I, personally, would be buying some o' that fruity goodness right now... were it not for the fact that I'm broke. Worse yet, I'm broke in Australian Dollars.
Yet another piece of Apple I'm destined to drool over, but never own...
Re:The hole in our Apple theories
on
Solaris 10 Released
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Don't you think that the first and third of your categories should merged into one? That'd be the "Ooh, pretty" group, I suppose: the ones that care about appearance.
And you'd forgotten a third group, the ones that have used Macs in the past and are now used to them... to the point where it's simply easier to buy another one in the future when it's needed. This'd be something along the lines of, "I want a Buick cause that's what my daddy always bought", minus the Buick. It might not even be that extreme - it's just that, for them, there's no point switching to potentially cheaper hardware, because they're comfortable where they are (the reverse, of course, applies to people on x86 hardware and OSs).
So, your three groups become:
1) The Appearance Junkies 2) The Creative Crew 3) The Lifetime Users
Now, sure, if Apple were to sell it's OS then people would switch hardware. But what about the compatibility issues? You couldn't simply expect software bought for the Mac to just install and go on completely different hardware, could you? Aside from the infinitely more diverse selection of hardware, the challenges in getting *any* software to just move across hardware would be enormous.
So, you'd really have to buy new versions of the software. Would it be for Windows, or Max OS X86? Heh, who knows? Maybe we'd have something like the Classic Environment.
Or you'd have to download new updates to all your software, to make it actually run. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a whole barrel of fun to me. And this isn't mentioning the effort on the parts of the developers (both Apple's, and third-party) to convert their software to run at a decent pace on totally new hardware; and effort that could end up bombing out and losing millions in work.
In the end, even if Apple were to port OS X to x86 hardware, you couldn't really expect that many people to adopt it.
Oh, you'll find that no Mac (particularly, no G5) will feel very "slow", as such, on 256Mb RAM... until you do something like fire up Photoshop. On my older iMac, with 320Mb RAM, it takes more than a minute for PS-CS to load in ideal conditions, and while I know it's not the most scientific of tests, my iBook with 512Mb RAM will load it in less than half the time - even with a laptop's hard disk. Case in point.
So, depending on your standards, it might never feel really "slow", as such... it's just that your machine will become so much faster by doubling the RAM to 512Mb. My iMac G5 has a gig of RAM available, and it screams, baby.
Actually, running OS X with 256Mb is more like... well, running OS X with 256Mb. There's no other way to describe it.
There's a reason for that - In OS X, the more RAM you add, the faster the machine will become. Sure, there'll be diminishing returns, but it'll become a little faster with every megabyte you throw at it, because of OS X's use of RAM as a superfast cache. Windows, however, uses the disk far more than OS X, regardless of the total RAM installed, which means that it'll run faster on machines with less memory. It's just a design difference.
The upshot, however, is that running with 256Mb in an OS X machine can only really be described as like running OS X with 256Mb of RAM. Sorry, there's no way around it.
So, now, instead of hating them for being the monopolistic, evil, brutish and cruel giant that we all like to think of them, they want us to praise them for their strides forward in the fields of Digital Rights Management, ever-retreating deadlines and anti-crapware stance.
I, for one, welcome our new (helpful) overlords...
One potater, two potater, three potaterfour. All as healthy and mature as any linux distribution, but it's not like most would ever buy a Mac just to run linux.
Unless this is another of those "just cause I can" things.:-)
I *love* the engrish on the e-buyonline website. Almost makes you wonder what kind of person would give their credit information to a site like that.
Welcome to Mksoft software.we offer a completeline of most powerful and easy to use products.every products include access to dedicated technical support lines, plus comprehensive guides and reports to make you expert from day one.Browse Product Categories for details list.
I think your post also provides a pretty good answer to the original question. What good is an operating system to average computer users if you have to be more skilled than the average computer user to do anything with it?
Why, it gives us something to feel elite about, I suppose:)
Given the skill and experience that it takes, in my experience, to be able to run Unix as naturally as some people do... perhaps they've earned that attitude.
The installation process alone, as one of the parents said, can sometimes be nothing short of excruciating, and after that a newbie still has to learn to get around a completely unfamiliar system, and use it normally. Finally, to be able to customise your lovely little Unix box to bend to your will at the slightest command - anything from adjusting your desktop environment (or lack thereof) to tweaking the kernel For Great Justice - you've shown yourself to be considerably more skilled with your OS of choice than the majority of computer users.
So maybe some Unix devotees really do deserve to have an elitist attitude. I'm not saying they should, just that some people have something to show for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if only there were an easy way to slashdot a 500-byte torrent file... =)
And changing it to "Muffle" would not satisfy the requirements of trade dress laws.
It'd certainly make you want to buy it, though:
"Hot damn, a SuperMuffle!"
Unless the entrails are yours :(
Use your nose, damnit! :-)
Control-click is your friend.
Close enough: http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/392f69cfe950a8dd0 3dba199d9383e91/index.html
Sure - do you accept the Elbonian Eyecrud?
I, personally, would be buying some o' that fruity goodness right now... were it not for the fact that I'm broke. Worse yet, I'm broke in Australian Dollars.
Yet another piece of Apple I'm destined to drool over, but never own...
You're right - it's probably just formaldehyde.
See, Apple still remains true to it's values: You always could have done better with them, no matter how well you've done already. :)
:)
With hardware, they'll upgrade before you have have time to put your card back in your wallet.
With software, it's often the same - unfortunately, those sellouts at Cupertino at making upgrades cheaper, or free (a la FCP-HD).
I must say, this is a very refreshing move. Let's see how long it takes them to get to $80 again
Oh, so THAT'S why late-night SBS is so popular :)
Don't you think that the first and third of your categories should merged into one? That'd be the "Ooh, pretty" group, I suppose: the ones that care about appearance.
And you'd forgotten a third group, the ones that have used Macs in the past and are now used to them... to the point where it's simply easier to buy another one in the future when it's needed. This'd be something along the lines of, "I want a Buick cause that's what my daddy always bought", minus the Buick. It might not even be that extreme - it's just that, for them, there's no point switching to potentially cheaper hardware, because they're comfortable where they are (the reverse, of course, applies to people on x86 hardware and OSs).
So, your three groups become:
1) The Appearance Junkies
2) The Creative Crew
3) The Lifetime Users
Now, sure, if Apple were to sell it's OS then people would switch hardware. But what about the compatibility issues? You couldn't simply expect software bought for the Mac to just install and go on completely different hardware, could you? Aside from the infinitely more diverse selection of hardware, the challenges in getting *any* software to just move across hardware would be enormous.
So, you'd really have to buy new versions of the software. Would it be for Windows, or Max OS X86? Heh, who knows? Maybe we'd have something like the Classic Environment.
Or you'd have to download new updates to all your software, to make it actually run. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a whole barrel of fun to me. And this isn't mentioning the effort on the parts of the developers (both Apple's, and third-party) to convert their software to run at a decent pace on totally new hardware; and effort that could end up bombing out and losing millions in work.
In the end, even if Apple were to port OS X to x86 hardware, you couldn't really expect that many people to adopt it.
Well, relatively speaking... :P
So, depending on your standards, it might never feel really "slow", as such... it's just that your machine will become so much faster by doubling the RAM to 512Mb. My iMac G5 has a gig of RAM available, and it screams, baby.
There's a reason for that - In OS X, the more RAM you add, the faster the machine will become. Sure, there'll be diminishing returns, but it'll become a little faster with every megabyte you throw at it, because of OS X's use of RAM as a superfast cache. Windows, however, uses the disk far more than OS X, regardless of the total RAM installed, which means that it'll run faster on machines with less memory. It's just a design difference.
The upshot, however, is that running with 256Mb in an OS X machine can only really be described as like running OS X with 256Mb of RAM. Sorry, there's no way around it.
So, now, instead of hating them for being the monopolistic, evil, brutish and cruel giant that we all like to think of them, they want us to praise them for their strides forward in the fields of Digital Rights Management, ever-retreating deadlines and anti-crapware stance.
I, for one, welcome our new (helpful) overlords...
Monkey see, monkey...
Egads, there's millions of them! O_O
And all that in the space of a 14Mb download. Efficiency is bliss.
Bah. A real genius would set his combination to the LAST few digits of the Fibbonaci sequence ;-)
"What me, worry?"
or, possibly "Bah, humbug."
Which is funny, really: so would I.
Cough bloody cough. What's your point? Linux exists on the Mac.
Hell: Linux.org is where you want to go if you're going to be pedantic.
One potater, two potater, three potater four. All as healthy and mature as any linux distribution, but it's not like most would ever buy a Mac just to run linux.
Unless this is another of those "just cause I can" things. :-)
I *love* the engrish on the e-buyonline website. Almost makes you wonder what kind of person would give their credit information to a site like that.
Welcome to Mksoft software.we offer a completeline of most powerful and easy to use products.every products include access to dedicated technical support lines, plus comprehensive guides and reports to make you expert from day one.Browse Product Categories for details list.
I love it.
Why, it gives us something to feel elite about, I suppose
Given the skill and experience that it takes, in my experience, to be able to run Unix as naturally as some people do... perhaps they've earned that attitude.
The installation process alone, as one of the parents said, can sometimes be nothing short of excruciating, and after that a newbie still has to learn to get around a completely unfamiliar system, and use it normally. Finally, to be able to customise your lovely little Unix box to bend to your will at the slightest command - anything from adjusting your desktop environment (or lack thereof) to tweaking the kernel For Great Justice - you've shown yourself to be considerably more skilled with your OS of choice than the majority of computer users.
So maybe some Unix devotees really do deserve to have an elitist attitude. I'm not saying they should, just that some people have something to show for it.