. I've found that all too frequently the answer is "RTFM" or "everyone runs it from the command line anyway - why do you need the GUI?" That's fine if you're a Linux fan, but if you just want your computer to "work", those kinds of answers don't cut it.
I don't mean in any way to demean the efforts of anyone currently working on Linux usability. However, there are clearly not enough of them, given the state of Linux is that it is not very friendly, compared to say, Macintosh.
Well, one big problem with open source that I've encountered is that almost everyone working on open source software is a programmer. There are by comparison few/no people working on documentation, usability, design, interface, etc.
This hurts open source software - closed source software generally costs money, which allows them to pay people like usability specialists, graphic designers, and technical writers (people who don't work for free out of goodwill). Currently it seems like only programmers are willing to donate their time to the open source software effort, and I see this as a weakness. Having a larger variety of developers would improve the quality of open source software.
Linux _is_ a target; the DMCA prevents it from being able to play DVDs like other OSs (MacOS, Windoze).
The DMCA does not prevent Linux from being able to play DVDs like other OSs. Patents and license fees prevent Linux from playing DVDs - any company can start selling a Linux DVD player tomorrow, they need only pay the appropriate licensing fees to the DVD cartel. (Of course, they probably can't afford to give it away for free, and by way of their license agreement, won't be allowed to distribute source, but those are other matters unrelated to DMCA.)
I agree the situation sucks, but let's put the blame where it belongs - the DMCA is not the reason there aren't any Linux DVD players. There aren't any Linux DVD players because nobody thinks they can make money selling one.
My question to you is would you rather support a company that produces crap CSS drivers, or a company that supports the development of OSS drivers?
Well, to be honest, I would prefer that ATI support the closed source OS (Windows 2000) that came with my computer before they spend time working on open source drivers for an OS that I have no interest in. Don't get me wrong, Linux is fine, and I think it's in everyones best interest for ATI to release specs. But I want what I paid for fixed before anything else.
Are you honestly suggesting that people shopping for a new computer on which they intend to run Linux would seriously consider PPC hardware?
There are more 'issues' than with x86 linux, not to mention the hardware is dramatically more expensive. Why would anyone buy a mac if they don't intent to run MacOS on it? For the same price you could custom build a server with all the trimmings on x86...
the first thing I'd like to point out is that it's actually windows 2000's fault that the card can only mirror, instead of extending the desktop.
Then how does the Nvidia GeForce2Go card work? It seems to handle dual displays just fine. Yes, it is inconvenient to program dual displays because Microsoft made it hard. Hardware manufacturers (ATI) choose to either write drivers, or not write drivers. ATI has chosen NOT TO write those drivers. Matrox and Nvidia have chosen TO write those drivers.
One thing to note is that ATI doesn't make laptop drivers for the consumer -- they expect the OEM to customize the drivers for a particular model and then release them to the end user. It could be that ATI shipped updated drivers, but Half LIfe fixes are low on Dell's priority so they aren't handing them off to you. Or it could be ATI's normal situation of abandoning old chips quickly.
What you are saying is true - however, you have to realize that OEMs like Dell, Gateway, and Compaq have very little, if any ability to change the driver. They mostly just package their driver with the appropriate readme and installation instructions. They certainly can't make major changes, like "fix OpenGL".
Unfortunately, this is not simply an issue of ATI fixing something and Dell taking forever to package it - no one has these drivers, I've tried the packaged drivers from every OEM. And I'd like to point out that it doesn't really matter whether it's ATI or the OEMs fault -the end result is the same - the consumer has poor drivers for their ATI card.
Unfortunately, OS X has one thing going for it that Linux doesn't - and that is an easy installation, maintenance, and installation of software programs. I like linux, but if you think that Linux is the equal of OS X for a nontechnical person, you are deluding yourself.
Yellog Dog is trying to market to existing Macintosh users. Those users are accustomed to Apple's ease of use. I tried Yellow Dog, and it was not nearly the equal of the latest x86 (RedHat or Mandrake) installers. I can't imagine that they will persuade many mac users to switch.
My advice is to avoid ATI like the plague. Their drivers for Windows 2000 totally suck. They've basically abandoned chipsets that are only 1 year old! (on a laptop, the video can't typically be upgraded, so it's very important to have good driver suppport).
My laptop, a Dell Inspiron 3800, uses the ATI Mobility M1 chipset. Despite the fact that they were still selling this computer until about 6 months ago, driver updates have already stopped. (As far as I know, you can still buy NEW laptops using these chips)
OpenGL stuff, like "Half-Life" doesn't work, period, and no fixes are forthcoming.
Additionally, ATI is the only vendor that hasn't figured out how to do dual display under Windows 2000 (very important for business presentations). They do not plan to fix this issue, even though it works fine on Nvidia.
Your laptop choices are really Trident, ATI, or Nvidia. Trident sucks. ATI does NOT deserve your money. Nvidia is unproven, but seems to be doing well so far, so that's what I would recommend.
Why do I have to lie about being a student to get decent pricing from Apple?
Next time I need a computer for work, I'll be sure to mention to my boss that we have to drive over to UCLA and pretend to be on staff in order to buy it. He'll love that!
Sorry, but real companies do business with purchase orders or buy online. For all intents and purposes, if it's not on Apple.com, it doesn't exist.
$1099 might be a good price... now all Apple needs to do is sell them to the public at that price!
As an aside, the fact that Apple can sell the old G4 at $1099 and still make a profit is the ultimate proof that their systems are overpriced at $1699, and the ultimate insult to everyone who paid "full price".
i find them to be very nice. why pull off a flimsy metal cover or unscrew panel when i can lift a lock and drop the whole side down?
I think they're great, too! But everything has a price - how much is too much? The cheapest G4 is $1700. Come on, that's an outrageous amount for the low end, and that case (nice as it may be) has to add a lot to the price. There are plenty of "generic" ATX cases that come apart just as easily with no screws.
Apple knows, and knows very well, that they are a hardware company. Everyone reading this knows they are a hardware company. My grandma knows they are a hardware company.
OS X for Windows --> no more mac hardware sales --> no more Apple. Pretty obvious.
Unfortunately, their hardware ISN'T crap: on the contrary, it's extravagent, overbuilt, and overpriced. Is it really worth an extra $600 to have a door that opens to put memory in? Of course not.
No one really cares about that kind of stuff - they just want MacOS, and right now, it only runs on Apple hardware.
- it turns out that she was clicking on the "close" gadget to close the browser, but instead of closing the application it just closed the application window.. the browser was still running!
Which, I would argue, is actually the 'correct' or ideal behavior! If I want to close the APPLICATION, I'll do so, by choosing "file: quit". I hate the kludgy Windows way of doing it, where windows run inside other windows... it's too easy to overshoot the menu bar, landing yourself in another application.
With MacOS, it's impossible to miss, since you can't roll the mouse past the top/left of the screen. If I've got 4 browser windows open inside Internet Explorer, I can access each using the 'window' menu. On Windows and Linux, I get 4 IE icons on the taskbar, hogging space, eventually to the point where I can't read them anymore.
I'm not even an Apple 'fan', per se, (I use W2k primarily) but the way MacOS handles windows, menus, and switching between apps is superior.
Could the programmers that work on AudioGalaxy, etc. not put in a feature that allowed you to drop all packets from RIAA networks?
Surely it wouldn't be all that hard to simply ignore "flood" type requests... either would seem to solve this problem. It's my computer, I can easily set it up to ignore you if I don't like what you send me.
Probably a dumb question, but does Evolution run under KDE or only under Gnome? I guess you could extend that question a bit... what determines whether or not certain apps are dependent on a specific window manager?
Plus the fact that the corporation uses it's "database" capability (Think Filemaker Pro v 2.0-3.0) for just about everything; which forces you to use the Notes client.
Beg pardon, but if you need Notes client to access the databases your guys have created, something is wrong. If Notes/Domino is done right, EVERYTHING is accessible using a web browser. Plenty of people develop entirely on Domino and would never think of requiring Notes client for access.
If you are considering using Domino for groupware, go for it! Yes, it's "different" but it works great.
Since the problems with Covad, Rhythyms, Zyan, etc., my local CO has magically become "full" (according to Verizon). I cannot order DSL from ANY provider, including Verizon, and this is in a large suburb of Los Angeles.
Verizon expects the customers to believe that they were "surprised" by the demand for broadband, even though it's been available here for three years and demand has been growing steadily since it's introduction.
Verizon has little incentive to expand it's DSL capacity. However, I expect that once all the ISPs that deliver DSL are gone, Verizon will magically take a renewed interest in selling DSL.
Much as in other industries, the laws that affect telecom are bought and paid for by Verizon, et al. Unfortunately, as with Microsoft, Record Companies, etc. they've already gotten too far, and it will be really hard to stop them.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing I haven't seen addressed here yet, is that this device appears to be "Mac-only". That's their choice, but it seems to be a really poor one. They just chopped of their potential marketshare by 95%.
Yes, two years ago.
That said, I am both a shareholder and consumer of Apple products. When I read the announcement and specs I went straight to the Apple Store. At $199-$250, I would have bought two, immediately. Instead, at $399, I am buying zero, and expect that many other people will feel the same way.
I am very sad that Apple seems to be repeating the same mistake they made with the Cube - great, nifty product that anyone would love to own, except that it's burdened by an unbelievably poor price/performance ratio.
A laptop hard drive of that size in the quantity Apple buys is about $30 these days. I am more than willing to pay a premium for Apple designed hardware and software. This thing will undoubtedly have a great interface. But that is not worth $200 extra (double the price!).
I know Apple prices it's products to maximize profit. But I wish they'd realize they could make the same amount of money, and have more marketshare, if they'd sell 3 times as many at half the cost instead.
All I can say is, as an Apple "fan", I'm sad.
You've hit on an important point - that developers must acknowledge and implement the feedback they receive. I've found that all too frequently the answer is "RTFM" or "everyone runs it from the command line anyway - why do you need the GUI?" That's fine if you're a Linux fan, but if you just want your computer to "work", those kinds of answers don't cut it.
I don't mean in any way to demean the efforts of anyone currently working on Linux usability. However, there are clearly not enough of them, given the state of Linux is that it is not very friendly, compared to say, Macintosh.
This hurts open source software - closed source software generally costs money, which allows them to pay people like usability specialists, graphic designers, and technical writers (people who don't work for free out of goodwill). Currently it seems like only programmers are willing to donate their time to the open source software effort, and I see this as a weakness. Having a larger variety of developers would improve the quality of open source software.
The DMCA does not prevent Linux from being able to play DVDs like other OSs. Patents and license fees prevent Linux from playing DVDs - any company can start selling a Linux DVD player tomorrow, they need only pay the appropriate licensing fees to the DVD cartel. (Of course, they probably can't afford to give it away for free, and by way of their license agreement, won't be allowed to distribute source, but those are other matters unrelated to DMCA.)
I agree the situation sucks, but let's put the blame where it belongs - the DMCA is not the reason there aren't any Linux DVD players. There aren't any Linux DVD players because nobody thinks they can make money selling one.
Well, to be honest, I would prefer that ATI support the closed source OS (Windows 2000) that came with my computer before they spend time working on open source drivers for an OS that I have no interest in. Don't get me wrong, Linux is fine, and I think it's in everyones best interest for ATI to release specs. But I want what I paid for fixed before anything else.
There are more 'issues' than with x86 linux, not to mention the hardware is dramatically more expensive. Why would anyone buy a mac if they don't intent to run MacOS on it? For the same price you could custom build a server with all the trimmings on x86...
Then how does the Nvidia GeForce2Go card work? It seems to handle dual displays just fine. Yes, it is inconvenient to program dual displays because Microsoft made it hard. Hardware manufacturers (ATI) choose to either write drivers, or not write drivers. ATI has chosen NOT TO write those drivers. Matrox and Nvidia have chosen TO write those drivers.
Under what operating system? The Win95/98 drivers are in far better shape than the NT/2000 ones...
What you are saying is true - however, you have to realize that OEMs like Dell, Gateway, and Compaq have very little, if any ability to change the driver. They mostly just package their driver with the appropriate readme and installation instructions. They certainly can't make major changes, like "fix OpenGL".
Unfortunately, this is not simply an issue of ATI fixing something and Dell taking forever to package it - no one has these drivers, I've tried the packaged drivers from every OEM. And I'd like to point out that it doesn't really matter whether it's ATI or the OEMs fault -the end result is the same - the consumer has poor drivers for their ATI card.
Unfortunately, OS X has one thing going for it that Linux doesn't - and that is an easy installation, maintenance, and installation of software programs. I like linux, but if you think that Linux is the equal of OS X for a nontechnical person, you are deluding yourself.
Yellog Dog is trying to market to existing Macintosh users. Those users are accustomed to Apple's ease of use. I tried Yellow Dog, and it was not nearly the equal of the latest x86 (RedHat or Mandrake) installers. I can't imagine that they will persuade many mac users to switch.
My laptop, a Dell Inspiron 3800, uses the ATI Mobility M1 chipset. Despite the fact that they were still selling this computer until about 6 months ago, driver updates have already stopped. (As far as I know, you can still buy NEW laptops using these chips)
OpenGL stuff, like "Half-Life" doesn't work, period, and no fixes are forthcoming.
Additionally, ATI is the only vendor that hasn't figured out how to do dual display under Windows 2000 (very important for business presentations). They do not plan to fix this issue, even though it works fine on Nvidia.
Your laptop choices are really Trident, ATI, or Nvidia. Trident sucks. ATI does NOT deserve your money. Nvidia is unproven, but seems to be doing well so far, so that's what I would recommend.
laugh now.
Next time I need a computer for work, I'll be sure to mention to my boss that we have to drive over to UCLA and pretend to be on staff in order to buy it. He'll love that!
Sorry, but real companies do business with purchase orders or buy online. For all intents and purposes, if it's not on Apple.com, it doesn't exist.
$1099 might be a good price... now all Apple needs to do is sell them to the public at that price!
As an aside, the fact that Apple can sell the old G4 at $1099 and still make a profit is the ultimate proof that their systems are overpriced at $1699, and the ultimate insult to everyone who paid "full price".
I think they're great, too! But everything has a price - how much is too much? The cheapest G4 is $1700. Come on, that's an outrageous amount for the low end, and that case (nice as it may be) has to add a lot to the price. There are plenty of "generic" ATX cases that come apart just as easily with no screws.
OS X for Windows --> no more mac hardware sales --> no more Apple. Pretty obvious.
Unfortunately, their hardware ISN'T crap: on the contrary, it's extravagent, overbuilt, and overpriced. Is it really worth an extra $600 to have a door that opens to put memory in? Of course not.
No one really cares about that kind of stuff - they just want MacOS, and right now, it only runs on Apple hardware.
Which, I would argue, is actually the 'correct' or ideal behavior! If I want to close the APPLICATION, I'll do so, by choosing "file: quit". I hate the kludgy Windows way of doing it, where windows run inside other windows... it's too easy to overshoot the menu bar, landing yourself in another application.
With MacOS, it's impossible to miss, since you can't roll the mouse past the top/left of the screen. If I've got 4 browser windows open inside Internet Explorer, I can access each using the 'window' menu. On Windows and Linux, I get 4 IE icons on the taskbar, hogging space, eventually to the point where I can't read them anymore.
I'm not even an Apple 'fan', per se, (I use W2k primarily) but the way MacOS handles windows, menus, and switching between apps is superior.
Surely it wouldn't be all that hard to simply ignore "flood" type requests... either would seem to solve this problem. It's my computer, I can easily set it up to ignore you if I don't like what you send me.
One of the great things about Lotus Notes STILL IS the server - (now called Domino) - it serves up everything you mentioned via the web.
Probably a dumb question, but does Evolution run under KDE or only under Gnome? I guess you could extend that question a bit... what determines whether or not certain apps are dependent on a specific window manager?
Beg pardon, but if you need Notes client to access the databases your guys have created, something is wrong. If Notes/Domino is done right, EVERYTHING is accessible using a web browser. Plenty of people develop entirely on Domino and would never think of requiring Notes client for access.
If you are considering using Domino for groupware, go for it! Yes, it's "different" but it works great.
Verizon expects the customers to believe that they were "surprised" by the demand for broadband, even though it's been available here for three years and demand has been growing steadily since it's introduction.
Verizon has little incentive to expand it's DSL capacity. However, I expect that once all the ISPs that deliver DSL are gone, Verizon will magically take a renewed interest in selling DSL.
Much as in other industries, the laws that affect telecom are bought and paid for by Verizon, et al. Unfortunately, as with Microsoft, Record Companies, etc. they've already gotten too far, and it will be really hard to stop them.