...continue to add value for owners of older Apple hardware going all the way back to the first iMac with a Firewire port (1999, that's eight years of Mac models that are officially supported by Apple's most current OS right now).
Heck, it's even better than that. You can install Tiger on an original 233MHz iMac from 1998 and it'll run just fine, thank you. Well, sure, it's a bit sluggish, but it all works. The trick is just to load the OS on an appropriate HDD while it's in a supported Mac, then physically install the HDD into the iMac. No need for monkeying around with XPostFacto (though that is a pretty useful tool if you need OS X on Old World Macs).
As soon as I get a copy of Leopard, I'm going to see if this method still works for unsupported systems like the tray-loading iMacs and B&W G3s. Betcha a nickel it will.
Any Power Mac G4 is a faster Mac with many other features also, like Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire 400/800, multiple USB busses, PCI, optical drive, 2 GB or more RAM capacity, space for four hard disks.
Not to diss the PMG4, since I've owned several and enjoyed them all, but there are a lot of things you're missing.
1) The first two PMG4 models (Yikes! and Sawtooth) didn't have Gigabit Ethernet. They also had rather weak power supplies that didn't comfortably accomodate significant expansion (upgraded CPU, upgraded video, four drives, etc.)
2) Only the 100MHz-bus AGP PMG4s (Sawtooth and GigE) supported 2GB of RAM, and only 1.5 of it was accessible under OS9. Every other AGP PMG4 capped out at 1.5GB.
3) Only the very last revision or two of the PMG4 had FW800 built-in.
4) I'm pretty sure no PMG4 shipped with USB2.0. Who cares if you have multiple busses if they're all 1.1?
5) In practical terms, the ATV CPU is probably about as fast as a dual-cpu 867MHz PMG4, due to the abysmal FSB of the latter.
6) The later-model PMG4s are still commanding $700-$1K+ with largely stock equipment.
7) The ATV has a decent GPU that is significantly better than anything that shipped with any PMG4. It also has BlueTooth and 802.11a/b/g/n.
8) Based on the above, to match the ATV, you'd need a PMG4 with dual 867s or single 1.4 CPU and a host of upgrades that would probably put you well over $1K (Although you would have much better RAM and HDD capacity as well as an optical drive. The PCI slots would be filled with the upgrades.).
9) Your resultant uber-PMG4 would still be enormous, loud, and energy-hungry compared to the ATV.
Now, of course this isn't quite a valid comparison, because the two systems aren't really designed for the same purposes. But, if you have a need for a very small, very quiet, very energy-efficient computer, that doesn't need a lot of RAM or CPU power, the ATV looks like a winner. Put its capabilities in perspective: you would have sold an organ for it 10 years ago, or willingly paid $1K-$2K five years ago. It's a pretty neat piece of equipment for only $300.
If you switch from fossil fuels to biofuels, all you do is change the problem set, from pollution and peak oil to deforestation and starvation.
Not necessarily. As has been pointed out elsewhere, growing biodiesel from algae will cause neither of these problems. This is also much more effient than any other biodiesel crop.
I'm aware there are plenty of religious fundamentalists that believe that atheism is a religion, but that does not make it so. You will have a very hard time trying to produce an actual atheist who considers atheism a religion. The lack of a god-belief does not require faith. Most people would not call the lack of belief in the Easter Bunny a religion, either.
Nonsense. It would only take about 1% of the land currently used for agriculture and grazing to produce the equivalent in algae-based biodiesel that the US consumes in petrodiesel and gasoline. Here's more info.
That's the truth. Check this quote: I also believe that most of those two-console households will buy the Wii first, since it's cheaper and more readily available. Has this guy stepped into a Target or Best Buy in the past month? You risk serious injury from being crushed by precariously-balanced towers of unsold 360s and PS3s, yet Wiis are still scarcer than hen's teeth 2+ months after launch.
But have we forgotten there actually still exists a market for a certain demographic that has come to be known as the "hardcore gamer"?
Nintendo may "win," but there's no way in hell they can crush the rest of the market, because they simply cannot compete with the rest of the market.
You had the right idea but came to the wrong conclusion. Of course Nintendo will "crush the rest of the market", simply because they're a different maket. Their market is, as you put it, "the moms", and related creatures that are also not "hardcore gamers". Obviously the Wii will not crush the "hardcore gamer" market, because they're not really attempting to compete in it. Fortunately for them, their market is considerably larger than the other.
Both parent and grandparent are absolutely correct. Nintendo starts out with an incredibly strong stategic position. Not only does their console cost less (much less!) than the others, they've made a profit on every single console. The fact is that the Wii is "underpowered" compared to the PS3 and 360 because their components are cheaper to start with, and will become cheaper still as they gain economies of scale and process improvements. For example, no matter how cheap the Cell and Xenon get, they will alway be more expensive chips than Broadway because they are bigger than it. And they always, always will be bigger, because IBM makes all three chips, and their process shinks will benefit all three CPUs equally.
Now, the downside to improvements to a console is that developers tend not to take advantage of them unless they don't break compatability with older revisions of that platform. For instance, microsoft has added HD-HVD capability to the 360, and consumers probably think it's cheap enough, but developers are extremely unlikely to release games on HD-DVD because they know there's already a large installed base of 360s that wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. By contrast, Sony made sure that every PS3 has Blu-ray, and this assures developers that they can take advantage of Blu-ray's greater capacity without exluding anyone.
So, any improvements would need to be transparently (or at least gracefully) backwards compatible with anything concerning gameplay. This actually leaves quite a few things on the table for Nintendo. DVD player capability would be easy, and cheap. Slipping in a hard drive (or adding the capability to the USB ports) is possible, and it would be quite transparent as just another place to store saves and downloaded games. Switching from 802.11b/g to b/g/n would be trivial. None of these affect gameplay.
On the other hand, fundamental things like processor speed and graphics capability are another story. If IBM makes a faster Broadway, developers can't require that faster CPU for their games, so they're unlikely to use it. Adding a 720p graphics mode is much the same.
However, adding an HD scaler like the 360's could let a hypothetical Wii-HD play every single 480p Wii game in 720p. No, it wouldn't look as good as content that was designed for 720p. Doesn't matter. The typical consumer will think it's good enough. The big question is whether the cost of such scaler chips will come down enough in price to be included in a Wii-HD in a couple of years, right about the time the majority of consumers are finally using HDTVs. I think that's a good bet. You heard it here first.
Hey, don't knock edlin! It's far and away the best text-processing tool that microsoft ever released. It's small enough to fit on a usefully-equipped boot floppy, able to edit files of ANY size, and capable of being invoked in batch mode. None of these were true of its supposed replacement, edit. Additionally, every other editor ms has released has required use of a mouse. I can't begin to count the number of hours I spent using edlin back when I was making a living working in DOS.
The Moon is basically a pile of worthless dirt: Light crust material with all the volatiles gassed out.
Huh? Clearly you have no idea of the value of the moon as a source of materials. The crust has varying composition in different areas, but is roughly:
40+% O
20+% Si
up to 19% Mg
up to 19% Al
up to 15% Fe
up to 14% Ca
and noticable amounts of Na, K, U, Th, and Ti.
You call that worthless?
Admittedly, the asteroids offer a better source of volatiles; however, the moon offers a large, stable base for regular operations. The main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is pretty far away in distance if not in delta-v, which introduces more difficulties, and the earth-approaching asteroids pose their own logistical problems. We will eventually need access to both resources, but it will probably be easier to first establish a presence on the moon than on one or more asteroids.
the price difference between my Dell E1505 Core2Duo and a similarly configured MacBook is $1000.
You are not configuring them similarly. My visit to the Dell store yielded a price of $1402 (see below), with several caveats compared to the cheapest MBP:
- no remote
- no illuminated keyboard with ambient light sensor
- Radeon 1300 instead of 1600 w/ 30" display capability
- 1280x800 display instead of 1440x900
- FireWire 400 only instead of FW800 + FW400
- VGA + S-video instead of DVI w/adapter
- analog audio I/O instead of combined optical/analog
- 6.18 lbs (plus extra weight for 9-cell battery) instead of 5.6 lbs
- 1.42" tall instead of 1"
- Other than upgrading the OS to XP Pro, I did not add the cost of any software. There is no need for A/V on the Mac, which is another $71 on the Dell. More importantly, the MBP comes with a pile of useful software that is worth paying money for.
To be fair, the Dell has a modem, memory card reader, two additional USB ports, 8X instead of 6X DVD burner, and ExpressCard/54 instead of/34. To me, those don't matter very much, but they may to you.
From the store:
PROCESSOR Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo processor T7400 (4MB Cache/2.16GHz/667MHz FSB)
Mac's aren't "BUILT" any better than your standard PCs. I've got a couple G3 Blue and White towers at work, and they're junk. Cases are cracked, dirty, nasty. Fans going out left and right (to be expected, they're old desktop machines, not servers). Drives sound like a table saw with bad bearings.
Oh, I see. It's Apple's fault that your Macs were abused to the point of being "cracked, dirty, nasty". Hmm. I wonder why it is that my several B&Ws and Sawteeth are clean and uncracked (not to mention that "nasty" is a pretty vague description). The fans and drives are exactly the same as any other manufacturer's, so I don't see why you would expect this to be a differentiator.
"And if you want to do something like add a second hard drive, you have the joy and option of sandwiching another hard drive on top of the existing one so tight it's touching it, or dremelling the backplane off the back of the 3.5" zip drive enclosure, and drilling new holes for screwing in teh drive under the CD-ROM and mounting it there."
From the second G3 blue & white casing through to the last iteration of the graphite-cased G4, there was room for FOUR 3.5" drives, side by side. You didn't get data cabling for all those positions, I'll admit, but the space and drive sleds were there.
T,FTFY. The first sled for all these (except for the first edition of the B&W) actually handled two drives, stacked vertically. The cable for that IDE channel had connectors for both drives. Since the optical drive(s) and optional ZIP drive used the other channel, any additional drives needed a PCI-based drive controller (IDE, SCSI, or SATA).
Actually, if you homebrew, it only costs about $.40-.70/bottle for very good quality ale (depending on style). Plus, you only pay sales tax on ingredients; there's no alcohol tax on what you brew for personal consumption. Of course, this ignores the the sunk costs of equipment for your hobby, which can be as little as a few tens of dollars, or as much as you care to spend.
Here in the USA, the law permits brewing up to 100gal/yr for each drinking-age (21+) adult in the household. At 10+ (12oz) bottles/gallon, that's 2000+ bottles (~40/week) equivalent for my wife and myself. This is typically brewed in 5gal batches, so you can brew most weekends (or do two batches almost twice a month) and still not exceed the legal quantity. I've never come close to brewing this much in a year, nor needing to do so, even with a great deal of sharing among friends.
I'll avoid discussing the parent's assumption that seven beers a day, every day of the week, constitutes a reasonable drinking schedule.
Well, I'd like to be able to consider a Tango, but unfortunately, I can't afford $108,000 for a two-person commuter car. Don't get me wrong; I like the design of this vehicle and I think it could be really practical as a second car for a lot of people. The reality, however, is that the price tag will keep it out of broad circulation until (and if) economies of scale kick in. Unfortunately, I don't know how it will achieve such economies of scale if it's too expensive for many people to buy it.
Maybe yes, maybe no. MS sells software licenses. If you recall, MS really liked Virtual PC, because it let them sell Windows licenses to Mac users.
As I said, this is good for them short term. But much as I dislike microsoft's tactics, I must admit that they have always taken a long-term view to protect their monopoly. The trojan horse that the Intel Macs can become may prove to undermine that stranglehold very effectively.
Consider this situation. Someone buys an Mac with the idea that they may want to someday run OS X (or at least try it out), or maybe they just want to buy from Apple, but they want to stay primarily in the windows world for now. Okay, now they can buy one computer that gives them that ability, and move over as gradually as they wish.
Furthermore, if, as sometimes happens, their windows configuration gets messed up due to spyware, rootkits, or whatever, all they have to do is reboot while holding down the option key. Suddenly they have an entirely functional environment from which they can troubleshoot, or retrieve hopefully intact documents, or completely reinstall their windows partition. As anyone who's ever used a LiveCD can attest, working on a misbehaving system is much easier when you're running a fully functional OS that doesn't disturb (or lock) the files on the hard drive.
The reason this is bad for microsoft in the long run is that it exposes people to an alternative that they might never have considered before. There is nothing more dangerous to a monopolist than having their dependants realize the monopolist is unecessary.
Remember, microsoft doesn't lose its desktop monopoly at 50% marketshare. It loses it as soon as there's a large enough market that developers will provide disgruntled customers with a genuine alternative. That number is much smaller than 50% (I'd guess it's somewhere between 10-25%), and is a number that Apple + Linux et al might very well achieve. If Yellow Box compatibility appears, and the barrier to developing for both platforms is lowered, the lower end of that range is not unreasonable - nor incredibly distant. (Yes, I know not all software that runs under OS X is available for Linux, but the erosion of monopoly is still likely).
It is the opinion of myself and countless others (including the US Government) that microsoft has acquired and maintained its current postion not primarily through technical excellence, but by repeatedly engaging in questionable business practices. If they are forced to compete on quality, they will either lose dramatic amounts of business, or they will have to spend considerable money and effort on improving their products (or both). Neither of these outcomes is desirable for microsoft, but they sure look good for consumers.
One more thought. I certainly don't endorse the practice, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see a lot of Boot Camp installations made with windows disks that were not bought retail. Don't assume every installation will result in revenue for microsoft. There's a reason Virtual PC is usually sold with a windows license included.
I just swapped email with a friend about this topic, which includes some thoughts worth sharing:
> Also, just heard a rumor that XCode is going to be able to create winders binaries.
Yeah, I heard that rumor of the yellow-box's revival as well. I haven't yet digested the implications fully.
> Why buy a Mac for $3k to run winders when they can buy a dull for a lot less.
Now, let's be fair. You know perfectly well you can buy a decent new Intel Mac with the latest OS, lots of free software, a warranty and support for only $600. No, it's not ideal for everyone, but it's a very reasonable low-end solution.
> To run Mac apps? Why should a developer write for Mac OS X when Macs can run winders now?
Well, if you can write one program in Xcode and it runs automagically under both windoze and OS X (given YB compatability), you've added support for a popular and growing platform at little additional cost. That assumes you've moved your windows development environment over to Xcode, which is a pretty huge (and presently inaccurate) assumption. However, Apple has mindshare and really pretty apps, and from what I hear, Xcode is pretty slick. It might very well be worth the while of small-to-midsized developers to jump over if it becomes available.
Here's another consideration. There are A LOT of potential switchers who currently must also keep windows around for one or two pieces of legacy SW, or for driver flashing, or for occasional compatability with clients/collegues/etc., or for GAMING, or for whatever. Now they can consolidate to one computer and simplify their lives. Significantly, only Apple sells such a computer.
> I see this as a dangerous gamble. The rewards could be great, but it could further marginalize Apple.
A gamble, yes, but I'm pretty sure this has been Apple's mid-term strategy for quite a while. People with much better business sense than you and I have surely been considering all the implications for longer than we have.
This is a much different situation than IBM had with OS/2. People frequently don't like windows as much as they like OS X (once they've used both). There are many very good apps (some included free) for OS X, and it can also run almost any of the now-ubiquitous FOSS that's available for Unix/BSD/Linux. OS X has an arguably better user experience than windows, and it's "teh pretty". As mentioned above, Apple provides a very good free cross-platform (soon to include YB?) development environment. The HW that Apple sells is comparatively high quality and reasonably priced for what is included. Also, OS X tends to feel as fast or faster than windows on the same (currently shipping) HW. None of this was true for IBM at the time.
> Besides, I wonder what m$ thinks of this. They may like it as it opens up a new client base. Or not.
If they're smart, I suspect they are wetting themselves right about now. Although this is potentially good for them in the short term, it is another clear signal that Apple is engaging in a stealth campaign to take market share from windows. Once people get used to the idea that something should Just Work(TM), they tend to quickly tire of substandard products. With a big enough market penetration for OS X PLUS Unix/BSD/Linux (could be anywhere from 10-25%), microsoft effectively loses its desktop monopoly, and has to compete ON QUALITY. This is something they are both organizationally and technologically ill-equipped to do. If they manage to do so anyway, everybody wins.
The future looks very promising indeed if you look at the situation through that lense.
Regrettably, you are incorrect. I worked as an on-site contractor for a pretty large investment firm starting in late '94, and left in early '97. My whole time there, I used an original Compaq 386/16MHz (7 years old when I started), maxxed out at 2MB, with windows 3.1. It took four minutes to open the filemaker application that I was required to enter data into a couple dozen times every day. Of course, security policy required that I shut it down when not at my desk, which, as an onsite HW monkey, was pretty often.
And I was the lucky one. My colleagues doing the same task had such equipment as a 286/12MHz w/3MB (2MB was on a LIM EMS ISA board - slooooooow) and a Mac IIcx (16MHz '030) with 2MB running System 6. I'm positive there was also an IBM PS/2 model 30 (286) in use. Meanwhile, we were servicing 486s and early Pentiums with enough memory to run OS/2 2.11 comfortably (8MB or more). The disparity was amazing.
The scariest incident was when I had to service a computer that was mission critical to this multi-billion dollar company. It was an original IBM XT (ca 1983) maxxed out at 640KB and unable to be replaced due to the software that was written explicity for an 8088 under some ancient (2.01?) version of DOS. Turns out one of the memory chips had failed. Do you have any idea how hard it was to find a 4x16Kbit DIP (yes, that's one of 9 chips (for parity) in a 64KB bank) in 1996? Fortunately, I knew a guy who was an old HAM enthusiast, and he kindly donated a few spares. Trying to write up the repair and explain from where I had "purchased" the replacement part took some creativity.
You can't easily hate Microsoft, because whether you like them or not, at some point you actually have to use their products.
Wrong on both counts. I certainly can hate them, and very easily, based on their past and present behavior. Though nowadays, I try hard not to hate them, because it's unhealthy and it clouds my judgement. It is better to maintain my blood pressure and simply recognize that I want nothing to do with them. This leads to the other point. I do not, in fact, "have to use their products". Well, I suppose I must do so occasionally where I'm employed, but that is because I choose to keep this particular job instead of making $5.50/hr flipping burgers. At home, though, I do not and have not used a microsoft product yet this century, and I have no intention of doing so. (Oh, and long ago I cut off tech support for family and friends who use windows. Life's far too short to waste on such a sisyphean task.) Somehow, I'm still able to do everything I need to be able to do, without supporting an organization I dislike.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, it's even better than that. You can install Tiger on an original 233MHz iMac from 1998 and it'll run just fine, thank you. Well, sure, it's a bit sluggish, but it all works. The trick is just to load the OS on an appropriate HDD while it's in a supported Mac, then physically install the HDD into the iMac. No need for monkeying around with XPostFacto (though that is a pretty useful tool if you need OS X on Old World Macs).
As soon as I get a copy of Leopard, I'm going to see if this method still works for unsupported systems like the tray-loading iMacs and B&W G3s. Betcha a nickel it will.
Not to diss the PMG4, since I've owned several and enjoyed them all, but there are a lot of things you're missing.
1) The first two PMG4 models (Yikes! and Sawtooth) didn't have Gigabit Ethernet. They also had rather weak power supplies that didn't comfortably accomodate significant expansion (upgraded CPU, upgraded video, four drives, etc.)
2) Only the 100MHz-bus AGP PMG4s (Sawtooth and GigE) supported 2GB of RAM, and only 1.5 of it was accessible under OS9. Every other AGP PMG4 capped out at 1.5GB.
3) Only the very last revision or two of the PMG4 had FW800 built-in.
4) I'm pretty sure no PMG4 shipped with USB2.0. Who cares if you have multiple busses if they're all 1.1?
5) In practical terms, the ATV CPU is probably about as fast as a dual-cpu 867MHz PMG4, due to the abysmal FSB of the latter.
6) The later-model PMG4s are still commanding $700-$1K+ with largely stock equipment.
7) The ATV has a decent GPU that is significantly better than anything that shipped with any PMG4. It also has BlueTooth and 802.11a/b/g/n.
8) Based on the above, to match the ATV, you'd need a PMG4 with dual 867s or single 1.4 CPU and a host of upgrades that would probably put you well over $1K (Although you would have much better RAM and HDD capacity as well as an optical drive. The PCI slots would be filled with the upgrades.).
9) Your resultant uber-PMG4 would still be enormous, loud, and energy-hungry compared to the ATV.
Now, of course this isn't quite a valid comparison, because the two systems aren't really designed for the same purposes. But, if you have a need for a very small, very quiet, very energy-efficient computer, that doesn't need a lot of RAM or CPU power, the ATV looks like a winner. Put its capabilities in perspective: you would have sold an organ for it 10 years ago, or willingly paid $1K-$2K five years ago. It's a pretty neat piece of equipment for only $300.
Not necessarily. As has been pointed out elsewhere, growing biodiesel from algae will cause neither of these problems. This is also much more effient than any other biodiesel crop.
I'm aware there are plenty of religious fundamentalists that believe that atheism is a religion, but that does not make it so. You will have a very hard time trying to produce an actual atheist who considers atheism a religion. The lack of a god-belief does not require faith. Most people would not call the lack of belief in the Easter Bunny a religion, either.
Umm, OS X (well, technically Darwin) is derived from FreeBSD.
Nonsense. It would only take about 1% of the land currently used for agriculture and grazing to produce the equivalent in algae-based biodiesel that the US consumes in petrodiesel and gasoline. Here's more info.
That's the truth. Check this quote: I also believe that most of those two-console households will buy the Wii first, since it's cheaper and more readily available. Has this guy stepped into a Target or Best Buy in the past month? You risk serious injury from being crushed by precariously-balanced towers of unsold 360s and PS3s, yet Wiis are still scarcer than hen's teeth 2+ months after launch.
Nintendo may "win," but there's no way in hell they can crush the rest of the market, because they simply cannot compete with the rest of the market.
You had the right idea but came to the wrong conclusion. Of course Nintendo will "crush the rest of the market", simply because they're a different maket. Their market is, as you put it, "the moms", and related creatures that are also not "hardcore gamers". Obviously the Wii will not crush the "hardcore gamer" market, because they're not really attempting to compete in it. Fortunately for them, their market is considerably larger than the other.
Now, the downside to improvements to a console is that developers tend not to take advantage of them unless they don't break compatability with older revisions of that platform. For instance, microsoft has added HD-HVD capability to the 360, and consumers probably think it's cheap enough, but developers are extremely unlikely to release games on HD-DVD because they know there's already a large installed base of 360s that wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. By contrast, Sony made sure that every PS3 has Blu-ray, and this assures developers that they can take advantage of Blu-ray's greater capacity without exluding anyone.
So, any improvements would need to be transparently (or at least gracefully) backwards compatible with anything concerning gameplay. This actually leaves quite a few things on the table for Nintendo. DVD player capability would be easy, and cheap. Slipping in a hard drive (or adding the capability to the USB ports) is possible, and it would be quite transparent as just another place to store saves and downloaded games. Switching from 802.11b/g to b/g/n would be trivial. None of these affect gameplay.
On the other hand, fundamental things like processor speed and graphics capability are another story. If IBM makes a faster Broadway, developers can't require that faster CPU for their games, so they're unlikely to use it. Adding a 720p graphics mode is much the same.
However, adding an HD scaler like the 360's could let a hypothetical Wii-HD play every single 480p Wii game in 720p. No, it wouldn't look as good as content that was designed for 720p. Doesn't matter. The typical consumer will think it's good enough. The big question is whether the cost of such scaler chips will come down enough in price to be included in a Wii-HD in a couple of years, right about the time the majority of consumers are finally using HDTVs. I think that's a good bet. You heard it here first.
Hey, don't knock edlin! It's far and away the best text-processing tool that microsoft ever released. It's small enough to fit on a usefully-equipped boot floppy, able to edit files of ANY size, and capable of being invoked in batch mode. None of these were true of its supposed replacement, edit. Additionally, every other editor ms has released has required use of a mouse. I can't begin to count the number of hours I spent using edlin back when I was making a living working in DOS.
Huh? Clearly you have no idea of the value of the moon as a source of materials. The crust has varying composition in different areas, but is roughly:
40+% O
20+% Si
up to 19% Mg
up to 19% Al
up to 15% Fe
up to 14% Ca
and noticable amounts of Na, K, U, Th, and Ti.
You call that worthless?
Admittedly, the asteroids offer a better source of volatiles; however, the moon offers a large, stable base for regular operations. The main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is pretty far away in distance if not in delta-v, which introduces more difficulties, and the earth-approaching asteroids pose their own logistical problems. We will eventually need access to both resources, but it will probably be easier to first establish a presence on the moon than on one or more asteroids.
In case you're not familiar with Minnesota, the parent is correct.
You are not configuring them similarly. My visit to the Dell store yielded a price of $1402 (see below), with several caveats compared to the cheapest MBP:
- no remote
- no illuminated keyboard with ambient light sensor
- no built-in iSight camera
- 2x512MB (both slots filled) instead of 1x1GB (one slot open)
- Radeon 1300 instead of 1600 w/ 30" display capability
- 1280x800 display instead of 1440x900
- FireWire 400 only instead of FW800 + FW400
- VGA + S-video instead of DVI w/adapter
- analog audio I/O instead of combined optical/analog
- 6.18 lbs (plus extra weight for 9-cell battery) instead of 5.6 lbs
- 1.42" tall instead of 1"
- Other than upgrading the OS to XP Pro, I did not add the cost of any software. There is no need for A/V on the Mac, which is another $71 on the Dell. More importantly, the MBP comes with a pile of useful software that is worth paying money for.
To be fair, the Dell has a modem, memory card reader, two additional USB ports, 8X instead of 6X DVD burner, and ExpressCard/54 instead of /34. To me, those don't matter very much, but they may to you.
From the store:
PROCESSOR Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo processor T7400 (4MB Cache/2.16GHz/667MHz FSB)
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows® XP Professional
LCD PANEL 15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA Display
MEMORY 1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2 Dimm
HARD DRIVE 120GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
OPTICAL DRIVE 8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
VIDEO CARD 128MB ATI MOBILITY(TM) RADEON® X1300 HyperMemory
SOUND OPTIONS Integrated Audio
BATTERY OPTIONS 85 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
WIRELESS CARDS Dell Wireless 1390b/g (54Mbps)
BLUETOOTH OPTIONS Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Internal (2.0 + Enhanced Data Rate)
Maybe he stated that because it's true.
If you can produce a reputable, peer-reviewed study to the contrary, please share. Articles by Dailey and Cameron do not qualify.
Oh, I see. It's Apple's fault that your Macs were abused to the point of being "cracked, dirty, nasty". Hmm. I wonder why it is that my several B&Ws and Sawteeth are clean and uncracked (not to mention that "nasty" is a pretty vague description). The fans and drives are exactly the same as any other manufacturer's, so I don't see why you would expect this to be a differentiator.
From the second G3 blue & white casing through to the last iteration of the graphite-cased G4, there was room for FOUR 3.5" drives, side by side. You didn't get data cabling for all those positions, I'll admit, but the space and drive sleds were there.
T,FTFY. The first sled for all these (except for the first edition of the B&W) actually handled two drives, stacked vertically. The cable for that IDE channel had connectors for both drives. Since the optical drive(s) and optional ZIP drive used the other channel, any additional drives needed a PCI-based drive controller (IDE, SCSI, or SATA).
Yours could multiply? Ours could only add. In order to multiply, we needed to build a log table.
Here in the USA, the law permits brewing up to 100gal/yr for each drinking-age (21+) adult in the household. At 10+ (12oz) bottles/gallon, that's 2000+ bottles (~40/week) equivalent for my wife and myself. This is typically brewed in 5gal batches, so you can brew most weekends (or do two batches almost twice a month) and still not exceed the legal quantity. I've never come close to brewing this much in a year, nor needing to do so, even with a great deal of sharing among friends.
I'll avoid discussing the parent's assumption that seven beers a day, every day of the week, constitutes a reasonable drinking schedule.
Tax Freedom Day is calculated using a flawed methodology and is not representative of middle-class tax burdens.
fp?
Well, I'd like to be able to consider a Tango, but unfortunately, I can't afford $108,000 for a two-person commuter car. Don't get me wrong; I like the design of this vehicle and I think it could be really practical as a second car for a lot of people. The reality, however, is that the price tag will keep it out of broad circulation until (and if) economies of scale kick in. Unfortunately, I don't know how it will achieve such economies of scale if it's too expensive for many people to buy it.
As I said, this is good for them short term. But much as I dislike microsoft's tactics, I must admit that they have always taken a long-term view to protect their monopoly. The trojan horse that the Intel Macs can become may prove to undermine that stranglehold very effectively.
Consider this situation. Someone buys an Mac with the idea that they may want to someday run OS X (or at least try it out), or maybe they just want to buy from Apple, but they want to stay primarily in the windows world for now. Okay, now they can buy one computer that gives them that ability, and move over as gradually as they wish.
Furthermore, if, as sometimes happens, their windows configuration gets messed up due to spyware, rootkits, or whatever, all they have to do is reboot while holding down the option key. Suddenly they have an entirely functional environment from which they can troubleshoot, or retrieve hopefully intact documents, or completely reinstall their windows partition. As anyone who's ever used a LiveCD can attest, working on a misbehaving system is much easier when you're running a fully functional OS that doesn't disturb (or lock) the files on the hard drive.
The reason this is bad for microsoft in the long run is that it exposes people to an alternative that they might never have considered before. There is nothing more dangerous to a monopolist than having their dependants realize the monopolist is unecessary.
Remember, microsoft doesn't lose its desktop monopoly at 50% marketshare. It loses it as soon as there's a large enough market that developers will provide disgruntled customers with a genuine alternative. That number is much smaller than 50% (I'd guess it's somewhere between 10-25%), and is a number that Apple + Linux et al might very well achieve. If Yellow Box compatibility appears, and the barrier to developing for both platforms is lowered, the lower end of that range is not unreasonable - nor incredibly distant. (Yes, I know not all software that runs under OS X is available for Linux, but the erosion of monopoly is still likely).
It is the opinion of myself and countless others (including the US Government) that microsoft has acquired and maintained its current postion not primarily through technical excellence, but by repeatedly engaging in questionable business practices. If they are forced to compete on quality, they will either lose dramatic amounts of business, or they will have to spend considerable money and effort on improving their products (or both). Neither of these outcomes is desirable for microsoft, but they sure look good for consumers.
One more thought. I certainly don't endorse the practice, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see a lot of Boot Camp installations made with windows disks that were not bought retail. Don't assume every installation will result in revenue for microsoft. There's a reason Virtual PC is usually sold with a windows license included.
> Also, just heard a rumor that XCode is going to be able to create winders binaries.
Yeah, I heard that rumor of the yellow-box's revival as well. I haven't yet digested the implications fully.
> Why buy a Mac for $3k to run winders when they can buy a dull for a lot less.
Now, let's be fair. You know perfectly well you can buy a decent new Intel Mac with the latest OS, lots of free software, a warranty and support for only $600. No, it's not ideal for everyone, but it's a very reasonable low-end solution.
> To run Mac apps? Why should a developer write for Mac OS X when Macs can run winders now?
Well, if you can write one program in Xcode and it runs automagically under both windoze and OS X (given YB compatability), you've added support for a popular and growing platform at little additional cost. That assumes you've moved your windows development environment over to Xcode, which is a pretty huge (and presently inaccurate) assumption. However, Apple has mindshare and really pretty apps, and from what I hear, Xcode is pretty slick. It might very well be worth the while of small-to-midsized developers to jump over if it becomes available.
Here's another consideration. There are A LOT of potential switchers who currently must also keep windows around for one or two pieces of legacy SW, or for driver flashing, or for occasional compatability with clients/collegues/etc., or for GAMING, or for whatever. Now they can consolidate to one computer and simplify their lives. Significantly, only Apple sells such a computer.
> I see this as a dangerous gamble. The rewards could be great, but it could further marginalize Apple.
A gamble, yes, but I'm pretty sure this has been Apple's mid-term strategy for quite a while. People with much better business sense than you and I have surely been considering all the implications for longer than we have.
This is a much different situation than IBM had with OS/2. People frequently don't like windows as much as they like OS X (once they've used both). There are many very good apps (some included free) for OS X, and it can also run almost any of the now-ubiquitous FOSS that's available for Unix/BSD/Linux. OS X has an arguably better user experience than windows, and it's "teh pretty". As mentioned above, Apple provides a very good free cross-platform (soon to include YB?) development environment. The HW that Apple sells is comparatively high quality and reasonably priced for what is included. Also, OS X tends to feel as fast or faster than windows on the same (currently shipping) HW. None of this was true for IBM at the time.
> Besides, I wonder what m$ thinks of this. They may like it as it opens up a new client base. Or not.
If they're smart, I suspect they are wetting themselves right about now. Although this is potentially good for them in the short term, it is another clear signal that Apple is engaging in a stealth campaign to take market share from windows. Once people get used to the idea that something should Just Work(TM), they tend to quickly tire of substandard products. With a big enough market penetration for OS X PLUS Unix/BSD/Linux (could be anywhere from 10-25%), microsoft effectively loses its desktop monopoly, and has to compete ON QUALITY. This is something they are both organizationally and technologically ill-equipped to do. If they manage to do so anyway, everybody wins.
The future looks very promising indeed if you look at the situation through that lense.
And I was the lucky one. My colleagues doing the same task had such equipment as a 286/12MHz w/3MB (2MB was on a LIM EMS ISA board - slooooooow) and a Mac IIcx (16MHz '030) with 2MB running System 6. I'm positive there was also an IBM PS/2 model 30 (286) in use. Meanwhile, we were servicing 486s and early Pentiums with enough memory to run OS/2 2.11 comfortably (8MB or more). The disparity was amazing.
The scariest incident was when I had to service a computer that was mission critical to this multi-billion dollar company. It was an original IBM XT (ca 1983) maxxed out at 640KB and unable to be replaced due to the software that was written explicity for an 8088 under some ancient (2.01?) version of DOS. Turns out one of the memory chips had failed. Do you have any idea how hard it was to find a 4x16Kbit DIP (yes, that's one of 9 chips (for parity) in a 64KB bank) in 1996? Fortunately, I knew a guy who was an old HAM enthusiast, and he kindly donated a few spares. Trying to write up the repair and explain from where I had "purchased" the replacement part took some creativity.
Wrong on both counts. I certainly can hate them, and very easily, based on their past and present behavior. Though nowadays, I try hard not to hate them, because it's unhealthy and it clouds my judgement. It is better to maintain my blood pressure and simply recognize that I want nothing to do with them. This leads to the other point. I do not, in fact, "have to use their products". Well, I suppose I must do so occasionally where I'm employed, but that is because I choose to keep this particular job instead of making $5.50/hr flipping burgers. At home, though, I do not and have not used a microsoft product yet this century, and I have no intention of doing so. (Oh, and long ago I cut off tech support for family and friends who use windows. Life's far too short to waste on such a sisyphean task.) Somehow, I'm still able to do everything I need to be able to do, without supporting an organization I dislike.