Another expense with Apples is the inability to run new OSes on old hardware.
My Windows machine machine is almost 9 years old, but could run Win 7 with a simple RAM upgrade (from 1/2 gig to 1 gig). Try running 10.6 Snow Leopard on nine-year-old hardware. Or even 5-year-old hardware.
The hardware requirements for Windows 7 is higher than for Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard will run on a 867 MHz Power PC G4 which was released in 2001. That beats your "5-year-old hardware" and almost meets 9 years. On the other hand the specs for Windows 7 requires a 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor, yet that I was able to find out the first Intel I could find that was at least 1 GHz was the Tualatin-256 which was released several months after the 867 MHz Power PC G4. After, not before.
This is why I have a perfectly-good G4 PowerMac, but it stopped being supported only 4 years after I got it (with 10.4)
I bought a brand new Windows NT4 Workstation in December 1997 and a little over 2 years later in January 2000 when I ran Windows Update a pop-up told me I had to order, and pay for, a disk for the latest updates.
I mentioned this a few days ago and another slashdotter posted a link to NT4 updates, I don't recall who it is but whoever I want to thank. Now if only I get around to it I want to upgrade the workstation. It's still good but I want to increase the RAM, swap the hard disk with larger ones, and add USB and Firewire.
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M 48-core CUDA parallel computing processor 512MB (dedicated)
17-inch diagonal WUXGA (1920x1200)
500-GB SATA Hard Drive (7200 RPM)
Total: $3,203.00
I'd rather pay my Microsoft tax and get an OS that is compatible with the majority of hardware out there then pay a similar amount of money on the Mac Tax and get a computer plagued with incompatibilities for much of the software that exists.
Not only can I install Mac software on my Mac, I can also install Linux and Windows software on it. Try installing Mac software in Linux or Windows.
Of course, I am reliant on very little Windows-only products. I only use 2, but I do know those two can be royal pain in the ass to use on a Mac.
Before switching from Windows to both Linux and OS X I made a list of what I wanted to do, not specific software but tasks. I then looked at what was available for each task on each platform and I didn't find anything I needed Windows for, everything I wanted and needed to do I could use a Mac for, and most could be done with Linux as well.
or $2,000+ if you don't have a mac and want to switch. Why has NO article mentioned the overwhelming price of mac hardware
2005 came and went 4 years ago. This is now 2009 and Mac prices are comparable to Windows PC prices.
but they mention having to replace hardware for Win 7 machines? WTF?
Now that may be an error with TFA, but is it? Can Win 7 be installed on a 2 or 3 year old PC? I know there was a lot of howling over PCs that were sold as "Vista Ready" weeks and months before Vista arrived on store shelves. They were howling because the Vista ran poorly on them. A couple of days ago I looked at and posted the hardware requirements for both Snow Leopard and Win 7. The requirements for Win 7 are higher.
I grew up in Orlando, FL, and know what hurricanes can do to buildings. My mom still lives there as does a sister. I have no doubt a power receiving station would be devastated and unable to generate electricity if a hurricane came along. Hurricane Andrew destroyed Homestead Air Force Base, FL, in 1992. Because of the damage the Air Force didn't reopen the base and it was eventually sold to developers.
Quite simply a hurricane could knock out power for weeks if not months and a ground station that solar power is beamed to would not change that.
They compared nearly identical machines but a nearly identical 1.86Mhz Core 2 Windows box is going to cost significantly less than a corresponding Mac
2009 calling. When it came tyme to get a new laptop I compared the prices of various laptops from different OEMs and Apple. The MacBook Pro I finally got was in the middle between the cheapest Windows laptop and the most expensive. Heck a Dell was $200 more. That was more than 2 years ago.
The upgrade price for Snow Leopard, that $30, is only good if you're upgrading from Leopard. The upgrade checks to see if Leopard is installed, you may be able to hack Snow Leopard on top of Tiger but you'd be breaking the license.
And unlike other OS X upgrades the only way I see to legally upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard is by getting the Mac Box set, which costs $170.
I like Apple's (outside of the insane "must upgrade" cycle)
There is no must upgrade. I had my Leopard disk for more than a year before I nuked Tiger and installed it. The only reason I did was because I wanted to install Java SE 6 and it required Leopard. But there was no must upgrade, I wanted to.
I now have my Snow Leopard upgrade disk, again there was no must upgrade. I only got it because it only cost $30 and I had a $10 gift certificate. With taxes I only paid $22 and change.
I might be tempted to install Windows 7 on an external drive for my MacBook Pro but only if it does not require Activation. I switched to Macs and OS X as well as Linux from Windows because I hate it that Microsoft is now requiring Activation by either allowing Windows and Office to use the net to contact MS servers or by calling MS. If I pay for something the most that should be required is to input a license key.
The good news for consumers is that both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are great-looking OS. Computerworld is just wrong to give a point to Apple on price:-)
TFA was wrong for using the $29 price of Snow Leopard. That price is only for upgrading from Leopard to Snow Leopard. If the upgrade is from Tiger or an earlier OS X the price is higher. Looking on the Apple website to get the full install disk the Mac Box Set, which cost $170, has to be bought. The only consolation to buying the box set is it includes iLife 2009 and iWork 2009. But as far as I'm concerned Snow Leopard should include iLife, so that's like selling iWork for $140 which bought alone only cost $80.
You don't seem to realize that most, if not all of the proposed new nuclear power plants in the U.S. (which is the only market I know well) are _additional_ reactors at _existing_ nuclear power plants.
It does not matter where they are located, transmission capacity still has to be there. And witnessed by current blackouts and brownouts the capacity is not there now.
My being neutral and talking about facts doesn't mean I'm biased against wind.
When you say wind has transmission costs but do not say nuclear power has those same cost then you are showing your bias.
Personally, me. I'd rather have a hybrid system of solar panels, wind turbines, and maybe microhydro to power my home. And vehicles. Now space based solar power could make sense for a moon base, but then again the atmosphere isn't as thick there so CSP, Concentrated Solar Power, may be better.
The Mohave Power Station luckily was shut down. The Black Mesa aquifer was being pumped dry to pump coal mined at Black Mesa in a slurry to the power station.
Ok, so worst case scenario, 5 guys in the extreme north may have to take off their parkas. Oh no! It's a disaster of global proportions!
No, much worse has already happened. Some Inuits has drowned when they broke through thin ice. Of course that's nothing compared other things that have happened to them.
One possible advantage is that it is perhaps easier for a small, technologically advanced, densely-populated island nation with no conventional military to maintain physical control of an object in space than one in another country.
This may be true but all it requires to knock out a satellite is an explosion near it. China has already tested a satellite killer and North Korea could be close to being able to launch into space.
Wind also doesn't scale as easily - you're not taking transmission costs into account
Even nuclear has to be transmitted and so has a cost too. Of course adding solar, wind, and other sources of power to the grid will mean the grid has to be rebuilt and made smart. However according to "Rebuilding the Power Grid" problems related to the grid and power quality costs the US $80 Billion to $180 billion a year. If so then it only makes sense to rebuild the grid, and businesses are working on that. Xcel Energy is working on the Smart City Grid for instance. What stands in the way of a smart grid is government. It's not simple, well physically it is but not politically, to erect transmission lines from where the power is produced to where it's used. There are all the property owners as well as governments, from cities, counties, and states to deal with.
Then when you also add in heavy transmission line costs, you also get to deal with rights of way and environmental impact studies for that entire transmission line route, etc, etc.
As stated above that applies to nuclear power as well. It applies to all sources of electricity including coal and gas fired powerplants. The fact you're only applying it to wind shows you're biased against wind.
If only Japan could somehow magically create more open, unfarmable, and uninhabited land where the turbines could be placed without taking away already scarce farm land or slowly deafen anyone within a kilometer!
Unlike nuclear power land for wind turbines can be used for food farming as well. Here in Minnesota many corn farmers site wind turbines on their farms. Platforms for towers don't take much space. And wind turbines aren't as loud as some make them out to be. All those who say they take too much land or are too loud are doing is spreading FUD and lies. And saying they kill a of birds is also FUD. Buildings, cars, and cats kill many birds. If you're worries about birds being killed by wind turbines then complain about birds being killed at airports. Here is a list of "9 Human Activities That Threaten Birds".
Plus warmer temperatures mean that we could actually start using all that land in Canada, instead of clustering the entire population along the US border.
The entire population of Canada isn't clustered along the Canadian US border, Nunavut is in the north, and the Inuits there depend on Arctic Sea ice.
Even the hardest sciences are subject to healthy dispute that can be unhealthily portrayed as though there are two equal and opposite positions.
Ah, the wedge issue ID supporters try to have included in education as regards evolution.
Oh, let me get this too:
The argument global warming deniers
Scientifically it's not Global Warming that a concern, it's Climate Change. While record highs are being recorded in the Pacific Northwest, such as in Seattle, this seems like the coolest summer I can recall in the Minneapolis, St Paul, twin cities area in the 10 years I've been here.
if maintenance is cheap enough it's not too bad. $70,000 per home supplied amortized over say a 50 year design life is $117/month which is on the low end of my monthly bill.
You pay $117 a month for power, electricity? Heck I'd freak out if my bill were as high as $50, it's only about $20. Of course I'm single and live alone, but even if if my household had 3 others I wouldn't expect the power bill to be as high as $50.
Slashdot Mirror
Another expense with Apples is the inability to run new OSes on old hardware.
My Windows machine machine is almost 9 years old, but could run Win 7 with a simple RAM upgrade (from 1/2 gig to 1 gig). Try running 10.6 Snow Leopard on nine-year-old hardware. Or even 5-year-old hardware.
The hardware requirements for Windows 7 is higher than for Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard will run on a 867 MHz Power PC G4 which was released in 2001. That beats your "5-year-old hardware" and almost meets 9 years. On the other hand the specs for Windows 7 requires a 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor, yet that I was able to find out the first Intel I could find that was at least 1 GHz was the Tualatin-256 which was released several months after the 867 MHz Power PC G4. After, not before.
This is why I have a perfectly-good G4 PowerMac, but it stopped being supported only 4 years after I got it (with 10.4)
I bought a brand new Windows NT4 Workstation in December 1997 and a little over 2 years later in January 2000 when I ran Windows Update a pop-up told me I had to order, and pay for, a disk for the latest updates.
I mentioned this a few days ago and another slashdotter posted a link to NT4 updates, I don't recall who it is but whoever I want to thank. Now if only I get around to it I want to upgrade the workstation. It's still good but I want to increase the RAM, swap the hard disk with larger ones, and add USB and Firewire.
Falcon
Do a comparison yourself if you don't think the Mac Tax exists. It does.
The Mac Tax does not exist.
MacBook Pro "17
Total: $2,849.00
Alienware M17x
Total: $2,774
Dell Precision Workstation M6400
Total: $3,414
HP EliteBook 8730w Mobile Workstation
Total: $3,203.00
I'd rather pay my Microsoft tax and get an OS that is compatible with the majority of hardware out there then pay a similar amount of money on the Mac Tax and get a computer plagued with incompatibilities for much of the software that exists.
Not only can I install Mac software on my Mac, I can also install Linux and Windows software on it. Try installing Mac software in Linux or Windows.
Of course, I am reliant on very little Windows-only products. I only use 2, but I do know those two can be royal pain in the ass to use on a Mac.
Before switching from Windows to both Linux and OS X I made a list of what I wanted to do, not specific software but tasks. I then looked at what was available for each task on each platform and I didn't find anything I needed Windows for, everything I wanted and needed to do I could use a Mac for, and most could be done with Linux as well.
Falcon
If you don't own a computer, you will be spending easily twice as much for the mac as the PC for identical hardware performance.
Why do myths refuse to die? Mac prices are easily comparable to Windows PC prices.
Falcon
or $2,000+ if you don't have a mac and want to switch. Why has NO article mentioned the overwhelming price of mac hardware
2005 came and went 4 years ago. This is now 2009 and Mac prices are comparable to Windows PC prices.
but they mention having to replace hardware for Win 7 machines? WTF?
Now that may be an error with TFA, but is it? Can Win 7 be installed on a 2 or 3 year old PC? I know there was a lot of howling over PCs that were sold as "Vista Ready" weeks and months before Vista arrived on store shelves. They were howling because the Vista ran poorly on them. A couple of days ago I looked at and posted the hardware requirements for both Snow Leopard and Win 7. The requirements for Win 7 are higher.
Falcon
My dad lives near Stuart Florida.
I grew up in Orlando, FL, and know what hurricanes can do to buildings. My mom still lives there as does a sister. I have no doubt a power receiving station would be devastated and unable to generate electricity if a hurricane came along. Hurricane Andrew destroyed Homestead Air Force Base, FL, in 1992. Because of the damage the Air Force didn't reopen the base and it was eventually sold to developers.
Quite simply a hurricane could knock out power for weeks if not months and a ground station that solar power is beamed to would not change that.
Falcon
They compared nearly identical machines but a nearly identical 1.86Mhz Core 2 Windows box is going to cost significantly less than a corresponding Mac
2009 calling. When it came tyme to get a new laptop I compared the prices of various laptops from different OEMs and Apple. The MacBook Pro I finally got was in the middle between the cheapest Windows laptop and the most expensive. Heck a Dell was $200 more. That was more than 2 years ago.
Why do myths refuse to die?
Falcon
And what do I actually get from it, that wasn't available in XP?
DirectX 11. Also not available on Mac or Linux.
You left something out that you also get, vendor lock-in.
I have preview panes in XP, too - not only that, but I have labels in my taskbar!
W7 has labels too, just not on by default (right-click taskbar -> Properties -> Taskbar buttons:
Ah but GP didn't have to pay to upgrade to get labels.
Falcon
$30
The upgrade price for Snow Leopard, that $30, is only good if you're upgrading from Leopard. The upgrade checks to see if Leopard is installed, you may be able to hack Snow Leopard on top of Tiger but you'd be breaking the license.
And unlike other OS X upgrades the only way I see to legally upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard is by getting the Mac Box set, which costs $170.
I like Apple's (outside of the insane "must upgrade" cycle)
There is no must upgrade. I had my Leopard disk for more than a year before I nuked Tiger and installed it. The only reason I did was because I wanted to install Java SE 6 and it required Leopard. But there was no must upgrade, I wanted to.
I now have my Snow Leopard upgrade disk, again there was no must upgrade. I only got it because it only cost $30 and I had a $10 gift certificate. With taxes I only paid $22 and change.
Falcon
I may put it on my Mini via boot camp. :)
I might be tempted to install Windows 7 on an external drive for my MacBook Pro but only if it does not require Activation. I switched to Macs and OS X as well as Linux from Windows because I hate it that Microsoft is now requiring Activation by either allowing Windows and Office to use the net to contact MS servers or by calling MS. If I pay for something the most that should be required is to input a license key.
Falcon
The good news for consumers is that both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are great-looking OS. Computerworld is just wrong to give a point to Apple on price :-)
TFA was wrong for using the $29 price of Snow Leopard. That price is only for upgrading from Leopard to Snow Leopard. If the upgrade is from Tiger or an earlier OS X the price is higher. Looking on the Apple website to get the full install disk the Mac Box Set, which cost $170, has to be bought. The only consolation to buying the box set is it includes iLife 2009 and iWork 2009. But as far as I'm concerned Snow Leopard should include iLife, so that's like selling iWork for $140 which bought alone only cost $80.
Falcon
You don't seem to realize that most, if not all of the proposed new nuclear power plants in the U.S. (which is the only market I know well) are _additional_ reactors at _existing_ nuclear power plants.
It does not matter where they are located, transmission capacity still has to be there. And witnessed by current blackouts and brownouts the capacity is not there now.
My being neutral and talking about facts doesn't mean I'm biased against wind.
When you say wind has transmission costs but do not say nuclear power has those same cost then you are showing your bias.
Falcon
"who wouldn't want it?"
Personally, me. I'd rather have a hybrid system of solar panels, wind turbines, and maybe microhydro to power my home. And vehicles. Now space based solar power could make sense for a moon base, but then again the atmosphere isn't as thick there so CSP, Concentrated Solar Power, may be better.
Falcon
politicians. We had a great run of those back in the 30-70's
What? Like the politicians who prolonged the Great Depression?
Falcon
The Mohave Power Station luckily was shut down. The Black Mesa aquifer was being pumped dry to pump coal mined at Black Mesa in a slurry to the power station.
Falcon
The ability to bring power into a hurricane hit area will enable quick power.
And how would the power be delivered? Any ground station would be damaged..
Falcon
Ok, so worst case scenario, 5 guys in the extreme north may have to take off their parkas. Oh no! It's a disaster of global proportions!
No, much worse has already happened. Some Inuits has drowned when they broke through thin ice. Of course that's nothing compared other things that have happened to them.
Falcon
One possible advantage is that it is perhaps easier for a small, technologically advanced, densely-populated island nation with no conventional military to maintain physical control of an object in space than one in another country.
This may be true but all it requires to knock out a satellite is an explosion near it. China has already tested a satellite killer and North Korea could be close to being able to launch into space.
Falcon
They could also use that money to invest in CSP, wind, and tidal power.
Falcon
No, before Die Another Day was "Diamonds Are Forever".
Yes, Diamonds Are Forever" was before "Moonraker" but "Moonraker" was before "Die Another Day". They came out in this order:
Falcon
Wind also doesn't scale as easily - you're not taking transmission costs into account
Even nuclear has to be transmitted and so has a cost too. Of course adding solar, wind, and other sources of power to the grid will mean the grid has to be rebuilt and made smart. However according to "Rebuilding the Power Grid" problems related to the grid and power quality costs the US $80 Billion to $180 billion a year. If so then it only makes sense to rebuild the grid, and businesses are working on that. Xcel Energy is working on the Smart City Grid for instance. What stands in the way of a smart grid is government. It's not simple, well physically it is but not politically, to erect transmission lines from where the power is produced to where it's used. There are all the property owners as well as governments, from cities, counties, and states to deal with.
Then when you also add in heavy transmission line costs, you also get to deal with rights of way and environmental impact studies for that entire transmission line route, etc, etc.
As stated above that applies to nuclear power as well. It applies to all sources of electricity including coal and gas fired powerplants. The fact you're only applying it to wind shows you're biased against wind.
Falcon
If only Japan could somehow magically create more open, unfarmable, and uninhabited land where the turbines could be placed without taking away already scarce farm land or slowly deafen anyone within a kilometer!
Unlike nuclear power land for wind turbines can be used for food farming as well. Here in Minnesota many corn farmers site wind turbines on their farms. Platforms for towers don't take much space. And wind turbines aren't as loud as some make them out to be. All those who say they take too much land or are too loud are doing is spreading FUD and lies. And saying they kill a of birds is also FUD. Buildings, cars, and cats kill many birds. If you're worries about birds being killed by wind turbines then complain about birds being killed at airports. Here is a list of "9 Human Activities That Threaten Birds".
Falcon
Plus warmer temperatures mean that we could actually start using all that land in Canada, instead of clustering the entire population along the US border.
The entire population of Canada isn't clustered along the Canadian US border, Nunavut is in the north, and the Inuits there depend on Arctic Sea ice.
Falcon
Even the hardest sciences are subject to healthy dispute that can be unhealthily portrayed as though there are two equal and opposite positions.
Ah, the wedge issue ID supporters try to have included in education as regards evolution.
Oh, let me get this too:
The argument global warming deniers
Scientifically it's not Global Warming that a concern, it's Climate Change. While record highs are being recorded in the Pacific Northwest, such as in Seattle, this seems like the coolest summer I can recall in the Minneapolis, St Paul, twin cities area in the 10 years I've been here.
Falcon
if maintenance is cheap enough it's not too bad. $70,000 per home supplied amortized over say a 50 year design life is $117/month which is on the low end of my monthly bill.
You pay $117 a month for power, electricity? Heck I'd freak out if my bill were as high as $50, it's only about $20. Of course I'm single and live alone, but even if if my household had 3 others I wouldn't expect the power bill to be as high as $50.
Falcon
This is exactly my point, you can watch whatever you want, whenever you want,
No I can't, I can only watch what the channels show or what tapes and DVD I bought.
why do you care that cable TV is censored?
Because censorship is bad. And just because I can watch some things I like that does not mean I can watch everything I want, nor can others.
Falcon