The thread is not about how crappy dell is (they are), the thread is about how the only way to get decent pricing from Apple was to buy through their educational store.
but that's the same GFX chipset as the iBook you dolt!
It sure is, and that's our point. The CHIPSET is the exact same thing. However, Apple has crippled the computer, either in firmware or software, breaking the ability to use that chipset to output to high resolution displays!
Do you see what we are complaining about now? The capability exists in the chipset, but Apple has intentionally broken that capability. Do you see Sony, IBM, or Dell doing that? No.
At dell.com, I don't have to lie about being a student in order to get reasonable pricing.
Re:iBook Clamshells are quite durable as well.
on
A Few Baaaaaad Apples
·
· Score: 2
What's your point? That's exactly what I said above.
To reiterate - the iBook will do 1024x768 on both it's internal and external display, but no higher, even if you have an external monitor capable of 1600x1200.
Although the video chipset is capable of 1600x1200, Apple crippled it so it won't work at anything higher than 1024x768. That is a verifiable fact.
Hey, we agree that they are twice as fast! The problem is that they are ALSO twice as expensive, which means they have 1/2 the cost effectiveness.
Example - G4 733mhz is as fast as a Pentium IV 1.5ghz. Sounds great, right? Except that the G4 tower STARTS at $1799! You can buy an 'equivalent' speed Dell for 1/2 the price.
My point is that even if you accept the fact that Apple's are twice as fast per Mhz, you cannot ignore the fact that they are still more expensive to get an equivalent machine.
Oh, and you failed to note that the iBook will also do external and simultaneous video.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There are two facts about the iBook that can be verified by a quick visit to Apple support. (The URL is linked elsewhere in this article.)
1. The iBook supports only up to 1024x768 on an external display. Got a nice 21" monitor? Too bad, it goes up to 1024x768, and no higher, no MATTER WHAT.
2. The iBook does not do dual display, it can only do video mirroring. (Same content on both displays.) Dual display is crippled on the iBook, reserved for the TiBook.
I didn't see anything above 1024x768 on all those other laptops you listed. Maybe they've been crippled in order to urge the customer to move up the product matrix for higher resolutions. Just like you've been blaming Apple for.
Each may have a 1024x768 external display, but I can assure you they can do a much higher resolution when attached to an external display... if the specs seem to imply otherwise, they are probably in error.
All the IBM's and Dell's at the office can drive high resolution displays, regardless of the internal resolution. It's a neccessity for business presentations. Unfortunately, that is not true of the iBook.
I can almost guarantee that the IBM mentioned (ATI Rage Mobility chipset) will support higher than 1024x768 output. I have a laptop with the same chipset and it goes to 1600x1200. It's probably a typo or oversight.
Re:Netscape 4.7x is it until Mozilla 1.0?
on
Linux: Browser Wars
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Please. You should see the tricks we have to pull at work to get Netscape to render properly. It has tons of things wrong.
One of the most glaring is that it won't render table cells with no content, so you have to put a non-breaking space in every empty cell. It also screws up table widths.... I could go on and on... ask anyone who works on web application development, they will tell you, Netscape sucks.
If it looks good on your machine in Netscape, it's only because someone slaved away to make it that way.
I'm using Opera to read this very article, and there is no way his numbers are correct. I'm on a slower DSL line, on a Celeron 333 RedHat box. The article loaded in about 3 seconds, measured from the time I clicked the link to the time it was fully rendered on screen. It's way faster than Mozilla or Netscape when loading the same pages.
As a newbie to RedHat 7.1, I must say that Opera was easy to get installed.
I like it a lot, primarily because it seems to use the widgets (radio buttons, form elements, etc) that I've chosen in my Gnome setup, in contrast to some other programs. It's very mac-like in that way.
Although it is not open source, I don't particularly care - because I, like most people, wouldn't know what to do with the source if I had it.
Not to mention that the iBook has no PC card slots, whereas each x86 laptop does.
Without looking more closely at the specs, I'd also bet that the PC card laptops can all drive an external high resolution monitor, which the iBook cannot (it only goes up to 1024x768) since Apple broke the video out on purpose.
They are a way of 'future proofing' your computer. They really can help extend the lifespan of your computer.
Sure, you have a 10/100 and 56k built in - but what about next year's tech?
A perfect example would be 802.11b - 3 years ago, no one had heard of it, now it's commonplace. Thanks to PC card slots, you can easily add that technology to your laptop.
The same goes for USB and Firewire... now they are commonplace, but not on older machines. You can easily add them via PC cards.
The iBook, 3 or 4 years from now, will be a lot less viable due to Apple's ommission of the PC card slot.
Finally, I will point out 56k internal modems are standard on almost every PC laptop, and internal 10/100 can be had on many as well (Leaving you with 2 free PC card slots).
You're right. Thank you for completely ignoring the topic at hand and validating my statement.
The price difference is awfully huge if your only reason for buying one is to be "unique". If that's all you care about buy a $30 PC case and paint it.
Re:iBook Clamshells are quite durable as well.
on
A Few Baaaaaad Apples
·
· Score: 2
FYI, here is the link that lists the display resolutions: Apple support page.
Re:iBook Clamshells are quite durable as well.
on
A Few Baaaaaad Apples
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
I would have really liked to have the bigger screen and external display support.
Don't worry, you aren't missing much. The new iBook can only drive an external display at 1024x768, and no higher, even though the ATI video chip supports much higher resolutions.
Why? Because Apple intentionally crippled it to make you buy the TiBook. Unlike Dell, Apple can't justify the cost of the higher end with faster chips (they don't exist), so they have to cripple the low end to make the top end look good. Shameful. Makes me sad to be a shareholder.
Really? For the longest time, Apple has been saying that the G3/G4 is twice as fast as an x86 chip at the equivalent clockspeed. I'll agree with that, my own experience with macs seems to bear it out.
However, the price/performance ratio is still horrible. Let's say a G4 tower really is twice as fast as a Pentium IV 1.4ghz. The Pentium IV is half the price! So it still has double the cost-effectiveness. Athlon is even better.
Apple would have to market the G4 as "four times as fast" to make them price competitive.
Titanium in such minimal thicknesses is actually very flexible. (and also very lightweight). I'm no engineer, but look at the tubes of titanium bike frames. They are always oversized in diameter compared to steel, otherwise the bike would flex like a noodle.
Ti is nice, but there is nothing necessarily indestructable about it.
P.S. If you really ran a TiBook over with a car, it would be completely destroyed. You can flex the screen a scary amount by hand. (not that x86 laptops are any different).
I agree with you, Apple's are great. The iBook in particular is a good value, except for two things:
1. No PC card slots.
2. Can't drive an external monitor at high resolution (1024x768). Apple has intentionally crippled this computer and it's a shame.
As to the TiBook, sorry, it is overpriced. I'll even agree that the G4 is twice as fast as an equivalent x86. That makes it equal to the 800-1ghz range. A Dell with 1600x1200 screen, FireWire, ethernet, and wireless networking can be had in that range for $600 less than the Ti.
Let's see, you just bought an Apple, where you are admittedly paying a premium for their high quality enclosure (desktop and laptop).
So the first thing you do is rip it out of it's case into something you built? If you're going to risk destroying a computer, why not start with cheapo x86 hardware instead? You don't even have to buy a case!
Good for them. We're living in an era of "just get it out the door" software. Blizzard stuff, on the other hand, just works, and works fine. Updates are minor, few, and far between.
If it was anyone else I'd be complaining, but Blizzard stuff is usually worth the wait.
Who cares if Quake can render at 1600x1200 in real time? It doesn't look photo-realistic to me. The point is to be able to render a photo-realistic scene in real time, period.
I can rephrase "DVD quality" to "looks as good as DVD", if it will help you understand. I'm sure eveyone knew what I meant.
Soon, we'll have the ability to render DVD quality video in real time. This opens up tons of possibilities - imagine a version of final fantasy with DVD-style seamless branching based on user interactivity!
The user could interact with the movie and affect the animation in real time. Or, to put that in perspective, imagine fragging your office mates in a photo-realistic Quake VIII.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The thread is not about how crappy dell is (they are), the thread is about how the only way to get decent pricing from Apple was to buy through their educational store.
It sure is, and that's our point. The CHIPSET is the exact same thing. However, Apple has crippled the computer, either in firmware or software, breaking the ability to use that chipset to output to high resolution displays!
Do you see what we are complaining about now? The capability exists in the chipset, but Apple has intentionally broken that capability. Do you see Sony, IBM, or Dell doing that? No.
At dell.com, I don't have to lie about being a student in order to get reasonable pricing.
To reiterate - the iBook will do 1024x768 on both it's internal and external display, but no higher, even if you have an external monitor capable of 1600x1200.
Although the video chipset is capable of 1600x1200, Apple crippled it so it won't work at anything higher than 1024x768. That is a verifiable fact.
Example - G4 733mhz is as fast as a Pentium IV 1.5ghz. Sounds great, right? Except that the G4 tower STARTS at $1799! You can buy an 'equivalent' speed Dell for 1/2 the price.
My point is that even if you accept the fact that Apple's are twice as fast per Mhz, you cannot ignore the fact that they are still more expensive to get an equivalent machine.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There are two facts about the iBook that can be verified by a quick visit to Apple support. (The URL is linked elsewhere in this article.)
1. The iBook supports only up to 1024x768 on an external display. Got a nice 21" monitor? Too bad, it goes up to 1024x768, and no higher, no MATTER WHAT.
2. The iBook does not do dual display, it can only do video mirroring. (Same content on both displays.) Dual display is crippled on the iBook, reserved for the TiBook.
Each may have a 1024x768 external display, but I can assure you they can do a much higher resolution when attached to an external display... if the specs seem to imply otherwise, they are probably in error.
All the IBM's and Dell's at the office can drive high resolution displays, regardless of the internal resolution. It's a neccessity for business presentations. Unfortunately, that is not true of the iBook.
I can almost guarantee that the IBM mentioned (ATI Rage Mobility chipset) will support higher than 1024x768 output. I have a laptop with the same chipset and it goes to 1600x1200. It's probably a typo or oversight.
One of the most glaring is that it won't render table cells with no content, so you have to put a non-breaking space in every empty cell. It also screws up table widths.... I could go on and on... ask anyone who works on web application development, they will tell you, Netscape sucks.
If it looks good on your machine in Netscape, it's only because someone slaved away to make it that way.
I'm using Opera to read this very article, and there is no way his numbers are correct. I'm on a slower DSL line, on a Celeron 333 RedHat box. The article loaded in about 3 seconds, measured from the time I clicked the link to the time it was fully rendered on screen. It's way faster than Mozilla or Netscape when loading the same pages.
I like it a lot, primarily because it seems to use the widgets (radio buttons, form elements, etc) that I've chosen in my Gnome setup, in contrast to some other programs. It's very mac-like in that way.
Although it is not open source, I don't particularly care - because I, like most people, wouldn't know what to do with the source if I had it.
Without looking more closely at the specs, I'd also bet that the PC card laptops can all drive an external high resolution monitor, which the iBook cannot (it only goes up to 1024x768) since Apple broke the video out on purpose.
Like I said, PC card slots can be used for future, not-invented-yet technology. Since the iBook doesn't have them, you're out of luck.
They are a way of 'future proofing' your computer. They really can help extend the lifespan of your computer.
Sure, you have a 10/100 and 56k built in - but what about next year's tech?
A perfect example would be 802.11b - 3 years ago, no one had heard of it, now it's commonplace. Thanks to PC card slots, you can easily add that technology to your laptop.
The same goes for USB and Firewire... now they are commonplace, but not on older machines. You can easily add them via PC cards.
The iBook, 3 or 4 years from now, will be a lot less viable due to Apple's ommission of the PC card slot.
Finally, I will point out 56k internal modems are standard on almost every PC laptop, and internal 10/100 can be had on many as well (Leaving you with 2 free PC card slots).
You're right. Thank you for completely ignoring the topic at hand and validating my statement.
The price difference is awfully huge if your only reason for buying one is to be "unique". If that's all you care about buy a $30 PC case and paint it.
FYI, here is the link that lists the display resolutions: Apple support page.
Don't worry, you aren't missing much. The new iBook can only drive an external display at 1024x768, and no higher, even though the ATI video chip supports much higher resolutions.
Why? Because Apple intentionally crippled it to make you buy the TiBook. Unlike Dell, Apple can't justify the cost of the higher end with faster chips (they don't exist), so they have to cripple the low end to make the top end look good. Shameful. Makes me sad to be a shareholder.
However, the price/performance ratio is still horrible. Let's say a G4 tower really is twice as fast as a Pentium IV 1.4ghz. The Pentium IV is half the price! So it still has double the cost-effectiveness. Athlon is even better.
Apple would have to market the G4 as "four times as fast" to make them price competitive.
Check out the cool Ti bike stuff at Litespeed
Ti is nice, but there is nothing necessarily indestructable about it.
P.S. If you really ran a TiBook over with a car, it would be completely destroyed. You can flex the screen a scary amount by hand. (not that x86 laptops are any different).
1. No PC card slots.
2. Can't drive an external monitor at high resolution (1024x768). Apple has intentionally crippled this computer and it's a shame.
As to the TiBook, sorry, it is overpriced. I'll even agree that the G4 is twice as fast as an equivalent x86. That makes it equal to the 800-1ghz range. A Dell with 1600x1200 screen, FireWire, ethernet, and wireless networking can be had in that range for $600 less than the Ti.
So the first thing you do is rip it out of it's case into something you built? If you're going to risk destroying a computer, why not start with cheapo x86 hardware instead? You don't even have to buy a case!
If it was anyone else I'd be complaining, but Blizzard stuff is usually worth the wait.
Does anyone know if Sony is expected to lower the price of the PlayStation 2 once Xbox and gamecube are released? And if so, to what price point.
I can rephrase "DVD quality" to "looks as good as DVD", if it will help you understand. I'm sure eveyone knew what I meant.
The user could interact with the movie and affect the animation in real time. Or, to put that in perspective, imagine fragging your office mates in a photo-realistic Quake VIII. :)