The initial cost of a Mac PC is often considerably more expensive as well.
Have you actually compared the prices of Mac and Windows PCs in the past 2 or 3 years? I have, and for some configurations Macs are a little more expensive than a Dell or HP and for others they are cheaper.
And don't get me started on their monitors.
On this though I whole heartedly agree. A Dell, HP, or even a Viewsonic monitor is cheaper than an Apple monitor. Less than 3 months ago I bought a new MacBook Pro, having switched from Windows PCs, and I wanted to get an LCD monitor as well but I wasn't going to fork over what Apple wanted, with a discount Apple still wanted $800 for the 23" model. I've seen bigger ones from other companies for less.
I can't believe a Slashdot reader is attempting to defend DRM and overpriced, proprietary hardware. This is why I am hesitant to trust the opinion that OS X is so great, when the people who tell me such things often simultaneously spew such weak logic.
Have you seen the price of Macs lately? They aren't overpriced any more than any Windows OEM PC. Actually if you compare prices you will see that some Macs are cheaper than an equivalent Windows PC. What Apple has missing is an expandable Mac that's significantly cheaper than a Mac Pro. Whereas with a Dell or HP which you can get for less than $1000 that's expandable, you have to pay $2500 for an expandable Mac, the Mac Pro. Add a second hdd or graphics card to an HP Pavilion? No problem. But the only Mac you can do that with is the Pro. Otherwise comparing the specs Mac are about the same as Windows PCs.
Whether it was a good or bad choice, had apple continued with the clone program odds are I would own a clone.
No, odds are Apple would be out of business. Mac clones were being made before Steve Jobs was brought back, however when he was brought back he saw Apple was loosing money because of the clones. So he stopped licensing the Mac OS. Since then Apple has rebounded.
Having a stable Unix base certainly helps, but their products are far from flawless.
While Apple's products aren't flawless they are much better than many competitors' products, and this was true before OS X. The first computer I bought was a used Mac SE30 I bought in 1992, SE30s came out in 1989. I used it until 2000 when it finally failed. I bought another used Mac in 2000 after the SE30 died, a PowerMac 7300/200. They were released in 1997. I used it until January 2006, when it refused to bootup.
At the same tyme I've bought 3 new Windows PCs. I bought a laptop from Gateway and a DEC Alpha based PC running Windows NT4.0 and Redhat Linux from Microway in 1997. Within 6 months the hdd in the laptop had to be replaced, then 2 week short of having it a year the motherboard also had to be replaced. I replaced the PC with an HP Pavilion I bought in 2000. Just as with the laptop, it's hdd and motherboard had to be replaced in the first year. The one PC I haven't mentioned yet is the Alpha. Because it's cpu is an Alpha I was not able to install much software, the only commercial program I was able to install was Borland C++ Powerbuilder. And because of this I haven't used it much, not at all in 3 or 4 years.
1. Actively supporting third-party hardware
2. Being indifferent to third-party hardware
3. Actively interfering with attempts to run on third-party hardware
Please excuse my ignorance in these matters, because I genuinely don't know. Is Apple doing #2, or #3?
Apple makes, er tries to make sure, OS X does not run on non Apple PCs. They however work with third parties to make peripherals work with Macs. When I plugged my USB Canon printer into my MacBook Pro it just worked, unlike when I plugged it into my Windows PC. The MBP didn't even say it detected new hardware, the printer just showed up in the hardware. I did install a new driver for it I downloaded from Canon though I didn't need to. The same with my USB flash drives, and though I haven't hooked it up yet I bet my scanner will do the same.
Apple customers, those that pay money to apple for the right to use their products as intended, actually prefer the hardware lock-in because of what they gain from it.
I would love to be able to play with OS X on a couple non-Mac machines I own, but I would never ever request that Apple open the OS for operation on generic hardware.
Having switched from Windows PCs to Macs, I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro, I love the stability of it. I also like that it doesn't spy on me like Windows does. I would like to be able to run OS X on non Apple hardware, however I realize it's stability is because Apple controls the hardware. Just like with Windows, if OS X were to run on any generic hardware and something didn't work right people would blame Apple.
Yes. Apple wants OS X to only operate on Apple hardware.
It would seem, then, that there are some significant differences between what Apple wants and what Apple's customers want.
Apple would do well to bridge that gap, but for all their cleverness, they seem to be missing this obvious cornerstone of success.
And many other miss the point Apple isn't a software, or a hardware, company. Apple is a systems integrator who makes software AND hardware that runs well together. Once upon a tyme Apple did license the Mac OS to OEMs of MAC clones. Apple saw it's hardware sales decline more than what was earned by licensing. So when Jobs was brought back he stopped the licensing. While it would be nice to install OS X on any PC I don't see how Apple, at least Macs, would be able to survive if they did.
reel-to-reel tape has been discontinued. The last manufacturer of high-end open reel tape (the "400" series) was Quantegy. (formerly known as Ampex)
Googling I found a lot of online stores that reel-to-reel tapes can be bought from. One had 1200' tape for about $20 a reel, 10 or more was less. As for high end tape, I don't know if Scotch or 3M makes any but I don't need high end tape anyway. I don't have a high end mpg3 player, whether an iPod or not, either. I see no need to spend more for high end stuff when a lower priced item of the same type will work. I may pay a bit more for a good turntable but vinyl records will last longer on it.
I guess I may be hung up on Reel-To-Reels, I loved the one my dad had in the'70s and I loved the one I had in the '80s. The only reason I don't have it anymore is because I loaned it to a friend who then pawned it.
Falcon
dude if you have vinyl forget reel to reel. record to lossless audio format with no compression It will be as good as your reel to reel and you get the portability of modern stuff.
Which lossless format is that? How does it handle whole house sound?
Last time I looked the Russians were the best source for Heirloom Electron Tubes
Years ago friends of mine and I used to joke that if we ever had a nuclear war while the US equipment would fail the Soviet Union's could keep working. While I was in the US Army many of the soldiers in my unit, in infantry, used to say that if we saw an AK 47 on the ground we'd pick it up and throw down the M16s we were issued. M16 are, or were, rather picky about sand and such getting into it, however an AK 47 could be buried in sand then picked up and it will still fire perfectly good.
It's not the tubes themselves that are expensive ( about $8 for a 12AT7, to use a type someone else mentioned), but the equipment in which they're installed that often sells for insane prices.installed that often sells for insane prices.
Thanks for the link. Years ago I was nterested in building things and want to get back into it. One thing I want to do is build a shortwave radio and get my license. I'd like to use tubes to make it.
vinyl
a) no flipping of the disks 1/2 way through your music
You may think of it as benefit to not have to flip a record, but some like me looked and used flipping as an advantage. When I got up to flip to record I also did something else. Such as stopping the Ree-to-reel tape deck I was recording on. Stop the tape, back it up a little, flip the record and start playing the obverse side as well as restart the tape deck. Once a reel of tape was used up I had 8 hours of music to listen to without getting up and either flipping or putting another record on the turntable. Nor would I have had to switch one cd disk for another.
b) less care and feeding (no "de-dusting" and all that)
After recording it on my tape deck I could put my record away and not touch it again for months, unless I wanted to show someone the cover art.
c) portability (can't put a vinyl LP in your car, but can do that with a CD)
Even better, just use an mpg3 player, then you don't even need to carry CDs, what's more portable?
d) storage space. CDs are smaller than LPs.
What takes more space, a bunch of CDs or a large hdd?
When this new format came on the market there may have been grumblings about having to "re-buy" your music collection, but the above features may have made it worth-while for most folks to do that.
I didn't have to re buy my music on tapes when tapes came out, I simply recorded my vinyl while playing it the first tyme. When cassettes came out I could record onto black cassettes, and when CDs came out if I had wanted to I could have burned CDs of my music. No need to re buy music, just buy blank media. Maybe you haven't seen the new turntables but many have built in USB ports. You could simply plug the turntable into the computer and record the music on your hdd. Then you could make up your own playlist and burn it to CDs, or transfer to an mpg3 player.
Who cares that there's more data if it is in frequency ranges that the human ear cannot percieve?
Once upon a tyme, years ago, I drove an audiotechnician crazy as he was testing my hearing. He tested me with one set of equipment but got upset and kept trying out other equipment until he asked someone else to test my hearing. When I asked why he said I was hearing frequencies I should not be able to hear. I replied back if I shouldn't be able to hear then why should he be using those frequencies, but he didn't answer.
For some reason my ears became sensitive after I had an ear infection. Now I suffer from Tinnitus, which is now manifesting as a ringing sound in my ears.
CDs degrade too, and you don't even have to listen to them. We don't know yet how long our precise, exact copy of the original will last. Acording to ISO (18921:2002), maybe 50 years?
I think this is happening with some of my movie dvds. I've got a few movies on dvd that played alright at first but now they stop and studder. When it first happened I tried the disk it happened with on another dvd player yet it still didn't play properly.
No, this is just a way for them to be able to re-sell you the same content you already have. Now, re-mastered Beatles albums, now only on vinyl! And of course, it's a format that's easily damaged, and wears out just by listening to it [and yes, I know you can get very expensive record players that use laser's or some such thing instead of a needle]. Leave it to the music industry to give you want you don't want...
Ah but many of us want vinyl. I've been causally looking around for a turntable and I've been seeing more and more stores carrying them. I also want to get a new Reel-to-reel tape deck with a bunch of empty tape reels. Once I have both I'll go back to doing what I did many years ago. Back then what I did was the first tyme I played a new vinyl record I would record on a reel of tape then I'd put the vinyl away for safe keeping. Thereafter I would play the tape. When the tape eventually wears out I still have the record to rerecord. As for the actual vinyl records, while TFA said Amazon opened a vinyl store, there are a number of online stores where they can be ordered. Where I live there are 2 stores I know for sure that sales new vinyl, one 5 minutes walk and the other maybe 15 minutes walk. Another I store I know of also about 15 minutes walk may sale vinyl as well though as I have only seen it while going by I haven't checked it out yet. I about freaked out and had to fight off the urge to buy this record I saw at the store "around the corner" even though I don't have a turntable now. It was by Otis Reading with his "(Sittin' on) the Dock of the Bay".
While my pay was less than $800 a month in the army,
Ouch, I think a London bus driver makes nearly that a week, including overtime, and that is considered low-paid. You probably got full board as well, but "key workers" often get subsidised housing here. Not that I am saying nurses and teachers need military training these days...
Well, it was more than 20 years ago. I have a nephew who's a Marine, stationed in Iraq, while I don't know how much he makes I bet it's a lot better than $800. I wouldn't be surprised if his pay were $2500 a month or more.
If they break the agreement sue them. Unfortunately this doesn't work if there's a clause in the agreement that they can change it at any time. I have ComCast delivering services now but when I signed up, with Earthlink, it was Time Warner and I don't recall any such clause.
EULA agreement which states, approximately: '[I]f the end user is not willing to abide by this EULA... he shall immediately contact the producer to get info for giving back the product and obtaining refunds.'
States approximately? I'd prefer to know exactly before I made any conclusions.
If you're in the US you want the version of the EULA for the US, the Italian version is only good in Italy. It's been years but when I had to agree after getting a new PC, in the US, it basically said if I didn't agree I had to contact the OEM to get a refund.
Assuming the EULA is the same in the US and elsewhere, I wonder why this has not been tried before, and if it has, does anyone know the outcome?
It may be a hassle but people in the US have been getting refunds for years. Here's an article, "Windows license opens door for Linux refund" on how people in the late '90s were requesting refunds. It mentions/. and how/.ers got involved.
Slashdot Mirror
The initial cost of a Mac PC is often considerably more expensive as well.
Have you actually compared the prices of Mac and Windows PCs in the past 2 or 3 years? I have, and for some configurations Macs are a little more expensive than a Dell or HP and for others they are cheaper.
And don't get me started on their monitors.
On this though I whole heartedly agree. A Dell, HP, or even a Viewsonic monitor is cheaper than an Apple monitor. Less than 3 months ago I bought a new MacBook Pro, having switched from Windows PCs, and I wanted to get an LCD monitor as well but I wasn't going to fork over what Apple wanted, with a discount Apple still wanted $800 for the 23" model. I've seen bigger ones from other companies for less.
FalconI can't believe a Slashdot reader is attempting to defend DRM and overpriced, proprietary hardware. This is why I am hesitant to trust the opinion that OS X is so great, when the people who tell me such things often simultaneously spew such weak logic.
Have you seen the price of Macs lately? They aren't overpriced any more than any Windows OEM PC. Actually if you compare prices you will see that some Macs are cheaper than an equivalent Windows PC. What Apple has missing is an expandable Mac that's significantly cheaper than a Mac Pro. Whereas with a Dell or HP which you can get for less than $1000 that's expandable, you have to pay $2500 for an expandable Mac, the Mac Pro. Add a second hdd or graphics card to an HP Pavilion? No problem. But the only Mac you can do that with is the Pro. Otherwise comparing the specs Mac are about the same as Windows PCs.
FalconWhether it was a good or bad choice, had apple continued with the clone program odds are I would own a clone.
No, odds are Apple would be out of business. Mac clones were being made before Steve Jobs was brought back, however when he was brought back he saw Apple was loosing money because of the clones. So he stopped licensing the Mac OS. Since then Apple has rebounded.
FalconHaving a stable Unix base certainly helps, but their products are far from flawless.
While Apple's products aren't flawless they are much better than many competitors' products, and this was true before OS X. The first computer I bought was a used Mac SE30 I bought in 1992, SE30s came out in 1989. I used it until 2000 when it finally failed. I bought another used Mac in 2000 after the SE30 died, a PowerMac 7300/200. They were released in 1997. I used it until January 2006, when it refused to bootup.
At the same tyme I've bought 3 new Windows PCs. I bought a laptop from Gateway and a DEC Alpha based PC running Windows NT4.0 and Redhat Linux from Microway in 1997. Within 6 months the hdd in the laptop had to be replaced, then 2 week short of having it a year the motherboard also had to be replaced. I replaced the PC with an HP Pavilion I bought in 2000. Just as with the laptop, it's hdd and motherboard had to be replaced in the first year. The one PC I haven't mentioned yet is the Alpha. Because it's cpu is an Alpha I was not able to install much software, the only commercial program I was able to install was Borland C++ Powerbuilder. And because of this I haven't used it much, not at all in 3 or 4 years.
Falcon1. Actively supporting third-party hardware
2. Being indifferent to third-party hardware
3. Actively interfering with attempts to run on third-party hardware
Please excuse my ignorance in these matters, because I genuinely don't know. Is Apple doing #2, or #3?
Apple makes, er tries to make sure, OS X does not run on non Apple PCs. They however work with third parties to make peripherals work with Macs. When I plugged my USB Canon printer into my MacBook Pro it just worked, unlike when I plugged it into my Windows PC. The MBP didn't even say it detected new hardware, the printer just showed up in the hardware. I did install a new driver for it I downloaded from Canon though I didn't need to. The same with my USB flash drives, and though I haven't hooked it up yet I bet my scanner will do the same.
FalconApple customers, those that pay money to apple for the right to use their products as intended, actually prefer the hardware lock-in because of what they gain from it.
I would love to be able to play with OS X on a couple non-Mac machines I own, but I would never ever request that Apple open the OS for operation on generic hardware.
Having switched from Windows PCs to Macs, I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro, I love the stability of it. I also like that it doesn't spy on me like Windows does. I would like to be able to run OS X on non Apple hardware, however I realize it's stability is because Apple controls the hardware. Just like with Windows, if OS X were to run on any generic hardware and something didn't work right people would blame Apple.
FalconYes. Apple wants OS X to only operate on Apple hardware.
It would seem, then, that there are some significant differences between what Apple wants and what Apple's customers want.
Apple would do well to bridge that gap, but for all their cleverness, they seem to be missing this obvious cornerstone of success.
And many other miss the point Apple isn't a software, or a hardware, company. Apple is a systems integrator who makes software AND hardware that runs well together. Once upon a tyme Apple did license the Mac OS to OEMs of MAC clones. Apple saw it's hardware sales decline more than what was earned by licensing. So when Jobs was brought back he stopped the licensing. While it would be nice to install OS X on any PC I don't see how Apple, at least Macs, would be able to survive if they did.
FalconThere are two companies still making magnetic audio tape on reels: RMGI and ATR Magnetics.
Thanks, I bookmarked them and will check them out later.
Falconreel-to-reel tape has been discontinued. The last manufacturer of high-end open reel tape (the "400" series) was Quantegy. (formerly known as Ampex)
Googling I found a lot of online stores that reel-to-reel tapes can be bought from. One had 1200' tape for about $20 a reel, 10 or more was less. As for high end tape, I don't know if Scotch or 3M makes any but I don't need high end tape anyway. I don't have a high end mpg3 player, whether an iPod or not, either. I see no need to spend more for high end stuff when a lower priced item of the same type will work. I may pay a bit more for a good turntable but vinyl records will last longer on it.
I guess I may be hung up on Reel-To-Reels, I loved the one my dad had in the'70s and I loved the one I had in the '80s. The only reason I don't have it anymore is because I loaned it to a friend who then pawned it. Falcondude if you have vinyl forget reel to reel. record to lossless audio format with no compression It will be as good as your reel to reel and you get the portability of modern stuff.
Which lossless format is that? How does it handle whole house sound?
Last time I looked the Russians were the best source for Heirloom Electron Tubes
Years ago friends of mine and I used to joke that if we ever had a nuclear war while the US equipment would fail the Soviet Union's could keep working. While I was in the US Army many of the soldiers in my unit, in infantry, used to say that if we saw an AK 47 on the ground we'd pick it up and throw down the M16s we were issued. M16 are, or were, rather picky about sand and such getting into it, however an AK 47 could be buried in sand then picked up and it will still fire perfectly good.
FalconIt's not the tubes themselves that are expensive ( about $8 for a 12AT7, to use a type someone else mentioned), but the equipment in which they're installed that often sells for insane prices.installed that often sells for insane prices.
Thanks for the link. Years ago I was nterested in building things and want to get back into it. One thing I want to do is build a shortwave radio and get my license. I'd like to use tubes to make it.
Falconvinyl
a) no flipping of the disks 1/2 way through your music
You may think of it as benefit to not have to flip a record, but some like me looked and used flipping as an advantage. When I got up to flip to record I also did something else. Such as stopping the Ree-to-reel tape deck I was recording on. Stop the tape, back it up a little, flip the record and start playing the obverse side as well as restart the tape deck. Once a reel of tape was used up I had 8 hours of music to listen to without getting up and either flipping or putting another record on the turntable. Nor would I have had to switch one cd disk for another.
b) less care and feeding (no "de-dusting" and all that)
After recording it on my tape deck I could put my record away and not touch it again for months, unless I wanted to show someone the cover art.
c) portability (can't put a vinyl LP in your car, but can do that with a CD)
Even better, just use an mpg3 player, then you don't even need to carry CDs, what's more portable?
d) storage space. CDs are smaller than LPs.
What takes more space, a bunch of CDs or a large hdd?
When this new format came on the market there may have been grumblings about having to "re-buy" your music collection, but the above features may have made it worth-while for most folks to do that.
I didn't have to re buy my music on tapes when tapes came out, I simply recorded my vinyl while playing it the first tyme. When cassettes came out I could record onto black cassettes, and when CDs came out if I had wanted to I could have burned CDs of my music. No need to re buy music, just buy blank media. Maybe you haven't seen the new turntables but many have built in USB ports. You could simply plug the turntable into the computer and record the music on your hdd. Then you could make up your own playlist and burn it to CDs, or transfer to an mpg3 player.
Here's a thought... INNOVATE...
"Innovate" is a dirty word to the RIAA.
FalconWho cares that there's more data if it is in frequency ranges that the human ear cannot percieve?
Once upon a tyme, years ago, I drove an audiotechnician crazy as he was testing my hearing. He tested me with one set of equipment but got upset and kept trying out other equipment until he asked someone else to test my hearing. When I asked why he said I was hearing frequencies I should not be able to hear. I replied back if I shouldn't be able to hear then why should he be using those frequencies, but he didn't answer.
For some reason my ears became sensitive after I had an ear infection. Now I suffer from Tinnitus, which is now manifesting as a ringing sound in my ears.
FalconCDs degrade too, and you don't even have to listen to them. We don't know yet how long our precise, exact copy of the original will last. Acording to ISO (18921:2002), maybe 50 years?
I think this is happening with some of my movie dvds. I've got a few movies on dvd that played alright at first but now they stop and studder. When it first happened I tried the disk it happened with on another dvd player yet it still didn't play properly.
FalconYeap. Tubes are still out there but you have to find them and they are expensive, at least the last tyme I saw prices which was a few years ago.
FalconNo, this is just a way for them to be able to re-sell you the same content you already have. Now, re-mastered Beatles albums, now only on vinyl! And of course, it's a format that's easily damaged, and wears out just by listening to it [and yes, I know you can get very expensive record players that use laser's or some such thing instead of a needle]. Leave it to the music industry to give you want you don't want...
Ah but many of us want vinyl. I've been causally looking around for a turntable and I've been seeing more and more stores carrying them. I also want to get a new Reel-to-reel tape deck with a bunch of empty tape reels. Once I have both I'll go back to doing what I did many years ago. Back then what I did was the first tyme I played a new vinyl record I would record on a reel of tape then I'd put the vinyl away for safe keeping. Thereafter I would play the tape. When the tape eventually wears out I still have the record to rerecord. As for the actual vinyl records, while TFA said Amazon opened a vinyl store, there are a number of online stores where they can be ordered. Where I live there are 2 stores I know for sure that sales new vinyl, one 5 minutes walk and the other maybe 15 minutes walk. Another I store I know of also about 15 minutes walk may sale vinyl as well though as I have only seen it while going by I haven't checked it out yet. I about freaked out and had to fight off the urge to buy this record I saw at the store "around the corner" even though I don't have a turntable now. It was by Otis Reading with his "(Sittin' on) the Dock of the Bay".
FalconWhile my pay was less than $800 a month in the army,
Ouch, I think a London bus driver makes nearly that a week, including overtime, and that is considered low-paid. You probably got full board as well, but "key workers" often get subsidised housing here. Not that I am saying nurses and teachers need military training these days...
Well, it was more than 20 years ago. I have a nephew who's a Marine, stationed in Iraq, while I don't know how much he makes I bet it's a lot better than $800. I wouldn't be surprised if his pay were $2500 a month or more.
FalconGP made a joke about the US dollar being less worth than the Canadian dollar and it seems to hold.
SORRY! I didn't see it as a joke.
FalconCome on everyone knows http://www.xe.com/ is the place to go for currency info, it even has top pagerank on Google.
Wheree do you think I got X-Rates? From Google! Googling dollar euro "foreign exchange" returns X-rates in the top spot.
FalconArchive and install!
It's the safest way to upgrade. Yes, it's less convenient, but way better than finding out that some 3rd party tweak is not compatible the hard way...
The best way to upgrade it to first have a backup, on say an external hdd. Of course backing up isn't something that many people do.
FalconIf they break the agreement sue them. Unfortunately this doesn't work if there's a clause in the agreement that they can change it at any time. I have ComCast delivering services now but when I signed up, with Earthlink, it was Time Warner and I don't recall any such clause.
Falcon90 euros for XP, $130
50 Euros for Works, $70.
Canadian dollars, right? So in American that guy just got back $10k, right? Payday!
According to the X-Rates currency calculator 140 euros is 201.46 US dollars and 193.784 Canadian dollars.
FalconEULA agreement which states, approximately: '[I]f the end user is not willing to abide by this EULA... he shall immediately contact the producer to get info for giving back the product and obtaining refunds.'
States approximately? I'd prefer to know exactly before I made any conclusions.
If you're in the US you want the version of the EULA for the US, the Italian version is only good in Italy. It's been years but when I had to agree after getting a new PC, in the US, it basically said if I didn't agree I had to contact the OEM to get a refund.
FalconAssuming the EULA is the same in the US and elsewhere, I wonder why this has not been tried before, and if it has, does anyone know the outcome?
It may be a hassle but people in the US have been getting refunds for years. Here's an article, "Windows license opens door for Linux refund" on how people in the late '90s were requesting refunds. It mentions /. and how /.ers got involved.
Falcon