Considering Slashdotters' usual perspective when it comes to technology, there seem to be a lot of you that are positively luddite when it comes to cellular telephony.
Remember, slashdot is mostly full of anti-social geeks. Many of us don't have a cellphone, because we don't have any use for one.
Listen to me, toddestan. If you're a real geek, you know better than to imply that clock speed is everything. Clock speed is almost nothing.
I figured someone would call me on the G5 2.5Ghz vs 2.8Ghz P4 comparison. But my point still stands, I want to see someone build an "equilivent" (I'll let you choose what whatever processor you feel is equilivent to a P4 2.8Ghz) Mac with screen, keyboard, and mouse for $499 or less.
When you equip a PC with the exact same components in hardware and software as that which come standard on a Mac... the PC always comes out to be more expensive.
These "build the equilivent PC" arguements are pointless. If you are going to start out and try to build a PC that is just like the Mac, you might as well get the Mac. You'll save time, and probably some money (especially if you need iLife, iPhoto, iWhatever). If you want something different though, you have lots of options in the PC world.
Besides, try taking it the other way, and it's easy to "show" that the Mac is more expensive. Start out with some random PC, and go build the equilivent Mac (if you can), and see how much it costs. I see on Dell's website a 2.8Ghz PC for $499. Already, we have a faster chip than the most expensive G5 Powermac at a price of the base Mac Mini, and this includes a flat panel monitor!
Anyway, I compared two machines, a 20" iMac and a dual 2.5GHz G5. The iMac was there because they wanted to see a budget range computer, and the dual G5 because they claimed AMD was faster.
You consider the 20" iMac, which costs $1,899, a budget computer?!? And then you turn around and wonder why people claim Apple computers are more expensive?
Here is some news for you, most people in the PC world would consider a budget computer something that is $500-$600 or less. And that is with a monitor, keyboard, mouse, and maybe even a printer.
Aside from the fact that it's impossible to generate a perfect point mass.
Unless some discoveries have been made recently in particle physics, to the best that anyone can tell, the electron is a point mass (and a point charge too).
I have seen quite a bit of flakyness with boards using AMD's own chipset for the XP and MP chips. Granted, AMD didn't make the boards, but these came from different manufacturers. I don't know if AMD could bring to the market a board for their chips that would be as solid as Intel's boards for Intel chips.
Surprisenly, I have not had much trouble with VIA based boards, unless you put high bandwidth devices on the PCI bus, in which case you're screwed.
Otherwise, that leaves Nvidia and SIS as chipset makers that I don't have much experience with. I guess my next board will probably be a NForce of some kind.
If you do manage to get another board in there, be sure to check the pinout on the power supply before trying to turn it on, unless you want another surprise!
Your best bet would be to get a whitebox case, decent power supply, new motherboard, and move the rest of the parts over.
I remember back in 98 or 99 (yes I know ancient history) one coustomer of mine had several thousand HP Vectra PCs, all with Intel chips. They decided to buy a batch of AMD equipped Vectras as each PC was about $30 cheaper with an AMD over an Intel CPU. Out of the 80 or so AMD equipped HP Vectras 11 of them were DOA and another 4 had their processors go out in less than a month. I know that experience left an extremely strong impression in the customers mind and mine as well.
Funny, I have NEVER seen an HP Vectra equiped with anything but an Intel chip.
Are you sure they didn't get Pavilions or Compaqs, or something else?
Strange. I recently plugged a HP LaserJet 4 Plus into the parallel port of my XP machine, and went into control panel, opened the printers window to figure out how to install the printer - only to find that I didn't have to do a damn thing because Windows had already set it up for me. Couldn't be any easier than that.
Windows 2000 does not have native dual head support, for video cards with 2 or more outputs. Some drivers (like for Matrox) implement it for 2000, but others (ATI) do not.
I've been on eBay for about 5 years, and that's how it's worked for as long as I can remember.
The situation only happens when someone makes a bid less than one increment less than your maximum bid, and then you increase your maximum bid while holding the auction at your old maximum price. It's not terribly common scenario, and I would guess many eBay buyers never encounter it (and you'll never see it if you snipe).
Li-ion batteries, as found in the iPod and many digital cameras don't like to be discharged all the way to empty - it shortens the battery life (which is a pretty big deal if you have an iPod). Best thing to do is to top it off whenever you can.
This is the opposite of Nicad (and NiMH to some extent), where you have to deal with the memory effect.
Hell, give me neither cable and knock an additional $20 off the price (what Apple is charging for the cable). In fact, let me buy an ipod without the software CD or the white headphones, no accessories whatsoever, and knock another couple bucks off. Just an iPod in a box. Then, if I have multiple iPods, I'm only buying the dock and cable once. (They don't all need to charge and sync at the same time)
Hmm... an iPod that has no accessories, like the Mac Mini. I know, lets call it the iPod Mini! Oh wait...
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if AMD changes their mind about this compatible with existing boards thing. I learned a while ago, just treat the motherboard and processor as a pair - buy them at the same time, and assume that if you upgrade one you'll have to upgrade the other.
However, I'm somewhat surprised that I could still use my 3 year old DDR333 memory in a new system (with a speed hit, of course).
What about adding a second, dedicated chip to take care of the stuff that now gets unloaded onto the CPU that used to be handled by seperate hardware? Stuff like the HDD Controller, network card, sound card, Winmodems. That would probably net a 10-20%+ difference in speed right there.
There are hundreds of cases out there in the PC world, don't like this one? Find another. Atleast with a PC I'm not stuck with whatever Steve Jobs thinks is cool.
For the record, I think Apple makes some pretty cool looking cases (like the Mac Mini). But they have some butt-ugly stuff too (like any of the iMacs).
> can't tell the difference between Windows 95 and Windows XP you need to get your head checked
Nice work Mr. Microsoft apologist. He was talking about for end-users, and he's is right. You still have the same pitiful GUI on XP that you had on 95. You still have the broken Start button (WTF, I hit start to stop?) and poorly thought-out menus that you had on 95. Think from the terms of an end-user. Microsoft has made zero progress in over 10 years.
What, screw around with the interface just for the sake of screwing around? Microsoft likes to do that (ooh look, fading menus! ooh look, a shaded mouse cursor! ooh look, a green start button!). I just turn that crap off. The only real reason the Mac has come so far is that OS9 was such a steaming pile of crap to begin with.
Sure, Windows does have some quirks, but if you are going to complain about having to hit the start menu to shut down the computer, then I'm going to complain about having to drag volumes to the trash can to unmount/eject them (seriously, how dumb is that?). Or how you can irreversably delete shortcuts off the dock by dragging the icon off the dock. I have seen people do this more than once, who weren't experienced enough with OSX to know better - or for that matter, how to dig around in the Applications folder get the icon back.
Also, what archaic version of Linux were you running? You should try Knoppix, everything you need on a bootable CD without having to touch the PC's harddrive. Try Fedora, or Mandrake, or any other modern distro for something more permanent. Gone are the days of manually configuring X and having to partition the drive yourself (unless, you really want to). Most Distros now pretty much install themselves with no fuss.
Call a product Windows 98 and then change it's "upgrade" to Windows Me (please no ME jokes...) and everything is dandy.
Call a product OS X 10.3 and then its "upgrade" OS X 10.4 and people moan and bitch.
I seem to remember a lot of complaining about Window ME when it came out. Of course, it was pretty easy to ignore the Windows ME "upgrade" if you already had Windows 98SE, and many people did just that.
I think the problem is that everytime Apple updates OSX, there is some gotta-have features in it, which means forking out another $129. It's pure marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of non-SP2 Windows XP computers out there, and enough people connecting them to the internet to make trying to hack them worthwhile.
On the otherhand, there isn't a huge number of OSX computers out there, and of those, I would guess few of them still run Jaguar. Why bother?
Considering Slashdotters' usual perspective when it comes to technology, there seem to be a lot of you that are positively luddite when it comes to cellular telephony.
Remember, slashdot is mostly full of anti-social geeks. Many of us don't have a cellphone, because we don't have any use for one.
And the best part is, if you get bored with the CD you can sell it, and in theory just be out some shipping costs.
As far as I know, no online music store allows you to resell the tracks.
Listen to me, toddestan. If you're a real geek, you know better than to imply that clock speed is everything. Clock speed is almost nothing.
I figured someone would call me on the G5 2.5Ghz vs 2.8Ghz P4 comparison. But my point still stands, I want to see someone build an "equilivent" (I'll let you choose what whatever processor you feel is equilivent to a P4 2.8Ghz) Mac with screen, keyboard, and mouse for $499 or less.
Macs are actually less expensive than PCs.
When you equip a PC with the exact same components in hardware and software as that which come standard on a Mac... the PC always comes out to be more expensive.
These "build the equilivent PC" arguements are pointless. If you are going to start out and try to build a PC that is just like the Mac, you might as well get the Mac. You'll save time, and probably some money (especially if you need iLife, iPhoto, iWhatever). If you want something different though, you have lots of options in the PC world.
Besides, try taking it the other way, and it's easy to "show" that the Mac is more expensive. Start out with some random PC, and go build the equilivent Mac (if you can), and see how much it costs. I see on Dell's website a 2.8Ghz PC for $499. Already, we have a faster chip than the most expensive G5 Powermac at a price of the base Mac Mini, and this includes a flat panel monitor!
Anyway, I compared two machines, a 20" iMac and a dual 2.5GHz G5. The iMac was there because they wanted to see a budget range computer, and the dual G5 because they claimed AMD was faster.
You consider the 20" iMac, which costs $1,899, a budget computer?!? And then you turn around and wonder why people claim Apple computers are more expensive?
Here is some news for you, most people in the PC world would consider a budget computer something that is $500-$600 or less. And that is with a monitor, keyboard, mouse, and maybe even a printer.
Aside from the fact that it's impossible to generate a perfect point mass.
Unless some discoveries have been made recently in particle physics, to the best that anyone can tell, the electron is a point mass (and a point charge too).
Naw, they would not go as far as modifying the power output without putting some sort of major notice on the system.
You're being sarcastic, right?
Click.
I have seen quite a bit of flakyness with boards using AMD's own chipset for the XP and MP chips. Granted, AMD didn't make the boards, but these came from different manufacturers. I don't know if AMD could bring to the market a board for their chips that would be as solid as Intel's boards for Intel chips.
Surprisenly, I have not had much trouble with VIA based boards, unless you put high bandwidth devices on the PCI bus, in which case you're screwed.
Otherwise, that leaves Nvidia and SIS as chipset makers that I don't have much experience with. I guess my next board will probably be a NForce of some kind.
If you do manage to get another board in there, be sure to check the pinout on the power supply before trying to turn it on, unless you want another surprise!
Your best bet would be to get a whitebox case, decent power supply, new motherboard, and move the rest of the parts over.
I remember back in 98 or 99 (yes I know ancient history) one coustomer of mine had several thousand HP Vectra PCs, all with Intel chips. They decided to buy a batch of AMD equipped Vectras as each PC was about $30 cheaper with an AMD over an Intel CPU. Out of the 80 or so AMD equipped HP Vectras 11 of them were DOA and another 4 had their processors go out in less than a month. I know that experience left an extremely strong impression in the customers mind and mine as well.
Funny, I have NEVER seen an HP Vectra equiped with anything but an Intel chip.
Are you sure they didn't get Pavilions or Compaqs, or something else?
Strange. I recently plugged a HP LaserJet 4 Plus into the parallel port of my XP machine, and went into control panel, opened the printers window to figure out how to install the printer - only to find that I didn't have to do a damn thing because Windows had already set it up for me. Couldn't be any easier than that.
And the best part about Opera is that its market share is always going to be so low that no one will ever bother to try and break it!
Before I get flamed, just know that I am an Opera user too.
Windows 2000 does not have native dual head support, for video cards with 2 or more outputs. Some drivers (like for Matrox) implement it for 2000, but others (ATI) do not.
I've been on eBay for about 5 years, and that's how it's worked for as long as I can remember.
The situation only happens when someone makes a bid less than one increment less than your maximum bid, and then you increase your maximum bid while holding the auction at your old maximum price. It's not terribly common scenario, and I would guess many eBay buyers never encounter it (and you'll never see it if you snipe).
Li-ion batteries, as found in the iPod and many digital cameras don't like to be discharged all the way to empty - it shortens the battery life (which is a pretty big deal if you have an iPod). Best thing to do is to top it off whenever you can.
This is the opposite of Nicad (and NiMH to some extent), where you have to deal with the memory effect.
Hell, give me neither cable and knock an additional $20 off the price (what Apple is charging for the cable). In fact, let me buy an ipod without the software CD or the white headphones, no accessories whatsoever, and knock another couple bucks off. Just an iPod in a box. Then, if I have multiple iPods, I'm only buying the dock and cable once. (They don't all need to charge and sync at the same time)
Hmm... an iPod that has no accessories, like the Mac Mini. I know, lets call it the iPod Mini! Oh wait...
Apple's never tried to compete with the bottom of the barrel.
What do you think the Shuffle is? $149 for a 1GB flash player is pretty cheap, and the Shuffle has practically no features to it.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if AMD changes their mind about this compatible with existing boards thing. I learned a while ago, just treat the motherboard and processor as a pair - buy them at the same time, and assume that if you upgrade one you'll have to upgrade the other.
However, I'm somewhat surprised that I could still use my 3 year old DDR333 memory in a new system (with a speed hit, of course).
What about adding a second, dedicated chip to take care of the stuff that now gets unloaded onto the CPU that used to be handled by seperate hardware? Stuff like the HDD Controller, network card, sound card, Winmodems. That would probably net a 10-20%+ difference in speed right there.
There are hundreds of cases out there in the PC world, don't like this one? Find another. Atleast with a PC I'm not stuck with whatever Steve Jobs thinks is cool.
For the record, I think Apple makes some pretty cool looking cases (like the Mac Mini). But they have some butt-ugly stuff too (like any of the iMacs).
But each to their own.
But, the Mac mini doesn't come with a mouse![!!] So, your USB mouse has infinitely more buttons than the Mac mini's mouse. :)
But there is a single button (power button) on the back of the Mac Mini! So this is a valid measurement. Just like my car payment is 1/2 a Mac Mini.
Please check into the Business Inkjet lines which use separate Print Heads and Ink Cartridges.
Then it might make sense for their business line. But why for home users where they are all one unit?
> can't tell the difference between Windows 95 and Windows XP you need to get your head checked
Nice work Mr. Microsoft apologist. He was talking about for end-users, and he's is right. You still have the same pitiful GUI on XP that you had on 95. You still have the broken Start button (WTF, I hit start to stop?) and poorly thought-out menus that you had on 95. Think from the terms of an end-user. Microsoft has made zero progress in over 10 years.
What, screw around with the interface just for the sake of screwing around? Microsoft likes to do that (ooh look, fading menus! ooh look, a shaded mouse cursor! ooh look, a green start button!). I just turn that crap off. The only real reason the Mac has come so far is that OS9 was such a steaming pile of crap to begin with.
Sure, Windows does have some quirks, but if you are going to complain about having to hit the start menu to shut down the computer, then I'm going to complain about having to drag volumes to the trash can to unmount/eject them (seriously, how dumb is that?). Or how you can irreversably delete shortcuts off the dock by dragging the icon off the dock. I have seen people do this more than once, who weren't experienced enough with OSX to know better - or for that matter, how to dig around in the Applications folder get the icon back.
Also, what archaic version of Linux were you running? You should try Knoppix, everything you need on a bootable CD without having to touch the PC's harddrive. Try Fedora, or Mandrake, or any other modern distro for something more permanent. Gone are the days of manually configuring X and having to partition the drive yourself (unless, you really want to). Most Distros now pretty much install themselves with no fuss.
Call a product Windows 98 and then change it's "upgrade" to Windows Me (please no ME jokes...) and everything is dandy.
Call a product OS X 10.3 and then its "upgrade" OS X 10.4 and people moan and bitch.
I seem to remember a lot of complaining about Window ME when it came out. Of course, it was pretty easy to ignore the Windows ME "upgrade" if you already had Windows 98SE, and many people did just that.
I think the problem is that everytime Apple updates OSX, there is some gotta-have features in it, which means forking out another $129. It's pure marketing.