It may not be marketed as a server, but if it meets the system requirements [I remember it requiring a stock G3, 128mb of RAM blah blah] then it'll install. Same way with a standard OS X installation... I installed OS X Server 10.3 on my iBook, and it worked great. [Apple however says they do not support server on portables, but it installs!]
You can look at it this way if you like: it's better than Apple having it check machine IDs and saying "Oops, your machine isn't design to be a server!" and then refusing to install.
Hell, it might even be an attempt to get more people looking at OS X server for the future.
I think it's a great thing Sun has done for the community, regardless of the feelings some people have for them. It's definitely got a positive spin on it, and hopefully will result in more open source software.
People thought that about the Cube, then it turned into a 'cult classic' in a sense, because they still sell for higher prices, despite being 450Mhz G4s.
Of course most people buy them to upgrade them or mod them, definitely not for everybody.
Windows has updates, doesn't really include new features, and those updates do in fact like to break things - SP2, anyone? When OS X 10.2 was out, I used a friend's copy and detested it. Too slow. When 10.3 came out, there was more responsiveness and more stability. I've heard many others say the same thing.
At least with OS X, whether I want to upgrade or do a clean install, I can use the same install cds. I'm not forced to install a previous version, then upgrade. [Aside from with those upgrade only disks, but I'm speaking of the version you spend $129, or $69 education, which is a good deal, IMO]
People include MS Office in their pricing just because Macs come with AppleWorks, or what is now iWork, as an all-in-one office suite. Windows doesn't have anything of that nature, and OOo is still really not quite ready for the average user just yet.
Since when is the hardware in the box not included in the quality? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I consider quality of the machine to be encompassing all of it, even if the parts are generic, if it works well and works reliably, then good for it and the maker. And actually, I do think the graphics chipset does make a difference in the reliabilty of the machine, because those horrid integrated chipsets slow down Windows XP like something fierce and alot of users who buy such PCs don't know enough about turning off the advanced graphics features to make it more responsive.
I won't argue that my Mac is more reliable, because I still have problems with it, my PCs, and my BSD box. I also have had funky Thinkpads, but they've also been lower-end models with big design flaws... busted hinges, loose power ports, that kind of thing. The upper-end systems seem to be pretty respectable, though, but early bad experience has made me not to likely to buy another Thinkpad. I won't get started on ASUS boards. [Yet another few bad experiences have scarred me for life.]
I've also been one who has seen more dead PCs right out of the box than Macs. Granted, more PCs are purchased so this could very well contribute to it. I know people who have had issues with Macs as well.
And as for: I think it's absurd to expect machines being spat out from the same assembly lines with the same quality control people from companies that may not care about their customer's reputations but certainly care about their own to differ significantly in quality control simply because one customer has Apple logos on their products and the others may end up anywhere., last time I checked, Apple users weren't using commodity parts like PCs do for one thing, so they'd not be made on the same assembly line. In case you've forgotten, major difference in architectures. Secondly, at least if I have a hardware problem with my Mac when I get it, I can have it fixed, with paid shipping both ways, no real hassle. That kind of service just doesn't happen with many PC retailers.
Hardware quality is roughly the same with Apple as it is with everyone else.
Oh yeah, except Apple uses REAL video chipsets and separate RAM even in their low-end systems, while low-end PCs have shared video memory and this "Intel Extreme" graphics nonsense that is a far cry short of anything I'd consider extreme. I can't quite see how that's generic.
And some "cheap" companies seem to do better, more solid, more reliable, PCs - in my experience - than Apple anyway.
I have yet to see this and I deal with a family who buys cheap PCs from Wal-mart [aside from my mother, who bought herself a Dell for some ungodly reason]. The PCs are all dead/dying and being replaced, yet again with fucking Wal-mart purchased PCs. A Mac that I got from my campus newspaper lab after it had been replaced was made well before any of those machines, and it is still working beautifully.
Macs always have their quirks, it's one of the more interesting things about owning them, at least in my opinion. I'd take some slight quirks and a decent OS over all of the hassle that comes with Windows and other *nix based systems... although I do use [and sort-of enjoy] both on a normal basis.
I sort of agree on the OS 9 thing... Linux applications are still being developed, while software for OS 9 generally is not, especially in the case of modern web browsers. I personally like the classic Mac OS, and it's rather snappy on my machine, but the browser problem is the thing that just makes it less appealing.
Just because your system can't run OS X definitely does not mean it is useless.
I have used OS X plenty of times on older G3-based hardware [I run 10.3 on a 600Mhz snow iBook] and one of the biggest bottlenecks is RAM and video. You can speed up OS X on the iMacs by adding RAM and running in a 16-bit video mode, although this is kind of frustrating. With the B&W G3s, just pop in a bunch of RAM and a new video card. Viola! OS X lives!
Or of course you could by a new Mac. Ahhh, freedom of choice!
First of all, you don't know me - don't use my name you anonymous idiot.
Maybe I should have been more specific - they own the licensing and all of the technical bits that go into the iPod.
Secondly, if you bought an iPod, you KNEW what you were getting in to. You knew it would support MP3s and that was it until Apple added AAC. It's not like they're trying to blindside anyone.
I'm not a fantatic, for starters. For somebody who's saying I sound pathetic you're not so far off, being anonymous and all.
Apple isn't crossing into territory that doesn't belong to them - they own the iPod. Period. They does have the right to block Real from using their hardware if they chose. Like I said, I don't know where this is going to go without further information - but if Real did do anything illegal then Apple has every right to take action against them.
Apple just hit their 100 million song mark - the store has been open about a year if I remember correctly - so that comes to about 8.3 million songs a month. Pretty crazy.
As far as I'm concerned, anybody who purchased an iPod who buys music online is going to likely be using the iTunes music store. Okay, so RealPlayer may have higher quality files, but on a mobile player with headphones and background noise, is anybody going to notice a slight difference? Very doubtful.
RealPlayer has been nothing but horrible bloatware since around version 5 or so, and this seems to me like an attempt to get more people to use their horrible products. They can take that line about compatibility and shove it right up their ass - I can't use RealPlayer files in anything BUT RealPlayer and installing that thing is a nightmare - one false move and it takes over all of your file extensions and everything else. Who the hell wants that? At least Microsoft made Media Player for the Macintosh AND there are other programs that can handle WinMedia files!
I'm not quite sure where this will go legally right now, but Apple has every right to block this in the next iPod software update. Real is crossing into territory that doesn't belong to them, and I do feel that their behavior is completely unethical.
Regardless, I'm sure most of you are thinking that Real is on it's way out, and I hope to hell it happens.
First off, the LCD didn't fail. It had a bright spot, which in some cases isn't a big deal. However, it bothered me when I was doing graphics work so I called and they replaced it. The hard disk died [and laptop hard drives seem to do that frequently - my college was an ThinkPad University] and they replaced that. Keep in mind the machine is 3 years old and has been used and abused quite a bit in that time.
My school had also previously been completely Macintosh. There are still old machines in use that have never failed while the new PCs drop dead within a few months. That does make the Mac look alot more dependable considering they're much older than the PCs and are still running without problems.
Again, not going to argue that swapping out parts in a Mac is more difficult, and you can't just pick them up. I've been inside lots of PCs and Macs - I've got scars on my hands and lower arms from working on both. However, if there's a warranty remaining on the machine [or an extended plan such as AppleCare] - why bother to go spend additional money when you can send the machine out for a few days and it comes back repaired.
The site I directed you to has been researched. Of course there are other sites out there that push one way or the other. I found it to be a informative site and simply recommended you look at it so you'd know where I was coming from before you just decided to start criticizing. And no, I don't know you, but I'm glad I don't.
I definitely don't think of the power consumption as a factor, and I'm sure most schools and businesses don't. Of course the machines themselves are the most important aspect so it's easy to understand why it would be overlooked.
Slashdot Mirror
It only voids the warranty if you break it in the process. It's just not user-friendly and if Apple does it and breaks it, they can just replace it.
It actually stops at 7.5.5! Download 7.5.3, then update freely to 7.5.5 - I rememeber downloading and installing it many times during college. :]
/ Apple_Software_Updates/English-North_American/Maci ntosh/System/Older_System/
http://download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area
You might as well get another PC. OS X is still *nix, it's not going to run Windows apps natively.
Now if you're one of those people who's going to buy it then slap Windows on it just to play games, you should've just gotten a PC to begin with.
OS X has a "Software Update" application that runs on its own. It even offers an option to save downloaded packages for future installations.
Much nicer [and easier!] than being tied to using IE to update my 2K/XP boxes.
Fat Patch Tuesday!
It may not be marketed as a server, but if it meets the system requirements [I remember it requiring a stock G3, 128mb of RAM blah blah] then it'll install. Same way with a standard OS X installation... I installed OS X Server 10.3 on my iBook, and it worked great. [Apple however says they do not support server on portables, but it installs!]
You can look at it this way if you like: it's better than Apple having it check machine IDs and saying "Oops, your machine isn't design to be a server!" and then refusing to install.
Hell, it might even be an attempt to get more people looking at OS X server for the future.
No, it won't. The last version of IE for OS X was 5.2.3 [5.1.7 for OS 8.x - 9.x], and Microsoft is no longer updating it.
I think it's a great thing Sun has done for the community, regardless of the feelings some people have for them. It's definitely got a positive spin on it, and hopefully will result in more open source software.
People thought that about the Cube, then it turned into a 'cult classic' in a sense, because they still sell for higher prices, despite being 450Mhz G4s.
Of course most people buy them to upgrade them or mod them, definitely not for everybody.
You're allowed to open the Mac mini without voiding the warranty, but if you break anything, then you're screwed.
I think so. There were no comments and I hit the link, BOOM down already.
Poor Bill, as if we didn't have enough reason to make fun. Those pictures... geez.
Somebody's been /.-ed
Windows has updates, doesn't really include new features, and those updates do in fact like to break things - SP2, anyone? When OS X 10.2 was out, I used a friend's copy and detested it. Too slow. When 10.3 came out, there was more responsiveness and more stability. I've heard many others say the same thing.
At least with OS X, whether I want to upgrade or do a clean install, I can use the same install cds. I'm not forced to install a previous version, then upgrade. [Aside from with those upgrade only disks, but I'm speaking of the version you spend $129, or $69 education, which is a good deal, IMO]
People include MS Office in their pricing just because Macs come with AppleWorks, or what is now iWork, as an all-in-one office suite. Windows doesn't have anything of that nature, and OOo is still really not quite ready for the average user just yet.
It's called the Macmini. Slashdot has had a few stories on it now already.
Ahhh redundancy.
Since when is the hardware in the box not included in the quality? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I consider quality of the machine to be encompassing all of it, even if the parts are generic, if it works well and works reliably, then good for it and the maker. And actually, I do think the graphics chipset does make a difference in the reliabilty of the machine, because those horrid integrated chipsets slow down Windows XP like something fierce and alot of users who buy such PCs don't know enough about turning off the advanced graphics features to make it more responsive.
I won't argue that my Mac is more reliable, because I still have problems with it, my PCs, and my BSD box. I also have had funky Thinkpads, but they've also been lower-end models with big design flaws... busted hinges, loose power ports, that kind of thing. The upper-end systems seem to be pretty respectable, though, but early bad experience has made me not to likely to buy another Thinkpad. I won't get started on ASUS boards. [Yet another few bad experiences have scarred me for life.]
I've also been one who has seen more dead PCs right out of the box than Macs. Granted, more PCs are purchased so this could very well contribute to it. I know people who have had issues with Macs as well.
And as for: I think it's absurd to expect machines being spat out from the same assembly lines with the same quality control people from companies that may not care about their customer's reputations but certainly care about their own to differ significantly in quality control simply because one customer has Apple logos on their products and the others may end up anywhere. , last time I checked, Apple users weren't using commodity parts like PCs do for one thing, so they'd not be made on the same assembly line. In case you've forgotten, major difference in architectures. Secondly, at least if I have a hardware problem with my Mac when I get it, I can have it fixed, with paid shipping both ways, no real hassle. That kind of service just doesn't happen with many PC retailers.
Hardware quality is roughly the same with Apple as it is with everyone else.
Oh yeah, except Apple uses REAL video chipsets and separate RAM even in their low-end systems, while low-end PCs have shared video memory and this "Intel Extreme" graphics nonsense that is a far cry short of anything I'd consider extreme. I can't quite see how that's generic.
And some "cheap" companies seem to do better, more solid, more reliable, PCs - in my experience - than Apple anyway.
I have yet to see this and I deal with a family who buys cheap PCs from Wal-mart [aside from my mother, who bought herself a Dell for some ungodly reason]. The PCs are all dead/dying and being replaced, yet again with fucking Wal-mart purchased PCs. A Mac that I got from my campus newspaper lab after it had been replaced was made well before any of those machines, and it is still working beautifully.
Macs always have their quirks, it's one of the more interesting things about owning them, at least in my opinion. I'd take some slight quirks and a decent OS over all of the hassle that comes with Windows and other *nix based systems... although I do use [and sort-of enjoy] both on a normal basis.
I sort of agree on the OS 9 thing... Linux applications are still being developed, while software for OS 9 generally is not, especially in the case of modern web browsers. I personally like the classic Mac OS, and it's rather snappy on my machine, but the browser problem is the thing that just makes it less appealing.
Just because your system can't run OS X definitely does not mean it is useless.
I have used OS X plenty of times on older G3-based hardware [I run 10.3 on a 600Mhz snow iBook] and one of the biggest bottlenecks is RAM and video. You can speed up OS X on the iMacs by adding RAM and running in a 16-bit video mode, although this is kind of frustrating. With the B&W G3s, just pop in a bunch of RAM and a new video card. Viola! OS X lives!
Or of course you could by a new Mac. Ahhh, freedom of choice!
First of all, you don't know me - don't use my name you anonymous idiot.
Maybe I should have been more specific - they own the licensing and all of the technical bits that go into the iPod.
Secondly, if you bought an iPod, you KNEW what you were getting in to. You knew it would support MP3s and that was it until Apple added AAC. It's not like they're trying to blindside anyone.
I'm not a fantatic, for starters. For somebody who's saying I sound pathetic you're not so far off, being anonymous and all.
Apple isn't crossing into territory that doesn't belong to them - they own the iPod. Period. They does have the right to block Real from using their hardware if they chose. Like I said, I don't know where this is going to go without further information - but if Real did do anything illegal then Apple has every right to take action against them.
Well when you start a sentence with the phrase 'plus i' one would assume that it was the same poster.
How about you stop playing anonymous now?
Apple just hit their 100 million song mark - the store has been open about a year if I remember correctly - so that comes to about 8.3 million songs a month. Pretty crazy.
Thanks to you I got marked as a troll you anonymous ass.
As far as I'm concerned, anybody who purchased an iPod who buys music online is going to likely be using the iTunes music store. Okay, so RealPlayer may have higher quality files, but on a mobile player with headphones and background noise, is anybody going to notice a slight difference? Very doubtful.
RealPlayer has been nothing but horrible bloatware since around version 5 or so, and this seems to me like an attempt to get more people to use their horrible products. They can take that line about compatibility and shove it right up their ass - I can't use RealPlayer files in anything BUT RealPlayer and installing that thing is a nightmare - one false move and it takes over all of your file extensions and everything else. Who the hell wants that? At least Microsoft made Media Player for the Macintosh AND there are other programs that can handle WinMedia files!
I'm not quite sure where this will go legally right now, but Apple has every right to block this in the next iPod software update. Real is crossing into territory that doesn't belong to them, and I do feel that their behavior is completely unethical.
Regardless, I'm sure most of you are thinking that Real is on it's way out, and I hope to hell it happens.
First off, the LCD didn't fail. It had a bright spot, which in some cases isn't a big deal. However, it bothered me when I was doing graphics work so I called and they replaced it. The hard disk died [and laptop hard drives seem to do that frequently - my college was an ThinkPad University] and they replaced that. Keep in mind the machine is 3 years old and has been used and abused quite a bit in that time.
My school had also previously been completely Macintosh. There are still old machines in use that have never failed while the new PCs drop dead within a few months. That does make the Mac look alot more dependable considering they're much older than the PCs and are still running without problems.
Again, not going to argue that swapping out parts in a Mac is more difficult, and you can't just pick them up. I've been inside lots of PCs and Macs - I've got scars on my hands and lower arms from working on both. However, if there's a warranty remaining on the machine [or an extended plan such as AppleCare] - why bother to go spend additional money when you can send the machine out for a few days and it comes back repaired.
The site I directed you to has been researched. Of course there are other sites out there that push one way or the other. I found it to be a informative site and simply recommended you look at it so you'd know where I was coming from before you just decided to start criticizing. And no, I don't know you, but I'm glad I don't.
Good point!
I definitely don't think of the power consumption as a factor, and I'm sure most schools and businesses don't. Of course the machines themselves are the most important aspect so it's easy to understand why it would be overlooked.