When the drink vendor has arranged to be the ONLY vendor in town and that no restaurant in town may sell a meal without a drink AND prints a legally binding written offer for a full refund on the cup.
Your analogy falls apart because it is trivial to buy a computer without Windows.
Compaq had to reverse-engineer the BIOS to make a functionally identical copy without copying the code itself. The BIOS itself was fully documented, there were even full listings of the code available.
Surely if it were an "open" platform, they could just reimplement the "open" specifications without having to resort to black-box reverse-engineering ? By that measure, something like Word's.doc format is "open".
IBM's "disapproval" of cloning is a fairly well accepted aspect of PC history. I'm not sure why anyone is trying to rewrite it. Presumably it's because IBM is now considered one of the "good guys" since they started using Linux for some things, and the anti-Microsoft crowd feels it necessary to whitewash anything IBM once did (or still does) that they might have disagreed with (like, say, exactly the same stuff Microsoft or any other large company does all the time).
(I have no idea how you'll trying to fit IBM's subsequent attempt to close up the PC completely with the PS/2 into your worldview, but it should be pretty funny to watch.)
As for the implications of a cartoon: those are your responsibility. The rest of the world is content with what is actually written.
Ah, so it's like Microsoft putting up a cartoon showing how if you compile some of you source code with gcc, or include a binary of it with a Linux distribution, you have to GPL your work ?
The Yorktown: explain to me how it is not the fault of the Operating System that the entire system goes down for one misbehaving application?
But the OS didn't go down (or, at least, there is no evidence of that). The application controlling the ship (or probably just some part of it) did.
Microsoft weenies may be used to that, but the rest of the world has higher standards, you know.
Anti-Microsoft zealots might be used to assuming whenever something goes wrong on a Windows machine it is Microsoft's fault, but the rest of the world likes to apply those critical thinking skills they learn in Primary School, you know.
Explain to me how the DRM subsystems don't get activated for unprotected content. Here's a hint: how do you determine whether or not something is protected content? Magic?!
Because the player application triggers the content protection when it is playing DRM-encumbered content. You can call it "magic" if that's the only way you are able to comprehend it, but the simple fact is that is how it was designed to work:
Windows Vista's content protection mechanisms are only used when required by the policy associated with the content being played. For Windows Vista experiences, if the content does not require a particular protection, then that protection mechanism is not used.
Again, it is so stupidly trivial to demonstrate that Vista's DRM restrictions don't impact unprotected media, you'd have to be an idiot to argue otherwise.
Really, do you Microserfs think the rest of the world is stupid?
When it comes to Vista DRM (and, indeed, Vista in general), most of Slashdot certainly has a major case of teh st00pids. (Of course, on one of the web's premier anti-Microsoft sites, that's to be expected.)
IBM did make the PC architecture open. It was a side effect of the PC being built from off-the-shelf components, but the architecture was open nonetheless.
That's why Compaq had to reverse-engineer the BIOS ? Because it was "open" ?
The cartoon is a joke for fuck's sake.
The implication, however, is not, and it exhibits an apparent misunderstanding about how the system is designed.
And are you denying that a divide-by-zero error in an application disabled the shipboard systems, which were running NT, on the Yoktown?
No, but the blame wasn't being aimed at an app, it was about Windows NT.
Fundamentally, the point remains the same: in order to please the content companies, Microsoft crippled functionality (no digital S/PDIF out), and put resource-gobbling crypto in all content playback. You cannot deny that, as even Microsoft acknowledges this as design goals for Vista.
Sure I can, because it's not true. If you're not playing back DRM-encumbered content, none of those things happen.
And even DRM-free content has to pass through the new subsystems, to validate that it does not have protections. That means all content runs through the DRM subsystems. There is no way around that without invoking magic.
The DRM subsystems are only activated when the application indicates it is playing protected content. That's how it's supposed to work and that is certainly how it appears to work. Again, it is so trivial to verify that the DRM restrictions in Vista aren't "always on", that the only people who try to argue otherwise are liars and idiots (eg: analogue VGA and SPDIF can output a ripped HD movie fine).
BTW, what do you corporate masters think of you using a gmail account?
The newer slideshow [cypherpunks.to] addresses much the same issues, without the minor holes the MS astroturfers can use to misdirect attention away from the main points.
Although even this one is still full of half-truths ("25 years ago, IBM made the momentous decision to make their architecture open"), FUD ("Mr Johnson, that fuzzy region on your X-ray [...]") and outright falsehoods ("In September 1997, Windows NT disabled the Aegis
missile cruiser USS Yorktown"), not to mention the false premise that the whole paper is built on (that Microsoft is the one deciding when and where the DRM kicks in).
No matter how many times you shoot the messenger, you won't change the message. Studios are going to continue to crack down via DRM, regardless of whether the people watching are the tiny proportion using PCs, or the vast majority using commodity made-in-China appliances.
You will not get rid of DRM by attacking Microsoft. They're a bit player in the content playback market. The vast, vast majority of people consume their media through standalone appliances.
Fundamentally, the point remains the same. If you don't like DRM, avoid DRM-encumbered content (and, if you're particularly paranoid, DRM-capable hardware).
I ask because the eula and only that prevent me to make copy of the software, and the eula states that I could have windows refounded no question asked at full retail price (if the price is not stated in the spec of the pc - but if it was stated, then I would bought the same pc without windows asking for a discount in the first place).
The Windows EULA says you are entitled to a "full refund" [obviously of what you paid], not a refund of the retail price.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of buying a McDonald's meal, then taking the drink back for a refund of its standalone price.
Car makers make and sell their own motors. There is no market for putting another car maker's motor in another's car.
Some car enthusiasts would disagree (to say nothing of outsourced and/or licensed manufacturing - which is, for all intents and purposes, what Microsoft is doing for OEMs).
well, you should have refound for the full face prize, not for the real oem cost.
No, you shouldn't. Really, you shouldn't have any refund at all, since you should have just a) bought a computer that didn't come with Windows or b) sucked it up like you do every other time you buy a product that isn't exactly, perfectly what you want.
Do you really really think that this is charity?
I think it's standard business practice that every company, everywhere, engages in. You think a Big Mac costs the same all over the world ?
as a matter of comparison, your thinking also lead that if you buy a defective 1000$ intel cpu, and you seek for a refound, then the retailer should give you back not the price you paid for it, but the price the retailed paid to the dealer, with his high-volume ordering discount.
Your "comparison" is incredibly broken, because the customer *doesn't* pay the full retail price of Windows, or anything close to it. The OEM doesn't pay an OEM price for Windows then sell it on to the customer at full retail.
Oh, so you don't really understand Darwinism. Unless you get heart disease or have a stroke before you hit sexual maturity, this is irrelevant. For almost everyone--even the obese--health complications don't get extreme enough to kill you with a high statistical probability until you're well past your sexual prime, and getting there is all that Darwinism cares about.
Whether or not you reach "sexual maturity" is immaterial. You need to actually *breed* before you've escaped being Darwinated.
I'd love Windows to automatically fail the problem file while continuing to try to copy/move the remaining files, then present you with some kind of error report at the end saying "These files couldn't be copied for [reason]."
Well you may (or may not;) be happy to know they've fixed that in Vista.
Of course, I can think of a bunch of counter-examples in Windows where something was important *to me* and mattered *to me* and no one at Microsoft saw fit to do anything about it for decades.
The iPod does everything the laptop does, plus it is a) smaller b) better battery life c) costs another $200.00.
But it doesn't because, as you note, an iPod is _smaller_. This is a fairly important criteria for something to carry your music around on (to say nothing of how much easier it is to control "on the go").
Further, there's no real disadvantage to having both a computer (be it a laptop or desktop) and an iPod. The same cannot be said for multiple computers, where one must synchronise data between the two (yes, I know there are tools to do this, but none of them are as trivially simple to setup and use - not to mention as reliable - as an iPod sync is).
What is interesting, is that in your book, better hardware is coming. Microsofts definition of UMPC is going to hurt that. There will be a period of time where the $400.00 will be more powerful than what MS will allow XP to go on, but still not powerful enough to run VISTA. As in, dual core, but not enough RAM at $400 or enough ram but to slow of a CPU.
Microsoft's hardware limits were (from memory), a ~1Ghz single-core processor and 1G RAM. There's not a lot of middle ground between that and a ~1.4Ghz dual-core and 2G RAM, which will run Vista fine.
Some company that does not sell PC's but does mass produce consumer electronics could come along. Make bunches (maybe for China) of low cost hardware with the 10 inch dipslay, more RAM but a sub 1ghz CPU. Drop a slightly customized Ubuntu on there and really try to sell it.
But then you end up with the same multiple computers problem. So you can spend (say) $250-$300 on a machine that you need to supplement with some other box (another $500-$600) and will only get "part time" use out of, or you can spend maybe $600-$700 (UMPC + "Dock" + monitor/keyboard/mouse) for a *single machine* that does everything you need to do. The latter is an easy choice.
Further, even if these low-end, cheap UMPCs appear, they are going to have some serious competition from iPhone-like mobile phones and PDAs, which genuinely will come close to doing everything the average person might use a low-end UMPC for (basically, web browsing and email).
I just can't see these super-cheap, low-end UMPCs (in the $200 - $300 price bracket you're talking about being anything except toys for a) geeks and b) rich people's children. There's just not a suitably large hole in the market spectrum of iPhones (and equivalents), PDAs, "medium UMPCs" (dual-core, 2G RAM models) and "real" laptops. This is not to say that a market doesn't exist, merely that's it's not going to be like "printing money".
How so? Assuming I believed everything is in my mind, the someone who isn't me is also only in my mind.
You are not everyone. Third parties can verify the existence of something outside your mind. You may choose to believe they don't exist, or are wrong, or whatever else, but that doesn't change that people independent of your mind are able to perceive something.
Think of it as being like the difference between copying a program by copying the source code, or by doing a clean-room reverse-engineer and reimplementation.
As a vegetarian, I should say this is the sort of thinking that enables non-vegetarians to justify their desire for meat, even when their 'consciousness' raises questions about needless violence.
Killing an animal for food isn't "needless violence".
(Now, if you were talking about trophy hunting, you might have a point.)
I can't follow you at all. Believing that stuff can exist outside of our minds seems to me to not at all more crazy than thinking that all that exists is our mind. Both are basically axioms.
Whether something exists outside your mind can be verified by someone who isn't you.
I base my core assumption on pure reason. Can you agree that your thoughts are the most real thing in this universe?
No, not in the slightest. Indeed, I would consider my thoughts to be one of the least real "things in this universe". Intangible, unmeasurable, unobservable, unrepeatable. They're about as far from "real" as you can get.
Why limit yourself to the old painful way Microsoft and Apple do things when technology is being innovated over here in Linux/UNIX land?
The only things package managers are "innovating" are workarounds for the self-created problem of dependency hell - and all it takes is one missing dependency, or one broken package, for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.
However, four years ago Dell pushed the low end on a PC from $600.00 to $500.00. It is now down to $350 (without a monitor). Which puts it in the $450-$475 range. The hold up on the price drop right now is flat panels are not moving below $125.00.
My point exactly. In four years, the price has dropped ~40%. However, the power (/disk space, etc) has increased by a factor of ~5x.
An iPod does everything a laptop does.
Say what ? An iPod has barely a fraction the functionality of even a barebones laptop like the Eee (with that said, there are things it does better, like portability).
I will either be right and sending my daughter off to college with a UMPC for under $300.00. Or she gets a $500 laptop and I swear to her that I will kick her butt if she breaks it.
I predict you'll see the kind of $300 machines you're talking about around the beginning of 2010 (and by then they'll be dual-cores with 2-4G of RAM as well).
First, go to the Dell web site and spec out a machine like the 8 core MacPro 3.2GHz. Apple Retail = $4,399. Dell T7400 = $6,338. (Don't forget the 512MB GeForce 8800 equivalent). Does the Dell have two independent 1.6 GHz busses or just one? I can't tell from the specs. The Mac Pro has two.
They have the same motherboard chipset (as does the cheaper T5400), so almost certainly yes (although the exact slot configuration might be different).
Once you account for the workstation-level graphics card and better warranty, the Dell Precisions and Mac Pros are essentially worth the same. Swings and roundabouts.
The Dell is a rat's nest.
I find that hard to believe. I haven't seen inside the specific model you're talking about, but even our regular old GX2xx machines have sliding drive brackets, pre-run, managed cabling, and are far from "rat's nests" - so I can't imagine a high-end Precision workstation is any less well made.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the wrong question. Those are all tie-ins, just not necessarily illegal ones.
Then, who decides it is an illegal tie-in, and how is this determined beforehand ?
Kinda sucks when you can't know if you've broken the law until after you're found guilty, no ?
The court based on the laws?
Kinda sucks that you can't know if you've broken the law until after you've been found guilty, no ?
When the drink vendor has arranged to be the ONLY vendor in town and that no restaurant in town may sell a meal without a drink AND prints a legally binding written offer for a full refund on the cup.
Your analogy falls apart because it is trivial to buy a computer without Windows.
Compaq had to reverse-engineer the BIOS to make a functionally identical copy without copying the code itself. The BIOS itself was fully documented, there were even full listings of the code available.
Surely if it were an "open" platform, they could just reimplement the "open" specifications without having to resort to black-box reverse-engineering ? By that measure, something like Word's .doc format is "open".
IBM's "disapproval" of cloning is a fairly well accepted aspect of PC history. I'm not sure why anyone is trying to rewrite it. Presumably it's because IBM is now considered one of the "good guys" since they started using Linux for some things, and the anti-Microsoft crowd feels it necessary to whitewash anything IBM once did (or still does) that they might have disagreed with (like, say, exactly the same stuff Microsoft or any other large company does all the time).
(I have no idea how you'll trying to fit IBM's subsequent attempt to close up the PC completely with the PS/2 into your worldview, but it should be pretty funny to watch.)
As for the implications of a cartoon: those are your responsibility. The rest of the world is content with what is actually written.
Ah, so it's like Microsoft putting up a cartoon showing how if you compile some of you source code with gcc, or include a binary of it with a Linux distribution, you have to GPL your work ?
The Yorktown: explain to me how it is not the fault of the Operating System that the entire system goes down for one misbehaving application?
But the OS didn't go down (or, at least, there is no evidence of that). The application controlling the ship (or probably just some part of it) did.
Microsoft weenies may be used to that, but the rest of the world has higher standards, you know.
Anti-Microsoft zealots might be used to assuming whenever something goes wrong on a Windows machine it is Microsoft's fault, but the rest of the world likes to apply those critical thinking skills they learn in Primary School, you know.
Explain to me how the DRM subsystems don't get activated for unprotected content. Here's a hint: how do you determine whether or not something is protected content? Magic?!
Because the player application triggers the content protection when it is playing DRM-encumbered content. You can call it "magic" if that's the only way you are able to comprehend it, but the simple fact is that is how it was designed to work:
Windows Vista's content protection mechanisms are only used when required by the policy associated with the content being played. For Windows Vista experiences, if the content does not require a particular protection, then that protection mechanism is not used.Again, it is so stupidly trivial to demonstrate that Vista's DRM restrictions don't impact unprotected media, you'd have to be an idiot to argue otherwise.
Really, do you Microserfs think the rest of the world is stupid?
When it comes to Vista DRM (and, indeed, Vista in general), most of Slashdot certainly has a major case of teh st00pids. (Of course, on one of the web's premier anti-Microsoft sites, that's to be expected.)
IBM did make the PC architecture open. It was a side effect of the PC being built from off-the-shelf components, but the architecture was open nonetheless.
That's why Compaq had to reverse-engineer the BIOS ? Because it was "open" ?
The cartoon is a joke for fuck's sake.
The implication, however, is not, and it exhibits an apparent misunderstanding about how the system is designed.
And are you denying that a divide-by-zero error in an application disabled the shipboard systems, which were running NT, on the Yoktown?
No, but the blame wasn't being aimed at an app, it was about Windows NT.
Fundamentally, the point remains the same: in order to please the content companies, Microsoft crippled functionality (no digital S/PDIF out), and put resource-gobbling crypto in all content playback. You cannot deny that, as even Microsoft acknowledges this as design goals for Vista.
Sure I can, because it's not true. If you're not playing back DRM-encumbered content, none of those things happen.
And even DRM-free content has to pass through the new subsystems, to validate that it does not have protections. That means all content runs through the DRM subsystems. There is no way around that without invoking magic.
The DRM subsystems are only activated when the application indicates it is playing protected content. That's how it's supposed to work and that is certainly how it appears to work. Again, it is so trivial to verify that the DRM restrictions in Vista aren't "always on", that the only people who try to argue otherwise are liars and idiots (eg: analogue VGA and SPDIF can output a ripped HD movie fine).
BTW, what do you corporate masters think of you using a gmail account?
Aks yo mama.
The newer slideshow [cypherpunks.to] addresses much the same issues, without the minor holes the MS astroturfers can use to misdirect attention away from the main points.
Although even this one is still full of half-truths ("25 years ago, IBM made the momentous decision to make their architecture open"), FUD ("Mr Johnson, that fuzzy region on your X-ray [...]") and outright falsehoods ("In September 1997, Windows NT disabled the Aegis missile cruiser USS Yorktown"), not to mention the false premise that the whole paper is built on (that Microsoft is the one deciding when and where the DRM kicks in).
No matter how many times you shoot the messenger, you won't change the message. Studios are going to continue to crack down via DRM, regardless of whether the people watching are the tiny proportion using PCs, or the vast majority using commodity made-in-China appliances.
You will not get rid of DRM by attacking Microsoft. They're a bit player in the content playback market. The vast, vast majority of people consume their media through standalone appliances.
Fundamentally, the point remains the same. If you don't like DRM, avoid DRM-encumbered content (and, if you're particularly paranoid, DRM-capable hardware).
I ask because the eula and only that prevent me to make copy of the software, and the eula states that I could have windows refounded no question asked at full retail price (if the price is not stated in the spec of the pc - but if it was stated, then I would bought the same pc without windows asking for a discount in the first place).
The Windows EULA says you are entitled to a "full refund" [obviously of what you paid], not a refund of the retail price.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of buying a McDonald's meal, then taking the drink back for a refund of its standalone price.
Car makers make and sell their own motors. There is no market for putting another car maker's motor in another's car.
Some car enthusiasts would disagree (to say nothing of outsourced and/or licensed manufacturing - which is, for all intents and purposes, what Microsoft is doing for OEMs).
If I wanted an ASUS Computer, I should be able to buy JUST THAT.
What if ASUS doesn't want to sell it to you without an OS ?
The law explictly, specifically, prohibits tie-ins. It's the fucking law.
Who decides what is a "tie-in" and what is simply a component of a whole product ? Is an engine "tied-in" to a car ? How about leather seats ?
well, you should have refound for the full face prize, not for the real oem cost.
No, you shouldn't. Really, you shouldn't have any refund at all, since you should have just a) bought a computer that didn't come with Windows or b) sucked it up like you do every other time you buy a product that isn't exactly, perfectly what you want.
Do you really really think that this is charity?
I think it's standard business practice that every company, everywhere, engages in. You think a Big Mac costs the same all over the world ?
as a matter of comparison, your thinking also lead that if you buy a defective 1000$ intel cpu, and you seek for a refound, then the retailer should give you back not the price you paid for it, but the price the retailed paid to the dealer, with his high-volume ordering discount.
Your "comparison" is incredibly broken, because the customer *doesn't* pay the full retail price of Windows, or anything close to it. The OEM doesn't pay an OEM price for Windows then sell it on to the customer at full retail.
Not really its exactly what happens under windows [...]
In fact, it's exactly what happens under pretty much every OS _except_ Linux.
Oh, so you don't really understand Darwinism. Unless you get heart disease or have a stroke before you hit sexual maturity, this is irrelevant. For almost everyone--even the obese--health complications don't get extreme enough to kill you with a high statistical probability until you're well past your sexual prime, and getting there is all that Darwinism cares about.
Whether or not you reach "sexual maturity" is immaterial. You need to actually *breed* before you've escaped being Darwinated.
I'd love Windows to automatically fail the problem file while continuing to try to copy/move the remaining files, then present you with some kind of error report at the end saying "These files couldn't be copied for [reason]."
Well you may (or may not ;) be happy to know they've fixed that in Vista.
(Good example though.)
Of course, I can think of a bunch of counter-examples in Windows where something was important *to me* and mattered *to me* and no one at Microsoft saw fit to do anything about it for decades.
For example ?
The iPod does everything the laptop does, plus it is a) smaller b) better battery life c) costs another $200.00.
But it doesn't because, as you note, an iPod is _smaller_. This is a fairly important criteria for something to carry your music around on (to say nothing of how much easier it is to control "on the go").
Further, there's no real disadvantage to having both a computer (be it a laptop or desktop) and an iPod. The same cannot be said for multiple computers, where one must synchronise data between the two (yes, I know there are tools to do this, but none of them are as trivially simple to setup and use - not to mention as reliable - as an iPod sync is).
What is interesting, is that in your book, better hardware is coming. Microsofts definition of UMPC is going to hurt that. There will be a period of time where the $400.00 will be more powerful than what MS will allow XP to go on, but still not powerful enough to run VISTA. As in, dual core, but not enough RAM at $400 or enough ram but to slow of a CPU.
Microsoft's hardware limits were (from memory), a ~1Ghz single-core processor and 1G RAM. There's not a lot of middle ground between that and a ~1.4Ghz dual-core and 2G RAM, which will run Vista fine.
Some company that does not sell PC's but does mass produce consumer electronics could come along. Make bunches (maybe for China) of low cost hardware with the 10 inch dipslay, more RAM but a sub 1ghz CPU. Drop a slightly customized Ubuntu on there and really try to sell it.
But then you end up with the same multiple computers problem. So you can spend (say) $250-$300 on a machine that you need to supplement with some other box (another $500-$600) and will only get "part time" use out of, or you can spend maybe $600-$700 (UMPC + "Dock" + monitor/keyboard/mouse) for a *single machine* that does everything you need to do. The latter is an easy choice.
Further, even if these low-end, cheap UMPCs appear, they are going to have some serious competition from iPhone-like mobile phones and PDAs, which genuinely will come close to doing everything the average person might use a low-end UMPC for (basically, web browsing and email).
I just can't see these super-cheap, low-end UMPCs (in the $200 - $300 price bracket you're talking about being anything except toys for a) geeks and b) rich people's children. There's just not a suitably large hole in the market spectrum of iPhones (and equivalents), PDAs, "medium UMPCs" (dual-core, 2G RAM models) and "real" laptops. This is not to say that a market doesn't exist, merely that's it's not going to be like "printing money".
How so? Assuming I believed everything is in my mind, the someone who isn't me is also only in my mind.
You are not everyone. Third parties can verify the existence of something outside your mind. You may choose to believe they don't exist, or are wrong, or whatever else, but that doesn't change that people independent of your mind are able to perceive something.
Think of it as being like the difference between copying a program by copying the source code, or by doing a clean-room reverse-engineer and reimplementation.
As a vegetarian, I should say this is the sort of thinking that enables non-vegetarians to justify their desire for meat, even when their 'consciousness' raises questions about needless violence.
Killing an animal for food isn't "needless violence".
(Now, if you were talking about trophy hunting, you might have a point.)
I can't follow you at all. Believing that stuff can exist outside of our minds seems to me to not at all more crazy than thinking that all that exists is our mind. Both are basically axioms.
Whether something exists outside your mind can be verified by someone who isn't you.
I base my core assumption on pure reason. Can you agree that your thoughts are the most real thing in this universe?
No, not in the slightest. Indeed, I would consider my thoughts to be one of the least real "things in this universe". Intangible, unmeasurable, unobservable, unrepeatable. They're about as far from "real" as you can get.
1. God is self awareness.
What is the basis for your core assumption ?
This means, life is real if it's aware of itself. Humans and most mammals are real.
Most mammals ? Which ones are unlucky enough not to make the cut ? Who decides ?
Where do reptiles and fish fit into your scheme ? Or, aren't they cute enough to have feelings ? Do the poor old insects get a raw deal as well ?
Why limit yourself to the old painful way Microsoft and Apple do things when technology is being innovated over here in Linux/UNIX land?
The only things package managers are "innovating" are workarounds for the self-created problem of dependency hell - and all it takes is one missing dependency, or one broken package, for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down.
However, four years ago Dell pushed the low end on a PC from $600.00 to $500.00. It is now down to $350 (without a monitor). Which puts it in the $450-$475 range. The hold up on the price drop right now is flat panels are not moving below $125.00.
My point exactly. In four years, the price has dropped ~40%. However, the power (/disk space, etc) has increased by a factor of ~5x.
An iPod does everything a laptop does.
Say what ? An iPod has barely a fraction the functionality of even a barebones laptop like the Eee (with that said, there are things it does better, like portability).
I will either be right and sending my daughter off to college with a UMPC for under $300.00. Or she gets a $500 laptop and I swear to her that I will kick her butt if she breaks it.
I predict you'll see the kind of $300 machines you're talking about around the beginning of 2010 (and by then they'll be dual-cores with 2-4G of RAM as well).
Apple is a lot like Intel before AMD came along.
Intel was founded in 1968, AMD in 1969. They've been competing against - or working with - each other, for all intents and purposes, forever .
First, go to the Dell web site and spec out a machine like the 8 core MacPro 3.2GHz. Apple Retail = $4,399. Dell T7400 = $6,338. (Don't forget the 512MB GeForce 8800 equivalent). Does the Dell have two independent 1.6 GHz busses or just one? I can't tell from the specs. The Mac Pro has two.
They have the same motherboard chipset (as does the cheaper T5400), so almost certainly yes (although the exact slot configuration might be different).
Once you account for the workstation-level graphics card and better warranty, the Dell Precisions and Mac Pros are essentially worth the same. Swings and roundabouts.
The Dell is a rat's nest.
I find that hard to believe. I haven't seen inside the specific model you're talking about, but even our regular old GX2xx machines have sliding drive brackets, pre-run, managed cabling, and are far from "rat's nests" - so I can't imagine a high-end Precision workstation is any less well made.