1) The G4 is not expensive (starting at $1599), and you don't even have to use one. You can use an inexpensive $299 airport base station and connect it to the existing LAN... or just forgo wireless networking, and connect the iMacs directly to your 10 or 100BT network with their built-in 10/100 ethernet.
2) The machines are not 'alien'. Mac has been around longer than Windows (where do you think M$ got the idea?). Besides, if you really knew what you were talking about, you would know that it is easier to network a Mac into a Wintel network than it is to network a Wintel box in.
3) Macs are no longer expensive (why does this myth continue to be perpetuated?). There does not exist a single PC that can match the quality and performance of an iMac at that price point. If the iMacII ships at a lower price, all the better.
4) Since Apple uses industry standards (unlike M$) any Unix knowledgeable IT staff will EASILY be able to work with the Mac (and probably never have to open a manual).
5) Software is not a problem. If you have someone in-house developing software, I would sincerely hope that they know how to recompile.
(If you really wanted to, and I don't know why the hell anyone would want to, you can run Windoze and Mac apps on the Mac simultaneously.)
Also, if you don't like the OS, well, run Linux on it for pete sake!
Okay, some people are missing what is going on in Apple-land (as usual). It is not entirely fair to say that the MacOS does not have protected memory, multi-tasking, etc. when in fact there is limited memory protection, and scheduled tasking, etc. at least on par to Win95/98.
If any of you think that Win95/98 has true preemption and full protected memory space, then you are living in never-never land, because it just isn't so. Applications can take down a Wintel box at the drop of a hat - even on the "vaunted" NT. I know, we crash them on a daily basis.
Yea, the MacOS isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good. If M$ didn't have someting to copy, you'd all still be using DOS 3.3.
Now as far as Apple doing something about OS improvements, have any of you heard about OSX? It's not an idea, it is a shipping product, and it has all your "Modern OS" features.
Go get a copy and laugh when all your NT people running IIS crash on a regular basis, but your Mac with OSX running Apache keeps on trucking (at about 7x the performance of NT w/IIS from what we've seen lately).
Now, if you are a person that doesn't like Mac GUI, then put LinuxPPC on your Mac and be happy.
Re:You realize that case design is expensive!!
on
iMac Clone Gets Sued
·
· Score: 1
You are correct, Apple put alot of work into the iMac, and it's design is protected and should be defended.
You do realize the Windoze GUI is a knock-off of the MacOS. Apple should have defended it rigorously years ago. Let's hope they defend the iMac thoroughly this time around.
This is a re-hash, but, Apple is not digging any graves. People have erroneously thought that for 20+ years now - it hasn't happened.
If you don't care for the Mac GUI, then why not put LinuxPPC or OSX on a Mac. I think you would be amazed at the incredible performance. God forbid you might actually like it.
Also, Micro$oft could be a threat to Linux by making a cheap knock-off of it, even if they never sold it. Their influence and tactics scare corporations into not adopting a competing technology simply on the idea that M$ might come up with their own "thing".
I believe you are correct in the market confusion concept as that is a very real problem - one Future Power appears to be intentionally exploiting. It also does, however, include infrigements on trademarks that should be defended. This situation holds for any company in the marketplace, not just Apple in the computer industry. Thank you for your "confusion in the marketplace comment" that I could make this reply to.
You mean just like almost all PC's look exactly the same from the side (and even the front!)?
Isn't it just terrible that Apple created something different, and now they want to protect their work?
What about SGI? They've gone to considerable effort to release their new towers and flat-panel displays which look incredible. I would expect they would also move to protect their designs if someone tried to copy them.
Re:Here's A thought, Apple should offer better val
on
iMac Clone Gets Sued
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry you don't get it. It is not about translucency - it's the whole package. Many companies make translucent products, but Future Power is the only one that has designed a product that is almost identical in every way to the iMac with the intention of playing off the iMac's success. The iMac design is patented and trademarked. This has been infringed upon and should not be allowed to continue morally or legally.
As far as price/performance, etc.: The Mac has a small price premium, but with that you get better quality components. PC markets are saturated with bargain-basement components that fail on a regular basis. You get what you pay for.
Speed: This PC iMac knock-off does have a higher clock rate, that is true, but clock speed does not tell the whole story. PowerPC processors can process 2-3 more instructions per clock cycle than Pentium class processors can. This is why in real world and benchmark tests, the 333MHz iMac is on par with 450MHz PII machines. You should see what it can do when you pop Linux on it!:)
I'm sorry you appear to be so uninformed about a great many things, including the fact that Apple has sold more Pro boxes than iMacs, and that while the MacOS v 7.x became more complex, MacOS 8.x is back on the track of simplicity.
Now, if you are not into simplicity, you should check out MacOSX, which is based on your favorite, and mine, UNIX.
Apple has every right to defend their patented and trademarked produts. They spent time, effort, and lots of money designing a unique and brilliant machine.
There are inumerable futuristic designs that Future Power could create for their product, they could even make it translucent - they don't have to steal Apple's design.
The point here is not features, or Win vs Mac, it is someone trying to use another's product after the first did all the work to bring it to market - not to mention all the legal infringements Future Power is making.
You Windoze people still don't get it. It's not about MIPS, MHz, etc. Palm Pilot is phenomenally successful because it's simple, elegant and (key word here) reliable.
Oh, and just a reminder. MS didn't invent the PDA market, Apple did with the Newton - too bad they discontinued it. MS is just playing copy-cat again with WinCE, and as ususal, the quality's just not there.
Slashdot Mirror
1) The G4 is not expensive (starting at $1599), and you don't even have to use one. You can use an inexpensive $299 airport base station and connect it to the existing LAN... or just forgo wireless networking, and connect the iMacs directly to your 10 or 100BT network with their built-in 10/100 ethernet.
2) The machines are not 'alien'. Mac has been around longer than Windows (where do you think M$ got the idea?). Besides, if you really knew what you were talking about, you would know that it is easier to network a Mac into a Wintel network than it is to network a Wintel box in.
3) Macs are no longer expensive (why does this myth continue to be perpetuated?). There does not exist a single PC that can match the quality and performance of an iMac at that price point. If the iMacII ships at a lower price, all the better.
4) Since Apple uses industry standards (unlike M$) any Unix knowledgeable IT staff will EASILY be able to work with the Mac (and probably never have to open a manual).
5) Software is not a problem. If you have someone in-house developing software, I would sincerely hope that they know how to recompile.
(If you really wanted to, and I don't know why the hell anyone would want to, you can run Windoze and Mac apps on the Mac simultaneously.)
Also, if you don't like the OS, well, run Linux on it for pete sake!
Okay, some people are missing what is going on in Apple-land (as usual). It is not entirely fair to say that the MacOS does not have protected memory, multi-tasking, etc. when in fact there is limited memory protection, and scheduled tasking, etc. at least on par to Win95/98.
If any of you think that Win95/98 has true preemption and full protected memory space, then you are living in never-never land, because it just isn't so. Applications can take down a Wintel box at the drop of a hat - even on the "vaunted" NT. I know, we crash them on a daily basis.
Yea, the MacOS isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good. If M$ didn't have someting to copy, you'd all still be using DOS 3.3.
Now as far as Apple doing something about OS improvements, have any of you heard about OSX? It's not an idea, it is a shipping product, and it has all your "Modern OS" features.
Go get a copy and laugh when all your NT people running IIS crash on a regular basis, but your Mac with OSX running Apache keeps on trucking (at about 7x the performance of NT w/IIS from what we've seen lately).
Now, if you are a person that doesn't like Mac GUI, then put LinuxPPC on your Mac and be happy.
You are correct, Apple put alot of work into the iMac, and it's design is protected and should be defended.
You do realize the Windoze GUI is a knock-off of the MacOS. Apple should have defended it rigorously years ago. Let's hope they defend the iMac thoroughly this time around.
This is a re-hash, but, Apple is not digging any graves. People have erroneously thought that for 20+ years now - it hasn't happened.
If you don't care for the Mac GUI, then why not put LinuxPPC or OSX on a Mac. I think you would be amazed at the incredible performance. God forbid you might actually like it.
Also, Micro$oft could be a threat to Linux by making a cheap knock-off of it, even if they never sold it. Their influence and tactics scare corporations into not adopting a competing technology simply on the idea that M$ might come up with their own "thing".
I believe you are correct in the market confusion concept as that is a very real problem - one Future Power appears to be intentionally exploiting. It also does, however, include infrigements on trademarks that should be defended. This situation holds for any company in the marketplace, not just Apple in the computer industry. Thank you for your "confusion in the marketplace comment" that I could make this reply to.
You mean just like almost all PC's look exactly the same from the side (and even the front!)?
Isn't it just terrible that Apple created something different, and now they want to protect their work?
What about SGI? They've gone to considerable effort to release their new towers and flat-panel displays which look incredible. I would expect they would also move to protect their designs if someone tried to copy them.
I'm sorry you don't get it. It is not about translucency - it's the whole package. Many companies make translucent products, but Future Power is the only one that has designed a product that is almost identical in every way to the iMac with the intention of playing off the iMac's success. The iMac design is patented and trademarked. This has been infringed upon and should not be allowed to continue morally or legally.
:)
As far as price/performance, etc.: The Mac has a small price premium, but with that you get better quality components. PC markets are saturated with bargain-basement components that fail on a regular basis. You get what you pay for.
Speed: This PC iMac knock-off does have a higher clock rate, that is true, but clock speed does not tell the whole story. PowerPC processors can process 2-3 more instructions per clock cycle than Pentium class processors can. This is why in real world and benchmark tests, the 333MHz iMac is on par with 450MHz PII machines. You should see what it can do when you pop Linux on it!
I'm sorry you appear to be so uninformed about a great many things, including the fact that Apple has sold more Pro boxes than iMacs, and that while the MacOS v 7.x became more complex, MacOS 8.x is back on the track of simplicity.
Now, if you are not into simplicity, you should check out MacOSX, which is based on your favorite, and mine, UNIX.
Apple has every right to defend their patented and trademarked produts. They spent time, effort, and lots of money designing a unique and brilliant machine.
There are inumerable futuristic designs that Future Power could create for their product, they could even make it translucent - they don't have to steal Apple's design.
The point here is not features, or Win vs Mac, it is someone trying to use another's product after the first did all the work to bring it to market - not to mention all the legal infringements Future Power is making.
You Windoze people still don't get it. It's not about MIPS, MHz, etc. Palm Pilot is phenomenally successful because it's simple, elegant and (key word here) reliable.
Oh, and just a reminder. MS didn't invent the PDA market, Apple did with the Newton - too bad they discontinued it. MS is just playing copy-cat again with WinCE, and as ususal, the quality's just not there.