An affluent population (such as the US) can afford a certain amount of luxury along with a certain amount of necessity. Cars are part luxury and part necessity (4 wheels is the necessity, but an SUV is a luxury).
Do you want another statistic to reinforce my logic? 3 TVs per 4 people.
So if we can afford 3 TVs per 4 people and 3 cars per 4 people, I think the MP3 player market can stabilize at 3 MP3 players per 4 people too.
My logic, if you aren't aware, is called correlation and induction; if two disparate markets such as TVs and automobiles have a proportion of 3 per 4 people, I am proposing that iPods/MP3 players will too.
I think if the US can support three cars per four people then saturation of the iPod market won't happen until we get 3 iPods per 4 people; with almost 300 million people, that means over 200 million iPods sold; since Apple is sold 6.5 million in the 4th quarter, and something like 6 million the quarter before, that means we have another 8 years at this rate, less if the sale rate increases.
Of course someone else might catch up; Sony has a good chance, and so does Creative. That still doesn't diminish Apple's sales of course, only reduces it's acceleration as any good MP3 player will grow the market, rather than steal it from another player.
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment; but the idea still holds.
My $999 laptop today is faster in all ways than my $1600 PC of two years ago, or my $2400 PC of 6 years ago, or my $3400 PC of 10 years ago.
All I mean to imply is that 'cheap' consumer digicams are still great for everyday use. The price difference between a "real" camera and a $250 digicam is that I can afford 3 digicams for that price and give them to different wedding guests to guarantee diversity and redundancy.
Would you say the same thing today about $600 computers as being toys and unfit for serious use?
There are places, even in a professional's repertoire, where a point&shoot make sense; where expensive cameras are too bulky, complicated, and intimidating to use. Things like a Yashica T4/T5 or a Olympus Stylus, for example.
Digital cameras in the $250 range can fill a similar role, with additional benefits and additional drawbacks. They don't take pictures as fast as film cameras, but they have greater capacity (I can take hundreds of pictures on a charge without swapping film or batteries).
Totally irrelevant. If you pay off all your bills, you avoid bill collectors. If you avoid having large unpayable bills, you also avoid bill collectors.
If you don't have enough money to buy happiness, spend less and be happier with what you have, right?
Apple's Q3 report is the same as Creative's Q4, if that's what you're looking for. They filed their Q3 report on July 13. Their Q4 isn't until October 11th or so. Apple claims this was their best quarter in all of their history, propelled by sales of both iPods and Macs.
"Apple shipped 1,182,000 Macintosh® units and 6,155,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 35 percent growth in Macs and 616 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter."
They say they had 75% revenue growth and 425% profit growth over this same period last year. You are also right, there's no clear causation on why Creative lost money, but it is definitely stated on their own press release that, "Even though we increased overall revenues 50 percent year-over-year, the lower-than-expected selling prices for MP3 players and the inventory write downs negatively impacted gross margins in the period."
We can't expect them to say, "Apple lowered prices faster than we could sell", but given that Apple is the current market leader I think it's reasonable to make a few assumptions:
As market leader, they dictate the average selling price of mp3 players. A more expensive player has to have more features and be clearly superior to a consumer; a similar player has to be cooler or cheaper to attract a consumer's eye. This is of course an exaggeration, but I do think it's reasonable.
I also believe Creative's management goofed up; they have displayed on their homepage 20 mp3 players arrayed against Apple's 3. Good luck trying to decide which one is the right one for you:) Seriously, they have five similar models that go up against the regular iPod: Zen, Zen Neeon, Zen Sleek, Zen Touch, and the Zen Xtra.
I do concede though that this is just speculation, that Apple is the reason that Creative is doing poorly, but I think it isn't unfounded. Unfounded speculation would be that it is because of SCO's involvement with Linux, and Microsoft's involvement with SCO, and therefore distracting their attention from the MP3 market, that is affecting Creative's ability to compete with Apple.
You are also right re: flash and hard drive players. My bad for never hearing of them. I never saw them in stores, saw them online, or read reviews about them. I only know about the 'big' players; Archos, Creative, Apple, iRiver, and Samsung.
I really did think Apple was the first to use the microdrive and 1.8" drive in mp3 players. I do believe they were the first to offer fast upload speeds (which makes a big difference!); my friend's Nomad took 2 hours to upload what my iPod took 5 minutes.
I'm not sure why you think a Mac mini is unusable; I've got an iBook with similar specs, and it does everything I need it to; make wedding DVDs, do presentations, slideshows, develop code, and play divx files. It's faster than my desktop system, of three years, and even that isn't unusable. I do find it hard to believe you got a 486 for $999, but I don't think I was quite the savvy shopper when I was 13. I probably just got shafted.
IE, when there is a profit incentive. By the time Dell jumps in, the market is already "mainstream".
Put another way: Before Apple's iPod, the big player was Creative Labs; mp3s were popular, but I don't think you can use the term 'mainstream'. Then after Apple jumped in, so did Dell.
So wait until Apple jumps in, and creates a really popular eBook reader/format, and you should be okay. It's way past okay when Dell jumps in.
Evidently so. I don't think your comment is particularly informative, insightful, or interesting.
Spare, clean OSes that don't try to do everything and be mediocre (Compare to the MP3 players that have FM tuners, replaceable batteries, and voice recorders)
Unless you actually WANT those features, then you're shit out of luck.
No, I think the point was, as I said, "and be mediocre". The iPod actually has access to ALL of those features through add-ons without altering the basic iPod design. There aren't any real standout multifunction mp3 players YET. I'm sure they will be designed, but there isn't even another standout mp3 player yet that is as good as the iPod (some are close, but they need to nail down the physical design, UI, and software, and I think they at most nail 2 out of 3)
Good software on said OSes (Compare to iTunes to all the other jukeboxes)
Unless you want to buy music from somewhere else (Napster, Wal-Mart, etc.) then you're shit out of luck.
Why the heck did you bring in MUSIC STORES? I didn't say, "Because the iPod is compatible with the iTMS". I said iTunes was the best jukebox, better than Sony's, Creative's, or iRiver's. Part of it is because it's free. I can't download and use the Sony, Creative, or iRiver jukebox, so I can't decide before I buy whether the product is any good. With iTunes I can/did, and knew exactly what to expect from my iPod.
Price competition forcing the #2 manufacturer to actually LOSE money to compete (Compare the fact that because Apple is cutting prices to maintain dominance, Creative is losing money to 'keep up')
I seriously doubt that you have access to either Creative or Apple's internal accounting. I wasn't able to find Q4 results on Apple's site, but according to Q3:
Sales for the first nine months of fiscal year 2005 were up 50 percent over the same period last year, at $919.0 million... For the third quarter, net income was $15.9 million http://www.creative.com/corporate/investor/release s.asp?pid=12078
Here you go. Right on Creative's website, "For the fourth quarter, net income was a loss of $31.9 million with EPS of a $0.38 loss per share"
Apple's pricing structure prevents Creative from charging enough to make a profit. Read the press release, and you'll see them say "We had set our targets higher for unit volume and average selling prices for our MP3 players than we achieved in the period."
They wanted to sell more and charge more. Apple stopped them.
If you do some math you'll see that Apple's business is far more profitable. Why I as a consumer should consider this a good thing is beyond me.
When did I say that?
Fast adoption of new technology (The iPod was the first with the 1.8" hd when everyone else was using 3.5" and 2.5" drive, the first to use CF drives when everyone else was using flash, and now the first to use flash when everyone else has adopted CF. The iPod was also first to use a fast serial connection.)
First to use flash? Methinks you are a little confused.
Look it up. They are the first to do 2gb and 4gb of flash. The biggest
What if the iPod is in a glovebox or backpack? Without those marks you need to grab the iPod before you can use it. With those marks you can use it without picking it up, assuming those marks are like the home row keyboard bumps or something.
Ive said "consciously find these details". That's fairly precise. He's hoping you will unconsciously or subconsciously find these details appealing.
The idea is that these details somehow convinced you to buy an iPod; it is irrelevant if you are skilled enough to notice these details consciously, and actually not all that conducive to using the product.
It's as if, in a well prepared dish, you were able to consciously pick out the individual flavors of each ingredient, when the idea is that each ingredient has been carefully blended and combined to form a whole.
Or if you want a more visual example, as if you could perceive each individual color in a fine painting; if you are looking at individual shades and pigments, then you aren't looking at the picture itself.
The iPod has lots of tiny little details that, in of themselves, should not be noticed except in the context of the whole device; like how the music stops if the headphones are unplugged, how the design of the case is carefully rounded so nothing gets snagged or caught in your pocket, how the scrollwheel is textured so you can feel for it in your pocket without sight.
That said, there are STILL little details they can do to improve the device; enhance the texture of the scroll wheel so you can easily tell left/right and up down. Perhaps this is possible by etching the icons for menu, left, right, and play/pause. Or they can engrave those icons, slightly, on the case itself so you can feel them without touching the scroll wheel.
So in a world of Apple, we have 80% Apple, 10% Creative, and 10% other.
To go with this, we'd also have: Spare, clean OSes that don't try to do everything and be mediocre (Compare to the MP3 players that have FM tuners, replaceable batteries, and voice recorders) Good software on said OSes (Compare to iTunes to all the other jukeboxes) Price competition forcing the #2 manufacturer to actually LOSE money to compete (Compare the fact that because Apple is cutting prices to maintain dominance, Creative is losing money to 'keep up')
So if Apple had captured the OS market, we'd be seeing: Well designed OSes (like the iPods) Fast adoption of new technology (The iPod was the first with the 1.8" hd when everyone else was using 3.5" and 2.5" drive, the first to use CF drives when everyone else was using flash, and now the first to use flash when everyone else has adopted CF. The iPod was also first to use a fast serial connection.) Computers people LOVE to use (like the iPods)
Wait... all those things are true NOW in Apple computers.
So the only difference is, with 80% dominance, is that 80% of the populace would be: Happy Using a well designed OS Using new technology
I don't know, for a long time OS X has been pretty much in development. The release model is different than Microsoft's. Apple releases APIs and libraries in one release, and then the next optimizes and refactors it in the next. Microsoft releases APIs and libraries as betas, continues to refactor and optimize, releases another beta, and then a release candidate, and then releases the OS after cutting a few features. It's happened with NT 4.0, Windows 2k, and now Windows Vista.
We all know that Vista will run, but with reduced features, on lower hardware. That has been publicly stated by Microsoft (their different' "experiences") We also know that this very thread is inspired because of comments from a Microsoft rep; Nigel Page. There is a probability that this is all fabrication, in which case these are false stats. On the other hand the reason I'm inclined to believe these statements is prior experience with NT, W2k, and WXP; Usable CPU, RAM, and HD requirements for all three have grown pretty fast, from 32mb RAM to 128mb to 512mb. Of course as the OS does more, it requires more. My Macs can't comfortably run on less than 256mb, and are much happier on 512mb, so they are perfectly on par with XP. If XP needs 512 to be happy now, I would expect Vista to easily need 1gb ram (I've pondered giving my Mac 1.5gb because there will be less swap and higher performance when I've got several applications going).
I don't know why you keep referring to Macs as toys; is it because you're incapable of using them productively? They're quite prevalent in developer circles, in the film industry, and in the graphics industries. Their strengths in these industries is productivity; better workflow, usability, and security. The CPUs may be underpowered, but other than that everything else is functionally the same as on a PC; same busses, devices, ports, interfaces, etc. The difference in the OS is that it doesn't get in the way of people (viruses, worms, security hassles, bad UI, bad design, etc).
Gravity appears to be a force proportional to the observed rest mass of an object, reliant upon current measurement technology, which of course is almost certain to change as we uncover more information in the future.
No, instead we say things like, "Gravity is proportional to the masses of the two objects in the gravitational relationship" or "Gravity has an inverse squared relationship" or "The rest mass of an ojbect..."
Get it? Science is authoritative exactly because it, and it's practitioners, know that newer discoveries will continue to overturn past knowledge. If science did not do so, then to speak authoritatively would be arrogance. Instead it is the only way things work!
If this recipe is wrong, then this statement gets forgotten, amended, or ridiculed. That's all there really is to it.
Actually, isn't it, "Everything Vista doesn't do everything it's promised to, and there is a good likelihood that everything it will do, so will OS X"?
Even if Vista isn't feature complete, you can compare what it does right now with what OS X does right now. Right now OS X does all it's graphical goodness with 32mb of vram, 256mb of ram, and 1.25GHz of CPU. Even allowing for some slack, Vista doesn't sound like it's going to be capable of running on a 2GHz system with 512mb of ram and 64mb of vram.
You can believe all you want that Macs and OS X aren't real computers, but there is no fundamental difference except that Apple's systems ship now, work now, and will work even better next year, while Microsoft's systems (as evinced from previous incarnations) barely work.
[blockquote]...i'd rather run osx and windows on one computer but i want to do it on open hardware. and seeing it's not in their business model to open up the system, as users keep reminding me, my only upgrade path is linux.
it isn't easy or economical for people to switch, even for the right reasons. [/blockquote]
Your last statement has little to do with the rest of your post.
Reasons why it is easy and economical for people to switch:
1) Hardware requirements that make Vista really unusable on existing systems. If it is true, then you have to buy a new PC anyway, so if the choice is between a PC powerful enough to run Vista, or a Mac that can also run the copy of Vista you just bought.
2) You have to upgrade because your system just can't run Vista, no contest. Your choice now is to buy a PC that can run Vista, or a Mac that can run both Vista and Mac OS X.
Of course it isn't guaranteed that a Mac will be able to run Vista; and if it can't, then the real issue is whether it will be cheaper to buy a Mac because you need a less powerful Mac to do the same things that Vista does; a dual 3GHz, 2GB, 256MB Vista machine, or a 2.3 GHz, 1GB, 64MB Mac.
Except we're talking about new systems in 2006/2007 We're talking about buying new systems.
Replacing capable hardware to install Vista just isn't a good idea. If you have to upgrade hardware to run Vista, you may as well consider OS X... and I suspect, in 2006/2007, Vista will be left behind in the wake of OS X.
What does #1, 2, and 3 have anything to do with the topic? I understand that those are pragmatic reasons, right now, not to buy a Mac...
But the issue, the entire premise, of the thread is how resource hungry Vista is, to do UI rendering, search, WinFS, etc.
If everything Vista does is possible now in OS X on a 1.33GHz system with 32mb VRAM and 512mb RAM, what will OS X be capable of in 2006/2007 with a 2GHz system, 2gb RAM, and 256mb VRAM?
Because I don't think it will "Run rings around OS X" if it doesn't run rings around OS X on last year's hardware... but we will see when Vista is released and people start upgrading on last year's hardware.
The reason this is bull is that Vista, due out in 2006/2007, will be performing similar operations to 2004/2005 Macs. If you put OS X on a Vista class system in 2006/2007, and compared to Vista, who would win?
Man, people are giving you a hard time for being ignorant. If you go into any CompUSA or Apple Store you'll see what a dock is and how it works. If it isn't a 1394 host, it's because Apple didn't want to QA and support any issues when someone connects their camcorder to upload DV and find that the entire iPod is dead.
Slashdot Mirror
My reasoning should be pretty clear:
An affluent population (such as the US) can afford a certain amount of luxury along with a certain amount of necessity. Cars are part luxury and part necessity (4 wheels is the necessity, but an SUV is a luxury).
Do you want another statistic to reinforce my logic?
3 TVs per 4 people.
So if we can afford 3 TVs per 4 people and 3 cars per 4 people, I think the MP3 player market can stabilize at 3 MP3 players per 4 people too.
My logic, if you aren't aware, is called correlation and induction; if two disparate markets such as TVs and automobiles have a proportion of 3 per 4 people, I am proposing that iPods/MP3 players will too.
Well, so you're saying a TV requires 34 buttons to control it?
I think if the US can support three cars per four people then saturation of the iPod market won't happen until we get 3 iPods per 4 people; with almost 300 million people, that means over 200 million iPods sold; since Apple is sold 6.5 million in the 4th quarter, and something like 6 million the quarter before, that means we have another 8 years at this rate, less if the sale rate increases.
Of course someone else might catch up; Sony has a good chance, and so does Creative. That still doesn't diminish Apple's sales of course, only reduces it's acceleration as any good MP3 player will grow the market, rather than steal it from another player.
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment; but the idea still holds.
My $999 laptop today is faster in all ways than my $1600 PC of two years ago, or my $2400 PC of 6 years ago, or my $3400 PC of 10 years ago.
All I mean to imply is that 'cheap' consumer digicams are still great for everyday use. The price difference between a "real" camera and a $250 digicam is that I can afford 3 digicams for that price and give them to different wedding guests to guarantee diversity and redundancy.
How elitist of you.
Would you say the same thing today about $600 computers as being toys and unfit for serious use?
There are places, even in a professional's repertoire, where a point&shoot make sense; where expensive cameras are too bulky, complicated, and intimidating to use. Things like a Yashica T4/T5 or a Olympus Stylus, for example.
Digital cameras in the $250 range can fill a similar role, with additional benefits and additional drawbacks. They don't take pictures as fast as film cameras, but they have greater capacity (I can take hundreds of pictures on a charge without swapping film or batteries).
I can't be the only person who's $129 PS2 is the best DVD player in the household.
If there are any compelling PS3 games (FF 7?) and Blu-Ray movies (Harry Potter?), I'm sure the PS3 will sell fine
Totally irrelevant. If you pay off all your bills, you avoid bill collectors. If you avoid having large unpayable bills, you also avoid bill collectors.
If you don't have enough money to buy happiness, spend less and be happier with what you have, right?
I think you mean a bio-diesel hybrid electric would be damn near perfect.
No sulfur, very clean, biodegradable fuel AND higher mileage.
Wear are you hereing this?
Besides, isn't it IBM with the Ultra sLow Power Chips?
Apple's Q3 report is the same as Creative's Q4, if that's what you're looking for. They filed their Q3 report on July 13. Their Q4 isn't until October 11th or so. Apple claims this was their best quarter in all of their history, propelled by sales of both iPods and Macs.
:) Seriously, they have five similar models that go up against the regular iPod: Zen, Zen Neeon, Zen Sleek, Zen Touch, and the Zen Xtra.
"Apple shipped 1,182,000 Macintosh® units and 6,155,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 35 percent growth in Macs and 616 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter."
They say they had 75% revenue growth and 425% profit growth over this same period last year. You are also right, there's no clear causation on why Creative lost money, but it is definitely stated on their own press release that, "Even though we increased overall revenues 50 percent year-over-year, the lower-than-expected selling prices for MP3 players and the inventory write downs negatively impacted gross margins in the period."
We can't expect them to say, "Apple lowered prices faster than we could sell", but given that Apple is the current market leader I think it's reasonable to make a few assumptions:
As market leader, they dictate the average selling price of mp3 players. A more expensive player has to have more features and be clearly superior to a consumer; a similar player has to be cooler or cheaper to attract a consumer's eye. This is of course an exaggeration, but I do think it's reasonable.
I also believe Creative's management goofed up; they have displayed on their homepage 20 mp3 players arrayed against Apple's 3. Good luck trying to decide which one is the right one for you
I do concede though that this is just speculation, that Apple is the reason that Creative is doing poorly, but I think it isn't unfounded. Unfounded speculation would be that it is because of SCO's involvement with Linux, and Microsoft's involvement with SCO, and therefore distracting their attention from the MP3 market, that is affecting Creative's ability to compete with Apple.
You are also right re: flash and hard drive players. My bad for never hearing of them. I never saw them in stores, saw them online, or read reviews about them. I only know about the 'big' players; Archos, Creative, Apple, iRiver, and Samsung.
I really did think Apple was the first to use the microdrive and 1.8" drive in mp3 players. I do believe they were the first to offer fast upload speeds (which makes a big difference!); my friend's Nomad took 2 hours to upload what my iPod took 5 minutes.
I'm not sure why you think a Mac mini is unusable; I've got an iBook with similar specs, and it does everything I need it to; make wedding DVDs, do presentations, slideshows, develop code, and play divx files. It's faster than my desktop system, of three years, and even that isn't unusable. I do find it hard to believe you got a 486 for $999, but I don't think I was quite the savvy shopper when I was 13. I probably just got shafted.
Probably when Apple jumps into the market.
IE, when there is a profit incentive. By the time Dell jumps in, the market is already "mainstream".
Put another way: Before Apple's iPod, the big player was Creative Labs; mp3s were popular, but I don't think you can use the term 'mainstream'. Then after Apple jumped in, so did Dell.
So wait until Apple jumps in, and creates a really popular eBook reader/format, and you should be okay. It's way past okay when Dell jumps in.
Evidently so. I don't think your comment is particularly informative, insightful, or interesting.
No, I think the point was, as I said, "and be mediocre". The iPod actually has access to ALL of those features through add-ons without altering the basic iPod design. There aren't any real standout multifunction mp3 players YET. I'm sure they will be designed, but there isn't even another standout mp3 player yet that is as good as the iPod (some are close, but they need to nail down the physical design, UI, and software, and I think they at most nail 2 out of 3)
Why the heck did you bring in MUSIC STORES? I didn't say, "Because the iPod is compatible with the iTMS". I said iTunes was the best jukebox, better than Sony's, Creative's, or iRiver's. Part of it is because it's free. I can't download and use the Sony, Creative, or iRiver jukebox, so I can't decide before I buy whether the product is any good. With iTunes I can/did, and knew exactly what to expect from my iPod.
You are out of the loop. Unless of course you don't think Creative is number 2?
Here you go. Right on Creative's website, "For the fourth quarter, net income was a loss of $31.9 million with EPS of a $0.38 loss per share"
Apple's pricing structure prevents Creative from charging enough to make a profit. Read the press release, and you'll see them say "We had set our targets higher for unit volume and average selling prices for our MP3 players than we achieved in the period."
They wanted to sell more and charge more. Apple stopped them.
When did I say that?
Look it up. They are the first to do 2gb and 4gb of flash. The biggest
That's only true if you have it in your hand.
What if the iPod is in a glovebox or backpack? Without those marks you need to grab the iPod before you can use it. With those marks you can use it without picking it up, assuming those marks are like the home row keyboard bumps or something.
Ive said "consciously find these details". That's fairly precise. He's hoping you will unconsciously or subconsciously find these details appealing.
The idea is that these details somehow convinced you to buy an iPod; it is irrelevant if you are skilled enough to notice these details consciously, and actually not all that conducive to using the product.
It's as if, in a well prepared dish, you were able to consciously pick out the individual flavors of each ingredient, when the idea is that each ingredient has been carefully blended and combined to form a whole.
Or if you want a more visual example, as if you could perceive each individual color in a fine painting; if you are looking at individual shades and pigments, then you aren't looking at the picture itself.
The iPod has lots of tiny little details that, in of themselves, should not be noticed except in the context of the whole device; like how the music stops if the headphones are unplugged, how the design of the case is carefully rounded so nothing gets snagged or caught in your pocket, how the scrollwheel is textured so you can feel for it in your pocket without sight.
That said, there are STILL little details they can do to improve the device; enhance the texture of the scroll wheel so you can easily tell left/right and up down. Perhaps this is possible by etching the icons for menu, left, right, and play/pause. Or they can engrave those icons, slightly, on the case itself so you can feel them without touching the scroll wheel.
So in a world of Apple, we have 80% Apple, 10% Creative, and 10% other.
To go with this, we'd also have:
Spare, clean OSes that don't try to do everything and be mediocre
(Compare to the MP3 players that have FM tuners, replaceable batteries, and voice recorders)
Good software on said OSes
(Compare to iTunes to all the other jukeboxes)
Price competition forcing the #2 manufacturer to actually LOSE money to compete
(Compare the fact that because Apple is cutting prices to maintain dominance, Creative is losing money to 'keep up')
So if Apple had captured the OS market, we'd be seeing:
Well designed OSes (like the iPods)
Fast adoption of new technology (The iPod was the first with the 1.8" hd when everyone else was using 3.5" and 2.5" drive, the first to use CF drives when everyone else was using flash, and now the first to use flash when everyone else has adopted CF. The iPod was also first to use a fast serial connection.)
Computers people LOVE to use (like the iPods)
Wait... all those things are true NOW in Apple computers.
So the only difference is, with 80% dominance, is that 80% of the populace would be:
Happy
Using a well designed OS
Using new technology
Instead of only 5% of the population.
I don't know, for a long time OS X has been pretty much in development. The release model is different than Microsoft's. Apple releases APIs and libraries in one release, and then the next optimizes and refactors it in the next. Microsoft releases APIs and libraries as betas, continues to refactor and optimize, releases another beta, and then a release candidate, and then releases the OS after cutting a few features. It's happened with NT 4.0, Windows 2k, and now Windows Vista.
We all know that Vista will run, but with reduced features, on lower hardware. That has been publicly stated by Microsoft (their different' "experiences") We also know that this very thread is inspired because of comments from a Microsoft rep; Nigel Page. There is a probability that this is all fabrication, in which case these are false stats. On the other hand the reason I'm inclined to believe these statements is prior experience with NT, W2k, and WXP; Usable CPU, RAM, and HD requirements for all three have grown pretty fast, from 32mb RAM to 128mb to 512mb. Of course as the OS does more, it requires more. My Macs can't comfortably run on less than 256mb, and are much happier on 512mb, so they are perfectly on par with XP. If XP needs 512 to be happy now, I would expect Vista to easily need 1gb ram (I've pondered giving my Mac 1.5gb because there will be less swap and higher performance when I've got several applications going).
I don't know why you keep referring to Macs as toys; is it because you're incapable of using them productively? They're quite prevalent in developer circles, in the film industry, and in the graphics industries. Their strengths in these industries is productivity; better workflow, usability, and security. The CPUs may be underpowered, but other than that everything else is functionally the same as on a PC; same busses, devices, ports, interfaces, etc. The difference in the OS is that it doesn't get in the way of people (viruses, worms, security hassles, bad UI, bad design, etc).
Gravity appears to be a force proportional to the observed rest mass of an object, reliant upon current measurement technology, which of course is almost certain to change as we uncover more information in the future.
No, instead we say things like, "Gravity is proportional to the masses of the two objects in the gravitational relationship" or "Gravity has an inverse squared relationship" or "The rest mass of an ojbect..."
Get it? Science is authoritative exactly because it, and it's practitioners, know that newer discoveries will continue to overturn past knowledge. If science did not do so, then to speak authoritatively would be arrogance. Instead it is the only way things work!
If this recipe is wrong, then this statement gets forgotten, amended, or ridiculed. That's all there really is to it.
Actually, isn't it, "Everything Vista doesn't do everything it's promised to, and there is a good likelihood that everything it will do, so will OS X"?
Even if Vista isn't feature complete, you can compare what it does right now with what OS X does right now. Right now OS X does all it's graphical goodness with 32mb of vram, 256mb of ram, and 1.25GHz of CPU. Even allowing for some slack, Vista doesn't sound like it's going to be capable of running on a 2GHz system with 512mb of ram and 64mb of vram.
You can believe all you want that Macs and OS X aren't real computers, but there is no fundamental difference except that Apple's systems ship now, work now, and will work even better next year, while Microsoft's systems (as evinced from previous incarnations) barely work.
[blockquote]...i'd rather run osx and windows on one computer but i want to do it on open hardware. and seeing it's not in their business model to open up the system, as users keep reminding me, my only upgrade path is linux.
it isn't easy or economical for people to switch, even for the right reasons. [/blockquote]
Your last statement has little to do with the rest of your post.
Reasons why it is easy and economical for people to switch:
1) Hardware requirements that make Vista really unusable on existing systems. If it is true, then you have to buy a new PC anyway, so if the choice is between a PC powerful enough to run Vista, or a Mac that can also run the copy of Vista you just bought.
2) You have to upgrade because your system just can't run Vista, no contest. Your choice now is to buy a PC that can run Vista, or a Mac that can run both Vista and Mac OS X.
Of course it isn't guaranteed that a Mac will be able to run Vista; and if it can't, then the real issue is whether it will be cheaper to buy a Mac because you need a less powerful Mac to do the same things that Vista does; a dual 3GHz, 2GB, 256MB Vista machine, or a 2.3 GHz, 1GB, 64MB Mac.
Except we're talking about new systems in 2006/2007
We're talking about buying new systems.
Replacing capable hardware to install Vista just isn't a good idea. If you have to upgrade hardware to run Vista, you may as well consider OS X... and I suspect, in 2006/2007, Vista will be left behind in the wake of OS X.
What does #1, 2, and 3 have anything to do with the topic? I understand that those are pragmatic reasons, right now, not to buy a Mac...
But the issue, the entire premise, of the thread is how resource hungry Vista is, to do UI rendering, search, WinFS, etc.
If everything Vista does is possible now in OS X on a 1.33GHz system with 32mb VRAM and 512mb RAM, what will OS X be capable of in 2006/2007 with a 2GHz system, 2gb RAM, and 256mb VRAM?
Because I don't think it will "Run rings around OS X" if it doesn't run rings around OS X on last year's hardware... but we will see when Vista is released and people start upgrading on last year's hardware.
The reason this is bull is that Vista, due out in 2006/2007, will be performing similar operations to 2004/2005 Macs. If you put OS X on a Vista class system in 2006/2007, and compared to Vista, who would win?
Funny, guys seem to go crazy for pretty girls and pretty cars.
Girls seem to go crazy for pretty boys, pretty clothes, and pretty cars.
Flash is expensive.
Microdrives are expensive.
If you want 4gb of flash or 6gb if microdrive, the iPod is one of the CHEAPEST ways to do so. Always have, as far as I can tell.
Man, people are giving you a hard time for being ignorant. If you go into any CompUSA or Apple Store you'll see what a dock is and how it works. If it isn't a 1394 host, it's because Apple didn't want to QA and support any issues when someone connects their camcorder to upload DV and find that the entire iPod is dead.