Unless you just mean more choices on HDDs or other commodity components. I think that's just a cost-control thing.
I'm sure it's more of a price-point thing. If you want the high end harddrive or high end CPU, they want you to buy the high end computer. None of this mix-n-match like you can do with PCs.
Check out bands like Bathory, who created the Black Metal music scene, or Destruction, credited with the Thrash movement. Examine Thyrane, or Mayhem, or Children of Bodom, perhaps...And Oceans for a good example of the merging of Black Metal and Symphonic orchestras.
I'm not that familiar with the Black Metal scene, but didn't most of those bands get their start back in the 1990's? If anything, I think the 2000's are going to be known for hip-hop going mainstream. It's true that hip-hop also predates the 2000's, but today's hip-hop is really a mash of hip-hop music with pop and rap, and sounds really different from what was being made 15 years ago.
I have a Dvorak keyboard, which also works great in that department. I knew someone who had both a Dvorak keyboard and a Wacom tablet as their only input devices for a while. Pretty much no one else could use that computer - even me.
Who says it has to be modified? What if something happens to OSX that causes it to crash or hang up? What if some process won't let the computer go to sleep? Most every PC laptop I have seen atleast will shut off if it senses it's overheating, with many newer ones having the capability to throttle back too.
One of the big flaws with this kind of comparison is that people almost always start with a Mac and try to build a comprable PC. Apple's hardware selection is rather limited, but is well equipped. By doing the comparison this way, you could end up ignoring a lot of options on the PC side of things. For example, I have a laptop with a 1400x1050 14" screen, of which Apple offers nothing comprable. You also ignore a lot of the budget options that most people would be perfectly happy with. Secondly, Apple's machines are pretty well equipped - however, I don't always want the full package they offer. If I start with a PC configuration I'm happy with, I'll almost always find out to get the same thing in a Mac I end up moving rather quickly up Apple's lineup to end up with a machine that has what I want in my PC, but a whole lot more along with the attached price tag. For example, when it's time to get a new tower, I can usually get a pretty nice one for about $1000-$1200 that I'm happy with. To get waht I want in a Mac usually turns out to be a PowerMac/MacPro at $2000-$2500.
Meanwhile, the Mac car didn't even have windows for the longest time. However, fairly recently the Mac car now can have windows installed aftermarket, which has been proven very popular amonst Mac car enthusists.
My father told me once that he doesn't bother to check the mirror when changing lanes when he's 95% sure that there's no car there. I asked him what happens the 5% of the time that he's wrong (not even taking into account the fact that people suck at estimating probabilities.)
Well don't leave us hanging like that! What did he say???
Windows 2000 is fairly happy on a PII with 128MB of ram, while XP will be pretty laggy. Also, Windows 2000 will run, though somewhat poorly, on 64MB of ram, but XP will pretty much choke (it will still boot up). Overall though, except on the extreme low end (like a P133 with 64MB of ram), if the computer will boot 2K, it will boot XP too.
Actually, I gave the wrong numbers, but I'm close. If you go to your own link, it would appear that for whatever reason they count PPC Macs and Intel Macs as seperate, the combined total for OSX is 6%, while Safari holds 4.5%, so ~75%.
For a little while, I used to drive 20 miles one way to work, which would take slightly less than an hour during rush hour (average speed ~ 25MPH). I doubt that the batteries would hold out for 40 miles, but the top speed isn't that unreasonable for a commuter.
Of course, same drive during the non-peak hours was 20-25 minutes at an average speed of 50-60MPH, which only goes to highlight how incredibly inefficient and wasteful our 9-5 culture is.
So what's the problem with having to unscrew a screw or two to open a door to get to the battery? It solves the problems that having the typical plastic pop-out battery doors have, while still allowing the user to replace the battery in a couple of minutes without having to pry the device apart. It seems to work for the Gameboy Advance, though I wouldn't expect the Apple fanboys to understand.
This shows Safari holding at 4.49%, which is in line with the Mac platform's market share of about 3.5%. Linux market share, btw, is 0.7%. Which is entirely understandable. (Their share at W3Schools is rather high. Apparently a lot of Linux users are busy learning HTML.)
Even so, 3.5/4.5 ~= 78%, that's a far cry from 99% like you were claiming.
I'm guessing at least 99% of Mac users haven't bothered to download another web browser. Why would they? I'd say a decent percentage aren't even aware that downloading another web browser is even an option. I worked with end users for 4 1/2 years and people don't mess with stuff like that unless they absolutely have to. I use Firefox, btw, because it has web development plugins that I find very useful. But, again, 99% just don't care. Safari use is roughly equal to Mac market share, which proves my point.
According to w3, Safari has about 1.3% of hits, while OSX has 4.0% of hits. That puts Safari at about 1 out of 3 Mac users (I'll just assume that Safari for Windows is at 0% because it sucks and 99% of Windows users don't download another browser anyway, right?). From my informal observations, this would seem to be about in the ballpark, as I've noticed a bit more than half use Firefox, most of the rest Safari, a small amount use Camino or the Mozilla suite, and a few oddballs use Opera and the others.
Indeed, who does? Safari is a capable web browser, Quicktime and Flash do just fine with video, and Handbrake is used exclusively by thieves. Again, 99.9998% of folks don't need those apps!
A lot of Mac users would disagree, given what they have installed on their machines. And besides, last time I checked Flash player wasn't an Apple product either.
What, specifically, is gained by having a choice of hardware? You mentioned graphics cards. What, specifically, is gained by having a choice of graphics cards? I mean it! For 99.9998% if the population Apple offers hardware sufficient to their needs. Including graphics cards.
Are you kidding? The Mac Mini is too limited and underpowered. The iMac is too limited. The Mac Pro is simply too expensive. Sure, I do realize I'm not the majority, but more than 1/500,000 feel this way.
You admit that this is something that '90%' (I like my 99.9998% better) of folks don't care about, which is good because it reveals that you have at least some perspective. But you talk about having to recompile the kernel to suit your "needs". What "needs" are these? I'm not talking about "wants" or "would be cools", I'm talking about absolute, couldn't get it done any other way "needs". And, assuming you've got real "needs", do they balance against the time and headaches required to achieve them?
That's a stupid argument if I've ever heard one. I'm sure I could get by on a stock install of Windows Vista. I'm sure you could too. Why do you "need" OSX anyway?
You are correct that there is a staggering amount of 'choice' when it comes to Linux software. I can choose between any number of poorly-designed, inconsistent, and inadequately tested Linux apps. Particularly editors. (And they are all so EASY to install!!!) OS X, by contrast, offers a very good selection of well-designed, consistent, usable applications suitable, again, for 99.9998% of all user's needs.
Which is why you NEVER see anything like Firefox, Camino, VLC, or Handbrake installed on a Mac, cause who needs them? You're an idiot.
You said "I know a lot of people disagree with this" and you're right. A lot of people do. For good reason. One good way to measure usability is the "grandma test". Which system do you think grandma is going to have an easier time with? Enough said.
You Apple fanboys are hilarious. Just because a system works well for Grandma doesn't mean that everyone else wants to use it. Here's a computer that rates so high on the usability scale, that a 3 year old can use it. I don't see people pitching out their Macs in order to use this pinnacle of user interface design though.
That's great, but if the bank only stocks them with $20's it's effectively the same thing. I used to see machines around that dispensed $5's and $10's, but I've not seen one in a while (granted, I pretty much only hit up a couple of ATM's in my area that I know don't charge me a fee).
I wonder if they stock the machines with $10's? If not, if you withdrew $110, the machine would be forced to give you a $50 and 3 $20's because it couldn't spit out a $100 and a $10 bill.
Actually, back in the 1980's, economy cars were pushing 40-50MPG for fuel economy. Nowadays, you don't see more than about 30-35MPG unless it's a hybrid. Newer isn't always better, though I'm sure that newer cars have a lot less nasties coming out of the tailpipe due to the emissions systems they have (the weight of which is part of the reason why newer cars are heavier and need more fuel).
Please clarify. It just means that Ebay is a hybrid auctioneer and store hoster.
Anyone who's been on eBay for a long time surely has noticed how the community has changed over the years. It used to be a place where regular people could bid on other regular people's stuff in an auction format, or put their stuff up for auction themselves. It was like a giant swap meet or garage sale - there were very few of the professional sellers back then - almost no one was making a living doing eBay, it was something to do on the side.
Nowadays, eBay is primarly a site where professional sellers sell items to people who primarly just buy things and don't sell themselves. These sellers use automated tools to list thousands of items at once, and make heavy use of features like 'Buy It Now'. eBay isn't for the common person to get rid of stuff so much anymore, it's a place to run a business. I remember back when the first seller hit 10,000 feedback back in the day, and how that was a huge accomplishment. Nowadays there must be thousands of sellers with ratings that high.
Well, one reason to keep a "niche" product around like that is to help them tip the balance in the cola wars. I didn't care much for Vanilla Coke, but the short-lived Vanilla Pepsi was simply awful. Thus, the people who want a vanilla flavored cola will buy Coke and not Pepsi. Much in the same way how I prefer Coke myself, but I really liked Pepsi Twist (Pepsi with lemon flavoring, essentially), thus Coke was losing some sales to me because I was buying more Pepsi. By the way, rumor has it that Vanilla Coke is going to be back real soon now. Now if they would just bring back the non-diet lemon and lime flavors I would really be happy.
Actually, the problem with Windows 2000 is that it doesn't understand 48bit LBA properly right out of the box, hence your limit is at 128GB (or 137GB if you're a HDD manufacturer). You need to do some registry hacking to get it to work.
Otherwise, large FAT32 partitions are fine. It's true that Windows 2000/XP will not allow them to be creater larger than 32GB, but they'll happily work with them if you create them with a utility, or Windows 98/ME which will also happily create >32GB partitions.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you just mean more choices on HDDs or other commodity components. I think that's just a cost-control thing.
I'm sure it's more of a price-point thing. If you want the high end harddrive or high end CPU, they want you to buy the high end computer. None of this mix-n-match like you can do with PCs.
Individual import cheap generic drugs to drive price down BAD.
Actually, spammer = BAD. That's all there is to it.
Check out bands like Bathory, who created the Black Metal music scene, or Destruction, credited with the Thrash movement. Examine Thyrane, or Mayhem, or Children of Bodom, perhaps ...And Oceans for a good example of the merging of Black Metal and Symphonic orchestras.
I'm not that familiar with the Black Metal scene, but didn't most of those bands get their start back in the 1990's? If anything, I think the 2000's are going to be known for hip-hop going mainstream. It's true that hip-hop also predates the 2000's, but today's hip-hop is really a mash of hip-hop music with pop and rap, and sounds really different from what was being made 15 years ago.
I have a Dvorak keyboard, which also works great in that department. I knew someone who had both a Dvorak keyboard and a Wacom tablet as their only input devices for a while. Pretty much no one else could use that computer - even me.
Who says it has to be modified? What if something happens to OSX that causes it to crash or hang up? What if some process won't let the computer go to sleep? Most every PC laptop I have seen atleast will shut off if it senses it's overheating, with many newer ones having the capability to throttle back too.
One of the big flaws with this kind of comparison is that people almost always start with a Mac and try to build a comprable PC. Apple's hardware selection is rather limited, but is well equipped. By doing the comparison this way, you could end up ignoring a lot of options on the PC side of things. For example, I have a laptop with a 1400x1050 14" screen, of which Apple offers nothing comprable. You also ignore a lot of the budget options that most people would be perfectly happy with. Secondly, Apple's machines are pretty well equipped - however, I don't always want the full package they offer. If I start with a PC configuration I'm happy with, I'll almost always find out to get the same thing in a Mac I end up moving rather quickly up Apple's lineup to end up with a machine that has what I want in my PC, but a whole lot more along with the attached price tag. For example, when it's time to get a new tower, I can usually get a pretty nice one for about $1000-$1200 that I'm happy with. To get waht I want in a Mac usually turns out to be a PowerMac/MacPro at $2000-$2500.
sub-2Ghz proc, 80GB drive, and 512MB of ram? That sounds more like $599 Dell laptop to me. Oh, and have fun beating that price in the Apple world.
Meanwhile, the Mac car didn't even have windows for the longest time. However, fairly recently the Mac car now can have windows installed aftermarket, which has been proven very popular amonst Mac car enthusists.
My father told me once that he doesn't bother to check the mirror when changing lanes when he's 95% sure that there's no car there. I asked him what happens the 5% of the time that he's wrong (not even taking into account the fact that people suck at estimating probabilities.)
Well don't leave us hanging like that! What did he say???
Windows 2000 is fairly happy on a PII with 128MB of ram, while XP will be pretty laggy. Also, Windows 2000 will run, though somewhat poorly, on 64MB of ram, but XP will pretty much choke (it will still boot up). Overall though, except on the extreme low end (like a P133 with 64MB of ram), if the computer will boot 2K, it will boot XP too.
The exact one you linked to. Take a look at the line directly under the one you quote that says "MacIntel".
Actually, I gave the wrong numbers, but I'm close. If you go to your own link, it would appear that for whatever reason they count PPC Macs and Intel Macs as seperate, the combined total for OSX is 6%, while Safari holds 4.5%, so ~75%.
For a little while, I used to drive 20 miles one way to work, which would take slightly less than an hour during rush hour (average speed ~ 25MPH). I doubt that the batteries would hold out for 40 miles, but the top speed isn't that unreasonable for a commuter.
Of course, same drive during the non-peak hours was 20-25 minutes at an average speed of 50-60MPH, which only goes to highlight how incredibly inefficient and wasteful our 9-5 culture is.
So what's the problem with having to unscrew a screw or two to open a door to get to the battery? It solves the problems that having the typical plastic pop-out battery doors have, while still allowing the user to replace the battery in a couple of minutes without having to pry the device apart. It seems to work for the Gameboy Advance, though I wouldn't expect the Apple fanboys to understand.
This shows Safari holding at 4.49%, which is in line with the Mac platform's market share of about 3.5%. Linux market share, btw, is 0.7%. Which is entirely understandable. (Their share at W3Schools is rather high. Apparently a lot of Linux users are busy learning HTML.)
Even so, 3.5/4.5 ~= 78%, that's a far cry from 99% like you were claiming.
I'm guessing at least 99% of Mac users haven't bothered to download another web browser. Why would they? I'd say a decent percentage aren't even aware that downloading another web browser is even an option. I worked with end users for 4 1/2 years and people don't mess with stuff like that unless they absolutely have to. I use Firefox, btw, because it has web development plugins that I find very useful. But, again, 99% just don't care. Safari use is roughly equal to Mac market share, which proves my point.
According to w3, Safari has about 1.3% of hits, while OSX has 4.0% of hits. That puts Safari at about 1 out of 3 Mac users (I'll just assume that Safari for Windows is at 0% because it sucks and 99% of Windows users don't download another browser anyway, right?). From my informal observations, this would seem to be about in the ballpark, as I've noticed a bit more than half use Firefox, most of the rest Safari, a small amount use Camino or the Mozilla suite, and a few oddballs use Opera and the others.
Indeed, who does? Safari is a capable web browser, Quicktime and Flash do just fine with video, and Handbrake is used exclusively by thieves. Again, 99.9998% of folks don't need those apps!
A lot of Mac users would disagree, given what they have installed on their machines. And besides, last time I checked Flash player wasn't an Apple product either.
What, specifically, is gained by having a choice of hardware? You mentioned graphics cards. What, specifically, is gained by having a choice of graphics cards? I mean it! For 99.9998% if the population Apple offers hardware sufficient to their needs. Including graphics cards.
Are you kidding? The Mac Mini is too limited and underpowered. The iMac is too limited. The Mac Pro is simply too expensive. Sure, I do realize I'm not the majority, but more than 1/500,000 feel this way.
You admit that this is something that '90%' (I like my 99.9998% better) of folks don't care about, which is good because it reveals that you have at least some perspective. But you talk about having to recompile the kernel to suit your "needs". What "needs" are these? I'm not talking about "wants" or "would be cools", I'm talking about absolute, couldn't get it done any other way "needs". And, assuming you've got real "needs", do they balance against the time and headaches required to achieve them?
That's a stupid argument if I've ever heard one. I'm sure I could get by on a stock install of Windows Vista. I'm sure you could too. Why do you "need" OSX anyway?
You are correct that there is a staggering amount of 'choice' when it comes to Linux software. I can choose between any number of poorly-designed, inconsistent, and inadequately tested Linux apps. Particularly editors. (And they are all so EASY to install!!!) OS X, by contrast, offers a very good selection of well-designed, consistent, usable applications suitable, again, for 99.9998% of all user's needs.
Which is why you NEVER see anything like Firefox, Camino, VLC, or Handbrake installed on a Mac, cause who needs them? You're an idiot.
You said "I know a lot of people disagree with this" and you're right. A lot of people do. For good reason. One good way to measure usability is the "grandma test". Which system do you think grandma is going to have an easier time with? Enough said.
You Apple fanboys are hilarious. Just because a system works well for Grandma doesn't mean that everyone else wants to use it. Here's a computer that rates so high on the usability scale, that a 3 year old can use it. I don't see people pitching out their Macs in order to use this pinnacle of user interface design though.
That's great, but if the bank only stocks them with $20's it's effectively the same thing. I used to see machines around that dispensed $5's and $10's, but I've not seen one in a while (granted, I pretty much only hit up a couple of ATM's in my area that I know don't charge me a fee).
I wonder if they stock the machines with $10's? If not, if you withdrew $110, the machine would be forced to give you a $50 and 3 $20's because it couldn't spit out a $100 and a $10 bill.
Of the 2500 "missing" cars, one of them was destroyed in the making of the "Back to the Future" movies. Who knows about the rest of them.
Actually, back in the 1980's, economy cars were pushing 40-50MPG for fuel economy. Nowadays, you don't see more than about 30-35MPG unless it's a hybrid. Newer isn't always better, though I'm sure that newer cars have a lot less nasties coming out of the tailpipe due to the emissions systems they have (the weight of which is part of the reason why newer cars are heavier and need more fuel).
Please clarify. It just means that Ebay is a hybrid auctioneer and store hoster.
Anyone who's been on eBay for a long time surely has noticed how the community has changed over the years. It used to be a place where regular people could bid on other regular people's stuff in an auction format, or put their stuff up for auction themselves. It was like a giant swap meet or garage sale - there were very few of the professional sellers back then - almost no one was making a living doing eBay, it was something to do on the side.
Nowadays, eBay is primarly a site where professional sellers sell items to people who primarly just buy things and don't sell themselves. These sellers use automated tools to list thousands of items at once, and make heavy use of features like 'Buy It Now'. eBay isn't for the common person to get rid of stuff so much anymore, it's a place to run a business. I remember back when the first seller hit 10,000 feedback back in the day, and how that was a huge accomplishment. Nowadays there must be thousands of sellers with ratings that high.
Well, one reason to keep a "niche" product around like that is to help them tip the balance in the cola wars. I didn't care much for Vanilla Coke, but the short-lived Vanilla Pepsi was simply awful. Thus, the people who want a vanilla flavored cola will buy Coke and not Pepsi. Much in the same way how I prefer Coke myself, but I really liked Pepsi Twist (Pepsi with lemon flavoring, essentially), thus Coke was losing some sales to me because I was buying more Pepsi. By the way, rumor has it that Vanilla Coke is going to be back real soon now. Now if they would just bring back the non-diet lemon and lime flavors I would really be happy.
Actually, the problem with Windows 2000 is that it doesn't understand 48bit LBA properly right out of the box, hence your limit is at 128GB (or 137GB if you're a HDD manufacturer). You need to do some registry hacking to get it to work.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305098
Otherwise, large FAT32 partitions are fine. It's true that Windows 2000/XP will not allow them to be creater larger than 32GB, but they'll happily work with them if you create them with a utility, or Windows 98/ME which will also happily create >32GB partitions.