It is clear that you are completely unaware of how businesses use and depend on Exchange server's functionality and how the broken and limited functionality of Entourage makes using a Mac a show-stopper for some people.
You're right, I don't get why people won't use standard compliant apps unless the CIO/admin gets a kickback from MS. If I found myself in such a place I'd be concerned about standards compliance and portability. Actually I hope I am in that situation soon, I want to start a photography and design business. I want to sell online as well as IRL.
Now, I need to find a way to install CinePaint in Jaunty Jackalope. If I can't then I'll have buy Photoshop.
I want a stable Unix-like OS that doesn't get in my way. However, every time I try a Mac, the lack of rt. click options annoys the hell out of me (among other things).
Macs have right clicks. Just I did with Windows, and Linux, PCs I hold a key down when I click. In essence there are three buttons. Two and three button mice can also be used on Macs.
When switching to a Mac I thought not having two buttons would be a problem but there wasn't one. Within a couple of days I got used to holding a key down when I clicked. Of course before I switched I had already gotten rid of my mice, I kept on having to replace them so I switched to trackballs. Since I did I've only bought one more, I keep one on my desk while the other is in the backpack for my MacBook Pro.
As for similarly spec-ed Macs and PCs, before I bought my MBP I made a list of requirements for what I wanted to do then I compared the specs from various Windows OEM and Mac laptops. Doing so I found out a Mac had similar prices to Windows PC with similar specs. For some lines though not all.
but just so you know, Entourage is a client. Outlook is a client. Exchange is a server. When you said Exchange, I take it that you meant "Outlook."
Yea years ago I used Outlook a little so I know it's client but I didn't know Entourage was too. All I knew was that Exchange wasn't in the Mac version of Office though it's in the Windows version and that Entourage was in the Mac version. Personally I preferred Eudora for email. When I switched to Macs at first I used the Eudora/Thunderbird version Penelope, now I just use Thunderbird.
Right now I'm just a user so I don't use server apps but I want to setup my Mac as a server test bed, and my Linux PC as a server as well for development. If so then I'll need to become aware of and how to use some of them.
Well they do care if you are running windows, but they figure the potential revenue lost in software is worth the sale of the hardware.
By having Windows on Macs Apple may gain sales but it doesn't loose money from loses in software sales. Or at least not much. Apple sells Macs with OS X installed not nude. Now if a buyer wants to use QuickTime, Aperture, or other OS X specific software they'll use OS X.
Microsoft Office for Mac OS X is a joke. It is not 100% compatible and function/feature complete. Connecting to an Exchange 2003 or 2007 server is not well supported with several known problems that have yet to be completely resolved.
True, if I recall right Office for Macs uses Entourage not Exchange. That's Microsoft's fault not Apple's though. Now if you want to use something like Exchange there are alternatives for OS X including open source software. But ah, there is an Apple iCal / Microsoft Exchange fix for Leopard.
There are also alternatives to MS Office. Though Open Office 3.0 runs on Macs natively now I still use NeoOffice. I've been using for almost 2 years and I've only had one problem opening an MS Office document, several months ago I tried to open a document off the web but it wouldn't. After I upgraded my NeoOffice, an old version was installed to begin with, it opened up fine.
Every time Apple has shot down clone competitors have had to just shake my head. It seems exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. Didn't they learn by watching the evolution of the PC?
Apple doesn't need to learn from PCs, Apple learned they lost money when they allowed Mac clones.
Maybe they like their market share the way it is. People yell about Apple's share of the market, but even a 5% share of the size of the multi-billion computer market is still big, and our addition to economic growth is just that... an addiction.
An addiction Apple doesn't have in the same quantities Microsoft does. Steve Jobs may have an RDF but he doesn't throw chairs around. Or pay other businesses to undermine it's competition.
If Apple officially supports running Leopard on hardware made in 2001, I would think they couldn't lose any customers by having them unofficially install it on hardware many times more powerful than that.
Perhaps that's why Apple only goes after businesses that make Hackintoshes and not individuals. At least I haven't heard of them going after individuals. Apple sells a license but doesn't see their hardware cannibalized.
That does look like a nice screen. My Westinghouse is nice, has an MVA panel, but is now only being sold with a TN (at first I felt ripped off, when I saw it go from $700 to $399... but then I checked out forums, so at least I know why).
It does seem like a lottery in getting a monitor with an IPS panel. This happens with Dells, HPs, and Samsung along with other companies, even Viewsonic. Hardly any brick and mortar stores sell these monitors so they have to be ordered online. Yet companies like Newegg that do sell them don't guaranty a monitor will have an IPS panel. What's worse is that they have bad exchange policies for monitors with dead or stuck pixels. I think Newegg requires 7 before they will exchange a monitor and they wait to test a returned monitor before shipping a replacement.
After searching and driving to different stores I found an employee at a Best Buy that found the HP online, at Best Buy for Business website. So if and when I get one, I'm hoping to in a month or two, I may be able to take it to Best Buy for an exchange. Normally for a purchase like that I'd also buy a buyer protection plan but in this case I won't have to, HP's warranty on it is a 3 year on site plan. If I have a problem I can call HP and they'll send a tech to me. Because of this instead of ordering it from Best Buy I may get it from B&H Photo and Video. Because of the panel lottery and dead, stuck, pixel issue I'll have to check their return policy first though.
they tend to forgive the fact that running Apple means there is a very long list of things they can't do either because the app exists only for Windows
Like what? One of the most widely used apps is MS Office and MS has a version for Macs. Heck new Macs come with a preview trial version of MS Office.
or because Apple doesn't approve of it
Apple has a lively community of developers, Apple Developer Connection. And not only for OS X software but for X11, closed source and open source. Though not as much, or as often, as some would like Apple also contributes to FOOS projects. Now I'll admit I'm puzzled by Apple's refusal to include some apps in the App store.
Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware?
The same reason people install Linux or even Windows on their computers. They want to run the OS software they want on the hardware they have.
Except most people don't install OSes. While MS sells OS upgrades most people use the OS that was installed on their PC when they got it.
I use Mac OS X on a PC because I feel it is the best OS software for my needs, on the best hardware for my needs. Apple doesn't see a dime from it because I'm not going to buy a retail disc with a license agreement that won't let me install it on what I want to.
So then you pirated OS X?
They can talk all day about losing money in their hardware division if they allow PCs to use Mac OS X
Apple did license Mac clones and lost money on it.
Apple has three things potential customers want: iPods, iTunes, and Mac OS X.
There's other things as well. Such as stability. I switched from Windows PCs because I was sick and tired of all the problems I had with Windows and the hardware. While Apple uses some of the same parts as PC OEMs do Apple probably tests the components. Of the 4 new PCs I bought 3 had to have both the motherboard and harddisk drive replaced before I had them a year. On the other hand I've had the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on about 20 months, in that tyme I have had one hardware problem, two or three months ago the graphics failed and had to be replaced.
Which brings up another thing some want. When the graphics failed I jumped in my car with the laptop and drove to an Apple store. There I made an appointment at the Genus Bar to have it diagnosed that day. When the graphics failed I kept it running to show it was not working, but during testing the system was reboot and the display worked. The test showed the graphics had to be replaced and normally they have it in stock in the store but this tyme they were out and so had to order the part, which would take 2 days to arrive. So I was able to take it home and backup the last day or two of data, despite problems people have most still don't make regular backups but I do. Actually when I save something most of the tyme right then I'll copy what I saved to an external drive. Then when the part came in they called me and I took the laptop down to have them fix it.
Forcing someone to buy a whole computer instead of just the OS software they want is a dirty way to push your hardware sales. And it's not even working very well.
Developing OS X cost money, heck so does Windows. While an OS X disk cost $129 an upgrade for Windows cost, the cheapest I've seen lately in Best Buy, is $200. A full version cost even more. And OS X will be good and supported for years unlike Windows. MS only supported NT4 on my PC, which I bought new, 2 years. Leopard will run on a Mac several years old, does Vista?
Yeah... a lot of people are unimpressed - DVI-DVI is fine, VGA too... but as soon as it detects HDMI, it only offers the comparable HDTV resolutions (if that) - my Westinghouse L2410NM 1920x1200 screen with 10.5.6 was happy at 1920x1200@60. 10.5.7, would only let it go to 1920x1080@30, interlacing. Pretty ugly bug.
Not using 1920x1080 just won't do. Actually I've been looking for an eSATA or ExpressCard 34 graphics card that has a higher resolution.
That's why I want a larger higher res monitor, for photography. The HP LP2475w I link to is the cheapest 24" LCD with an IPS, H-IPS or S-IPS I don't recall which right now, I've found and it has some good reviews. It's one of the monitors recommended by people at photo.net..
Because Apple for years have been ignoring a very BIG market for Macs: Those that want a midrange Apple desktop.
I too would like a midrange Mac that's expandable however Apple has stated they do not want to enter into that market segment. I don't know why, as you imply and others have said Apple could see a jump in market share. But I imagine it would not be as profitable as their other lines and it'd cannibalize their Mac Pro line.
(minimums)* ...
* These prices pulled from their website as of the time of this posting.
I agree lower priced Macs are high priced compared to offerings from Windows OEMs. However I disagree about the Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, and Xserve. Before buying my MacBook Pro I compared several laptops with hardware configurations for what I wanted to do and the MBP's price was within the price range of Windows OEM laptops. To see whether that was a fluke I checked configurations for servers like Mac Pros and Xserves as well and they were the same.
There are essentially two reasons to buy a Mac: The first is you like the Mac, by which I mean the actual hardware. Whether it's the design, the clean insides, the sturdy feel or what have you. The other is OS X. If the first doesn't apply to somebody, why shouldn't they want to save several hundred dollars to get #2?
Not because they don't know, but because they can't know. They learn one system, then their brain locks up. You may think trying different systems is fun; they PANIC at the idea. Anything that gets in the way of their rote-learned path is a massive hindrance. So they stick with Windows, despite all of its flaws, because having to actually learn something would be worse than all the malware-related headaches.
I'd agree however every time a new version of Windows is bought people still have to learn something new. Familiarity may be in part why people stick with Windows, I think availability is also a reason. Not as many places sell Macs, and hardly any brick and mortar stores sell PCs with Linux preinstalled.
They haven't been able to make a legitimate "we build the whole thing so it's stable" argument in a long time, if they ever could.
I know it's only personal anecdotes but I've had more problems with Windows OEM, specifically Dell, HP, and Gateway PCs than I have had with Macs. I've bought 2 used Macs and they lasted me years without problems. I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro I've had about 20 months and I've only had one hardware problem, a few months ago my graphics had to be replaced. It lasted more than a year before I had a hardware failure. The PCs I bought new were a different story. I had the motherboard and harddisk drive fail on Windows PCs from Gateway and HP PC within one year. They also failed on a PC that I got that had Linux preinstalled. The Dell was a brand new PC running XP in a class where I was going to college and on the first day of class it froze when I first booted it up. The only Windows PC I bought I did not have hardware or OS trouble was a DEC Alpha PC I bought from Microway. Unfortunately because it had an Alpha CPU I could not get much software installed on it, so I didn't use it much. Which was a real shame, what software I got working ran a lot faster than the software did on the Gateway I got at the same tyme.
10.5.7 came out, and fucked everyone who was using a DVI-HDMI connector. 3 weeks later, they're still fucked, unable to use their monitors at full resolution. That's the latest in my long run of OS X bugs.
Really? Yeap. I've been thinking of getting an HP LP2475w to hook up to my MacBook Pro. Now I know not to use a DVI-HDMI connection. Then again, I'll have to check, but I think it only has a Display or mini Display port.
I paid a premium for my Mac, knowing that I could get similar specs for cheaper on a PC
I pad no premium for my MacBook Pro. Before I got it I made a list of what I wanted to do with it then made decisions on what software was needed for those and what the hardware requirements were for the software. Looking at similarly configured computers Macs were within the price range I found from other manufacturers. Some were less, such as an HP I found cost about $50 less. But others were more such as a Dell I looked at which cost more than $200 more. And in both cases they came with Windows, and one of my requirements was NO MS Windows! After suffering for almost 10 years dealing with Windows crashes and MS treating it's users like they're criminals I did not want to deal with that anymore.
I enjoy the fact that the hardware and software, including a number of included, free applications, are pre-integrated for me and function as a cohesive whole.
Though I like what iLife can and does do I've never used any of the apps. The only app I use that come on Macs is TextEdit. On second thought I've used other things that come with OS X, Disk Utility and Terminal.
It's not that one is inherently better than the other, it's that they are different value propositions. Certainly they have different strengths and weaknesses, and I would have thought that this community, if not the general public, would understand this by now.
Nope, not going to happen. Slashdotters understanding that that is. There are the Linux, Mac, and Windows fanbois.
if OS X would work reasonably on my system, I'd (at least) dual-boot it for sure.
I legally run Leopard, on a MacBook Pro. I've thought about installing Jaunty Jackalope and dualbooting. Unfortunately Ubuntu dropped CinePaint in 8.04 and that's one of the reasons I want to use it. Googling and checking the forums I keep reading about someone getting CinePaint installed so it's usable but I haven't found how they did it.
Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware
While I'd like to be able to install OS X on any PC I can understand Apple not allowing it. Apple doesn't sell just software, unlike Microsoft who until recently did, they sell the hardware as well. Apple sells compleat systems that "just work". There 's 2 problem with Apple allowing OS X to be installed on any PC. First because Apple wouldn't control the hardware it runs on it couldn't easily prevent OS crashes and Apple would get a blackeye with people complaining OS X wasn't any good. Secondly Apple would see a drop in Mac sells. In the mid 1990s Apple did license Mac clones but when Steve Jobs was brought back in 1996-7 he took one look at the books and saw Apple was loosing money because of the clones. So he ended the program.
However because profit margins are razor thin on hardware maybe Apple could make more money today licensing OS X. A Leopard DVD cost $129 so if Apple's margin on new Macs is less than that then they'd come out ahead. But then again Apple would run into Microsoft, MS wouldn't take kindly to OS X running on any old hardware like Windows does. MS could pull or threaten to pull the Mac version of MS software such as Office. Many businesses wouldn't want to buy Macs if they knew they couldn't run Office, despite peoples' gripes about MS and the existence of office productivity software for Macs including the open source Open Office, many businesses still depend on MS Office.
You said: "Actually some drugs have been shown to cause problems, I'm thinking of meth". So I asked "Where is the medical/scientific evidence of this?"
Next you say: "A bit of Googling will show lots of studies on the effect of Meth on people and rats. Unluckily I'm not qualified to judge the studies and as my research into marijuana studies has shown, there are a lot of bullshit studies. The same can be said about alcohol, are the studies accurate?"
That's my point. Before something is made illegal there should be peer reviewed scientific studies showing it is dangerous or harmful as well as creates an addiction that's virtually impossible to break. This was rarely if ever done. In the case of hemp, marijuana, for instance there was no medical evidence never mind study that concluded it was dangerous. Studies that have been done conclude hemp is the opposite of how it is portrayed in the movie "Reefer Madness". It is not a drug that turns people into raving homicidal lunatics, it does the opposite and makes users lain back and calm. During the congressional debates, which were not debates at all, to determine if hemp should be made illegal via the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 as a lawyer and doctor Dr James Woodward testified before congress as the AMA's rep. In his testimony he said the AMA had only learned a couple of days before the hearing that the "killer weed from Mexico" congress was debating on was in fact hemp. He further stated that hemp had been used for 100 years as a safe drug. He and the AMA was promptly ridiculed and denounced. In a session of congress someone asked if anyone had asked the AMA what they thought. The answer was yes and that it should be made illegal, a bald faced lie. Of course FDR was antagonistic about the AMA anyway.
Anyways there are quite a few drugs that do have bad side affects, even aspirin kills quite a few thousands of people a year. So if something works very well as a pain killer and has minimal side affects shouldn't its use be encouraged instead of the more destructive alternatives?
There are cases documenting death in the use of alcohol and tobacco but not one death is attributed to the use of marijuana. And see above to read what I think about making things illegal.
Falcon
Archer Daniels Midland and The Great Ethanol Scam
on
The Great Ethanol Scam
·
· Score: 1
I remember seeing an old 60 Minutes about Archer Daniels Midland and they showed the CEO getting off Air Force One. They have a lot of pull and they are a major player in Ethanol.
Slashdot Mirror
It is clear that you are completely unaware of how businesses use and depend on Exchange server's functionality and how the broken and limited functionality of Entourage makes using a Mac a show-stopper for some people.
You're right, I don't get why people won't use standard compliant apps unless the CIO/admin gets a kickback from MS. If I found myself in such a place I'd be concerned about standards compliance and portability. Actually I hope I am in that situation soon, I want to start a photography and design business. I want to sell online as well as IRL.
Now, I need to find a way to install CinePaint in Jaunty Jackalope. If I can't then I'll have buy Photoshop.
Falcon
I want a stable Unix-like OS that doesn't get in my way. However, every time I try a Mac, the lack of rt. click options annoys the hell out of me (among other things).
Macs have right clicks. Just I did with Windows, and Linux, PCs I hold a key down when I click. In essence there are three buttons. Two and three button mice can also be used on Macs.
When switching to a Mac I thought not having two buttons would be a problem but there wasn't one. Within a couple of days I got used to holding a key down when I clicked. Of course before I switched I had already gotten rid of my mice, I kept on having to replace them so I switched to trackballs. Since I did I've only bought one more, I keep one on my desk while the other is in the backpack for my MacBook Pro.
As for similarly spec-ed Macs and PCs, before I bought my MBP I made a list of requirements for what I wanted to do then I compared the specs from various Windows OEM and Mac laptops. Doing so I found out a Mac had similar prices to Windows PC with similar specs. For some lines though not all.
Falcon
but just so you know, Entourage is a client. Outlook is a client. Exchange is a server. When you said Exchange, I take it that you meant "Outlook."
Yea years ago I used Outlook a little so I know it's client but I didn't know Entourage was too. All I knew was that Exchange wasn't in the Mac version of Office though it's in the Windows version and that Entourage was in the Mac version. Personally I preferred Eudora for email. When I switched to Macs at first I used the Eudora/Thunderbird version Penelope, now I just use Thunderbird.
Right now I'm just a user so I don't use server apps but I want to setup my Mac as a server test bed, and my Linux PC as a server as well for development. If so then I'll need to become aware of and how to use some of them.
Falcon
Well they do care if you are running windows, but they figure the potential revenue lost in software is worth the sale of the hardware.
By having Windows on Macs Apple may gain sales but it doesn't loose money from loses in software sales. Or at least not much. Apple sells Macs with OS X installed not nude. Now if a buyer wants to use QuickTime, Aperture, or other OS X specific software they'll use OS X.
Falcon
Microsoft Office for Mac OS X is a joke. It is not 100% compatible and function/feature complete. Connecting to an Exchange 2003 or 2007 server is not well supported with several known problems that have yet to be completely resolved.
True, if I recall right Office for Macs uses Entourage not Exchange. That's Microsoft's fault not Apple's though. Now if you want to use something like Exchange there are alternatives for OS X including open source software. But ah, there is an Apple iCal / Microsoft Exchange fix for Leopard.
There are also alternatives to MS Office. Though Open Office 3.0 runs on Macs natively now I still use NeoOffice. I've been using for almost 2 years and I've only had one problem opening an MS Office document, several months ago I tried to open a document off the web but it wouldn't. After I upgraded my NeoOffice, an old version was installed to begin with, it opened up fine.
Falcon
Nope, itunes (and safari) are the only programs they have ported, all their multimedia software is mac only.
QuickTime is Mac only? You better tell all the websites than have QuickTime movies only Macs can play them.
Falcon
Macs are PCes, personal computers.
Falcon
if it wasn't for their pitiful market share the DOJ would be literally ripping them apart
locking high-end MP3 players to their software
Oh really? iPods can't play anything but what comes from the iTunes store? I can't take any of my CDs, rip them then play them on an iPod?
locking their software to their operating system
Some software but not all. Or haven't you heard of iTunes for Windows? Quicktime or Safari for Windows? Microsoft does the same.
locking their operating system to their hardware
OS X is made to work well with Apple hardware. How many tymes have you heard people complain or bitch Windows is quirky on some hardware?
locking their high-end MP3 players to their hardware (firewire only)
IEEE 1492 aka Firewire is an open standard. Though I haven't yet I can buy a Firewire card for my Linux PC. Here's How to Setup a Firewire (IEEE-1394) drive with Linux.
Now remind me what lock-in Apple has that others don't.
Faclon
Every time Apple has shot down clone competitors have had to just shake my head. It seems exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. Didn't they learn by watching the evolution of the PC?
Apple doesn't need to learn from PCs, Apple learned they lost money when they allowed Mac clones.
Maybe they like their market share the way it is. People yell about Apple's share of the market, but even a 5% share of the size of the multi-billion computer market is still big, and our addition to economic growth is just that... an addiction.
An addiction Apple doesn't have in the same quantities Microsoft does. Steve Jobs may have an RDF but he doesn't throw chairs around. Or pay other businesses to undermine it's competition.
Falcon
If Apple officially supports running Leopard on hardware made in 2001, I would think they couldn't lose any customers by having them unofficially install it on hardware many times more powerful than that.
Perhaps that's why Apple only goes after businesses that make Hackintoshes and not individuals. At least I haven't heard of them going after individuals. Apple sells a license but doesn't see their hardware cannibalized.
Falcon
there is enough excess profit to Apple for a clone maker to offer the same quality for less money
Apple tried that and lost money.
Falcon
That does look like a nice screen. My Westinghouse is nice, has an MVA panel, but is now only being sold with a TN (at first I felt ripped off, when I saw it go from $700 to $399... but then I checked out forums, so at least I know why).
It does seem like a lottery in getting a monitor with an IPS panel. This happens with Dells, HPs, and Samsung along with other companies, even Viewsonic. Hardly any brick and mortar stores sell these monitors so they have to be ordered online. Yet companies like Newegg that do sell them don't guaranty a monitor will have an IPS panel. What's worse is that they have bad exchange policies for monitors with dead or stuck pixels. I think Newegg requires 7 before they will exchange a monitor and they wait to test a returned monitor before shipping a replacement.
After searching and driving to different stores I found an employee at a Best Buy that found the HP online, at Best Buy for Business website. So if and when I get one, I'm hoping to in a month or two, I may be able to take it to Best Buy for an exchange. Normally for a purchase like that I'd also buy a buyer protection plan but in this case I won't have to, HP's warranty on it is a 3 year on site plan. If I have a problem I can call HP and they'll send a tech to me. Because of this instead of ordering it from Best Buy I may get it from B&H Photo and Video. Because of the panel lottery and dead, stuck, pixel issue I'll have to check their return policy first though.
Falcon
they tend to forgive the fact that running Apple means there is a very long list of things they can't do either because the app exists only for Windows
Like what? One of the most widely used apps is MS Office and MS has a version for Macs. Heck new Macs come with a preview trial version of MS Office.
or because Apple doesn't approve of it
Apple has a lively community of developers, Apple Developer Connection. And not only for OS X software but for X11, closed source and open source. Though not as much, or as often, as some would like Apple also contributes to FOOS projects. Now I'll admit I'm puzzled by Apple's refusal to include some apps in the App store.
Falcon
Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware?
The same reason people install Linux or even Windows on their computers. They want to run the OS software they want on the hardware they have.
Except most people don't install OSes. While MS sells OS upgrades most people use the OS that was installed on their PC when they got it.
I use Mac OS X on a PC because I feel it is the best OS software for my needs, on the best hardware for my needs. Apple doesn't see a dime from it because I'm not going to buy a retail disc with a license agreement that won't let me install it on what I want to.
So then you pirated OS X?
They can talk all day about losing money in their hardware division if they allow PCs to use Mac OS X
Apple did license Mac clones and lost money on it.
Apple has three things potential customers want: iPods, iTunes, and Mac OS X.
There's other things as well. Such as stability. I switched from Windows PCs because I was sick and tired of all the problems I had with Windows and the hardware. While Apple uses some of the same parts as PC OEMs do Apple probably tests the components. Of the 4 new PCs I bought 3 had to have both the motherboard and harddisk drive replaced before I had them a year. On the other hand I've had the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on about 20 months, in that tyme I have had one hardware problem, two or three months ago the graphics failed and had to be replaced.
Which brings up another thing some want. When the graphics failed I jumped in my car with the laptop and drove to an Apple store. There I made an appointment at the Genus Bar to have it diagnosed that day. When the graphics failed I kept it running to show it was not working, but during testing the system was reboot and the display worked. The test showed the graphics had to be replaced and normally they have it in stock in the store but this tyme they were out and so had to order the part, which would take 2 days to arrive. So I was able to take it home and backup the last day or two of data, despite problems people have most still don't make regular backups but I do. Actually when I save something most of the tyme right then I'll copy what I saved to an external drive. Then when the part came in they called me and I took the laptop down to have them fix it.
Forcing someone to buy a whole computer instead of just the OS software they want is a dirty way to push your hardware sales. And it's not even working very well.
Developing OS X cost money, heck so does Windows. While an OS X disk cost $129 an upgrade for Windows cost, the cheapest I've seen lately in Best Buy, is $200. A full version cost even more. And OS X will be good and supported for years unlike Windows. MS only supported NT4 on my PC, which I bought new, 2 years. Leopard will run on a Mac several years old, does Vista?
Falcon
Yeah... a lot of people are unimpressed - DVI-DVI is fine, VGA too... but as soon as it detects HDMI, it only offers the comparable HDTV resolutions (if that) - my Westinghouse L2410NM 1920x1200 screen with 10.5.6 was happy at 1920x1200@60. 10.5.7, would only let it go to 1920x1080@30, interlacing. Pretty ugly bug.
Not using 1920x1080 just won't do. Actually I've been looking for an eSATA or ExpressCard 34 graphics card that has a higher resolution.
chromablue photography
That's why I want a larger higher res monitor, for photography. The HP LP2475w I link to is the cheapest 24" LCD with an IPS, H-IPS or S-IPS I don't recall which right now, I've found and it has some good reviews. It's one of the monitors recommended by people at photo.net..
Falcon
Because Apple for years have been ignoring a very BIG market for Macs: Those that want a midrange Apple desktop.
I too would like a midrange Mac that's expandable however Apple has stated they do not want to enter into that market segment. I don't know why, as you imply and others have said Apple could see a jump in market share. But I imagine it would not be as profitable as their other lines and it'd cannibalize their Mac Pro line.
Falcon
In this case a Gestapo-like EULA needs to be torn down.
Yea, Apple needs to let people install OS X on any old hardware so they're driven out of business.
Falcon
(minimums)*
...
* These prices pulled from their website as of the time of this posting.
I agree lower priced Macs are high priced compared to offerings from Windows OEMs. However I disagree about the Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, and Xserve. Before buying my MacBook Pro I compared several laptops with hardware configurations for what I wanted to do and the MBP's price was within the price range of Windows OEM laptops. To see whether that was a fluke I checked configurations for servers like Mac Pros and Xserves as well and they were the same.
There are essentially two reasons to buy a Mac: The first is you like the Mac, by which I mean the actual hardware. Whether it's the design, the clean insides, the sturdy feel or what have you. The other is OS X. If the first doesn't apply to somebody, why shouldn't they want to save several hundred dollars to get #2?
Because Apple isn't a software company?
Falcon
Not because they don't know, but because they can't know. They learn one system, then their brain locks up. You may think trying different systems is fun; they PANIC at the idea. Anything that gets in the way of their rote-learned path is a massive hindrance. So they stick with Windows, despite all of its flaws, because having to actually learn something would be worse than all the malware-related headaches.
I'd agree however every time a new version of Windows is bought people still have to learn something new. Familiarity may be in part why people stick with Windows, I think availability is also a reason. Not as many places sell Macs, and hardly any brick and mortar stores sell PCs with Linux preinstalled.
Falcon
They haven't been able to make a legitimate "we build the whole thing so it's stable" argument in a long time, if they ever could.
I know it's only personal anecdotes but I've had more problems with Windows OEM, specifically Dell, HP, and Gateway PCs than I have had with Macs. I've bought 2 used Macs and they lasted me years without problems. I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro I've had about 20 months and I've only had one hardware problem, a few months ago my graphics had to be replaced. It lasted more than a year before I had a hardware failure. The PCs I bought new were a different story. I had the motherboard and harddisk drive fail on Windows PCs from Gateway and HP PC within one year. They also failed on a PC that I got that had Linux preinstalled. The Dell was a brand new PC running XP in a class where I was going to college and on the first day of class it froze when I first booted it up. The only Windows PC I bought I did not have hardware or OS trouble was a DEC Alpha PC I bought from Microway. Unfortunately because it had an Alpha CPU I could not get much software installed on it, so I didn't use it much. Which was a real shame, what software I got working ran a lot faster than the software did on the Gateway I got at the same tyme.
10.5.7 came out, and fucked everyone who was using a DVI-HDMI connector. 3 weeks later, they're still fucked, unable to use their monitors at full resolution. That's the latest in my long run of OS X bugs.
Really? Yeap. I've been thinking of getting an HP LP2475w to hook up to my MacBook Pro. Now I know not to use a DVI-HDMI connection. Then again, I'll have to check, but I think it only has a Display or mini Display port.
Falcon
I paid a premium for my Mac, knowing that I could get similar specs for cheaper on a PC
I pad no premium for my MacBook Pro. Before I got it I made a list of what I wanted to do with it then made decisions on what software was needed for those and what the hardware requirements were for the software. Looking at similarly configured computers Macs were within the price range I found from other manufacturers. Some were less, such as an HP I found cost about $50 less. But others were more such as a Dell I looked at which cost more than $200 more. And in both cases they came with Windows, and one of my requirements was NO MS Windows! After suffering for almost 10 years dealing with Windows crashes and MS treating it's users like they're criminals I did not want to deal with that anymore.
I enjoy the fact that the hardware and software, including a number of included, free applications, are pre-integrated for me and function as a cohesive whole.
Though I like what iLife can and does do I've never used any of the apps. The only app I use that come on Macs is TextEdit. On second thought I've used other things that come with OS X, Disk Utility and Terminal.
It's not that one is inherently better than the other, it's that they are different value propositions. Certainly they have different strengths and weaknesses, and I would have thought that this community, if not the general public, would understand this by now.
Nope, not going to happen. Slashdotters understanding that that is. There are the Linux, Mac, and Windows fanbois.
Falcon
if OS X would work reasonably on my system, I'd (at least) dual-boot it for sure.
I legally run Leopard, on a MacBook Pro. I've thought about installing Jaunty Jackalope and dualbooting. Unfortunately Ubuntu dropped CinePaint in 8.04 and that's one of the reasons I want to use it. Googling and checking the forums I keep reading about someone getting CinePaint installed so it's usable but I haven't found how they did it.
Apple are really being dumb by sticking with their own hardware
While I'd like to be able to install OS X on any PC I can understand Apple not allowing it. Apple doesn't sell just software, unlike Microsoft who until recently did, they sell the hardware as well. Apple sells compleat systems that "just work". There 's 2 problem with Apple allowing OS X to be installed on any PC. First because Apple wouldn't control the hardware it runs on it couldn't easily prevent OS crashes and Apple would get a blackeye with people complaining OS X wasn't any good. Secondly Apple would see a drop in Mac sells. In the mid 1990s Apple did license Mac clones but when Steve Jobs was brought back in 1996-7 he took one look at the books and saw Apple was loosing money because of the clones. So he ended the program.
However because profit margins are razor thin on hardware maybe Apple could make more money today licensing OS X. A Leopard DVD cost $129 so if Apple's margin on new Macs is less than that then they'd come out ahead. But then again Apple would run into Microsoft, MS wouldn't take kindly to OS X running on any old hardware like Windows does. MS could pull or threaten to pull the Mac version of MS software such as Office. Many businesses wouldn't want to buy Macs if they knew they couldn't run Office, despite peoples' gripes about MS and the existence of office productivity software for Macs including the open source Open Office, many businesses still depend on MS Office.
Falcon
You said: "Actually some drugs have been shown to cause problems, I'm thinking of meth". So I asked "Where is the medical/scientific evidence of this?"
Next you say: "A bit of Googling will show lots of studies on the effect of Meth on people and rats. Unluckily I'm not qualified to judge the studies and as my research into marijuana studies has shown, there are a lot of bullshit studies. The same can be said about alcohol, are the studies accurate?"
That's my point. Before something is made illegal there should be peer reviewed scientific studies showing it is dangerous or harmful as well as creates an addiction that's virtually impossible to break. This was rarely if ever done. In the case of hemp, marijuana, for instance there was no medical evidence never mind study that concluded it was dangerous. Studies that have been done conclude hemp is the opposite of how it is portrayed in the movie "Reefer Madness". It is not a drug that turns people into raving homicidal lunatics, it does the opposite and makes users lain back and calm. During the congressional debates, which were not debates at all, to determine if hemp should be made illegal via the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 as a lawyer and doctor Dr James Woodward testified before congress as the AMA's rep. In his testimony he said the AMA had only learned a couple of days before the hearing that the "killer weed from Mexico" congress was debating on was in fact hemp. He further stated that hemp had been used for 100 years as a safe drug. He and the AMA was promptly ridiculed and denounced. In a session of congress someone asked if anyone had asked the AMA what they thought. The answer was yes and that it should be made illegal, a bald faced lie. Of course FDR was antagonistic about the AMA anyway.
Anyways there are quite a few drugs that do have bad side affects, even aspirin kills quite a few thousands of people a year. So if something works very well as a pain killer and has minimal side affects shouldn't its use be encouraged instead of the more destructive alternatives?
There are cases documenting death in the use of alcohol and tobacco but not one death is attributed to the use of marijuana. And see above to read what I think about making things illegal.
Falcon
I remember seeing an old 60 Minutes about Archer Daniels Midland and they showed the CEO getting off Air Force One. They have a lot of pull and they are a major player in Ethanol.
Archer Daniels Midland has been liked to as a corporate welfare queen.
Falcon