How many $129 copies of OS X would Apple have to sell to make up for the loss of one Mac sale? Probably several -- obviously the margins on software are higher, but a total Mac system is usually going to be well into four figures of revenue.
Also, as has been covered ad nauseam, if Apple starts allowing OS X to run on Joe's Bait, Tackle & PC's, it will face the same support and configuration nightmares we see now under Windows. Folders full of tens of thousands of drivers, obscure hardware conflicts, and the end of Apple's superior ease of support.
In all honesty- every time I use someone else's box, I search for images. Doesn't everyone? I won't lie, I am hoping that they have some homemade porn on there of their wifey.
While I don't have a wife (what do you expect on/. ?) and therefore don't have hawt wife pr0n, this kind of attitude is exactly why no one uses my boxes, even for one minute, without a new account being created for them. I've learned that people love to read private email and dig through document folders.
And if it goes in for service, the drive is backed up to an external and erased first.
I just don't understand it... I'd feel dirty about looking through someone else's private stuff... but I'm apparently the only one.
"0mg 1337 g4M0rZ" aren't attracted to the Mac in the first place, because the games are on Windows. And, really, they drive the market for new games, so it's only sensible to market games (especially, as TFA notes, niche games) to them: in other words, Windows.
So Mac gamers are people who use their Macs for other reasons (all those reasons we endlessly hear about) and happen to want to play some games. This audience will never support more than derivative games and a few struggling indie publishers -- which is exactly the situation now.
Having said that, Apple desperately needs to fix its OpenGL problems to make game writing/porting easier.
ObligatoryNostalgiaAside: I remember playing endless games of NetTrek on my middle school's Mac Pluses. Networked gaming in 1987! And I still fire up mini vMac (yes, I have a Plus case in the basement) to play Dungeon of Doom once in a while.
Yeah, sometimes it does get silly, especially when Mac users (who are often concerned to a degree that does not make a lot of sense to the rest of the world about aesthetics) get particularly attached to a specific form factor.
I remember Powerbook 540c's, which where 68030 machines made between 1992 and 1994, selling for $2000 or more in 1997 before the "Lombard" PowerBook G3 came out -- because people liked the curvy case better than the angular, ThinkPad-like case of the PowerPC-based Powerbook 1400 and 3400. And by then the 540c's could barely browse the web.
Now we're starting to see the same cult fetish around the iMac G4's you mention and also around Titanium PowerBooks. I will confess to being at a loss to explain either, even though I paid way too much for the privilege of owning a 12" AlBook and a dual G5.
Apple computers seem to hold their value too well.
On identical hardware OS 10.3 ran *faster* than 10.2, and 10.4 would have been faster still if not for Spotlight.
That goes a long way toward explaining why Macs hold their value better than average Windows boxes.
(And, yes, I know that the old Windows boxes are still good for all kinds of applications using other OSes -- but that market is awfully small even compared with the market for used Macs.)
...especially all those Windows trolls who keep their iBooks under lock and key, in a dark closet, and only use them at night, under the covers, where no one can see.
Now I wasn't alive when our major space triumphs were taking place,
so I may be all wet, but it seems to me like there's been a fundamental change in our culture that will prevent us from replicating or exceeding those successes.
Today, we are obsessed with our own personal wealth. Sure, we think, it would be nice if we could "afford" to do basic research, to spend serious money on exploration -- but no, we can't afford it, because it's more important to be able to buy more fancy cars (or boats or airplanes) than anyone else.
Reading sources from the '50s and '60s, I get the impression that there was much more concern (possibly driven by the race with the Soviets, but who cares?) for the advancement of knowledge for its own sake. People were much more willing to sacrifice a little bit of wealth for the long-term future of the society.
I wish people would think less about whether they can afford the electronic seat cooler in their new Benz and more about what kind of society they want to live in over the long term. And, no, I'm not trying to take away anyone's "freedom" -- I'm just exhorting them to think less shortsightedly.
Sure, every rich joe (and plenty of joes who hope to become rich) will want to hitch a ride into space. But once they all have done it (and, yeah, I know that will take quite a few years), what happens next?
Space tourism seems to me like it might end up being more of a fad than anything else unless we can make space an actual destination... in other words, space stations or bases on $celestial_body that can be used as resorts...
(or at least really expensive restaurants... heh).
They have been investigated... but there are problems.
The biggest problem is that diesels and electric motors are both biased toward low-end torque -- electric generates max torque from a stop, and diesel at or near idle. Taller gearing can ameliorate this problem, but at the expense of off-the-line responsiveness, especially in a simpler inline system like Honda's IMA or the GM and Dodge truck systems.
Another problem is cost. Current direct-injection diesels with their extremely high-pressure fuel systems are rather expensive to make -- and more expensive to buy, although in countries like France where they are popular the lower cost of diesel fuel makes them a smart investment. With a hybrid powertrain the cost would become very high indeed.
And when a well-designed diesel is competitive with gas-electric hybrids in both fuel economy and performance, the incentive to add the hybrid hardware is limited.
Now, in city buses, on the other hand... until recently, I was a driver for King County Metro in Seattle, and regularly drove their new hybrid diesel-electric buses. Those things are *fantastic.* Low-end torque is the be-all end-all for city buses, and the hybrid powertrain was smooth, quiet, and amazingly quick for a 25-ton 60-foot bus.
I'd appreciate it if you would justify to me why you're wearing out the roads faster, the ones I pay for with my tax dollars. Until there are higher registration fees for heavier vehicles, SUV drivers are getting subsidized by the rest of us.
And that doesn't even touch the global warming issue.
More sensible = higher population density = crowded
Have you actually been to Europe? Sure, houses are closer together and a little smaller. But there is *more* usable open space there, because space planning is so much more sensible. They just don't get into this trap of giving everyone huge private yards that they never use. Instead, there is serious, expansive open space that everyone can access easily -- often without even getting into the car!
As another benefit of this kind of planning, you don't need to drive 20 fucking minutes to get anywhere at all. Usually you can walk, and when you have to drive the drives are short. For me, at least, it's a much less stressful way to live.
Because of this we also have a smaller vehicle for everyday use.
And this is what separates you from the doofuses we're complaining about. I don't think anyone has a problem with a Suburban that's carrying 7 people, cargo and a trailer. It's when they're driven back and forth to work, by one or two people with no cargo, that they take up too much road space, use too much fuel, and present too much danger to reasonable cars.
Think in terms of passenger miles per gallon. Your Suburban probably gets about 13 mpg on the highway. With your family of 7, you get 91 pmpg. Better than a solo-driven Prius (or Metro, or diesel, or whatever). You look good.
And the idiot who drives his SUV everywhere to feel "safer" when he's actually putting both himself and the motoring public at greater risk looks like, well, an idiot.
the massive amount of land taken up by oil pipelines
Um, hello? It's not the land that causes us to foam at the mouth about pipelines... it's the nonrenewable, polluting, greenhouse-causing nature of oil.
You'd be hearing a lot less about ANWR if someone had figured out that the sun was 4 times as bright there and was trying to put a bunch of Stirling engines.
People need to be responsible for taking care of their own retirement.
...which is so easy when the only jobs you can get pay barely enough to buy Top Ramen.
You "anything collective is bad" people need to wake up and realize that not everyone is in a situation where they can become independently wealthy. If you were not born into a family that bought you advantages from the beginning, odds are that you will not be able to save, no matter how hard you work.
Before Social Security, entire classes of the population were destitute when they could no longer work, as they were unable to save because they did not make enough. Is that really where you want to return us to? Think about the real-life consequences before you get up on your ideological horse.
American traffic magistrates (at least in WA) would not even understand what an "algorithm" is. They will just see another glib speeder trying to scam the county out of $162.
(Warning for visitors: WA has one of the most zealous state highway patrol forces in the nation. Just don't exceed 10 over the limit here.)
Out of all the n00bs with broadband, how many of them just have a PC hooked to a cable/DSL modem? Just to use their fancy player they will have to get and connect a router (and set it up for PPPoE if they are on DSL, in most cases).
No fuckin' way. If makers try to require an Internet connection for truly mass-market equipment they are out of their minds.
Harpsichord music is *very* difficult to compress without artifacts/sound changes because the waveforms are so totally gnarly. (Check them out.)
There will probably be at least some harpsichords in any decent classical collection. I use my harpsichord recordings (along with a few others) to evaluate formats, and what I found was that even at 256kbps they sounded very different from the original with mp3 and somewhat different with aac. (Using iTunes -- no ogg available.) So I went with Apple Lossless; I would have chosen FLAC if I were using a player that supported it.
FWIW, for me most pop is transparent with 192kbps AAC. But there are things out there that don't compress as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, as has been covered ad nauseam, if Apple starts allowing OS X to run on Joe's Bait, Tackle & PC's, it will face the same support and configuration nightmares we see now under Windows. Folders full of tens of thousands of drivers, obscure hardware conflicts, and the end of Apple's superior ease of support.
While I don't have a wife (what do you expect on /. ?) and therefore don't have hawt wife pr0n, this kind of attitude is exactly why no one uses my boxes, even for one minute, without a new account being created for them. I've learned that people love to read private email and dig through document folders.
And if it goes in for service, the drive is backed up to an external and erased first.
I just don't understand it... I'd feel dirty about looking through someone else's private stuff... but I'm apparently the only one.
'Course, I guess us geeks could create a holographic swarm of spiders in the boss's office too...
the bar is oriented at about a 45-degree angle Just how many drinks did the researchers have?
So Mac gamers are people who use their Macs for other reasons (all those reasons we endlessly hear about) and happen to want to play some games. This audience will never support more than derivative games and a few struggling indie publishers -- which is exactly the situation now.
Having said that, Apple desperately needs to fix its OpenGL problems to make game writing/porting easier.
ObligatoryNostalgiaAside: I remember playing endless games of NetTrek on my middle school's Mac Pluses. Networked gaming in 1987! And I still fire up mini vMac (yes, I have a Plus case in the basement) to play Dungeon of Doom once in a while.
I remember Powerbook 540c's, which where 68030 machines made between 1992 and 1994, selling for $2000 or more in 1997 before the "Lombard" PowerBook G3 came out -- because people liked the curvy case better than the angular, ThinkPad-like case of the PowerPC-based Powerbook 1400 and 3400. And by then the 540c's could barely browse the web.
Now we're starting to see the same cult fetish around the iMac G4's you mention and also around Titanium PowerBooks. I will confess to being at a loss to explain either, even though I paid way too much for the privilege of owning a 12" AlBook and a dual G5.
On identical hardware OS 10.3 ran *faster* than 10.2, and 10.4 would have been faster still if not for Spotlight.
That goes a long way toward explaining why Macs hold their value better than average Windows boxes.
(And, yes, I know that the old Windows boxes are still good for all kinds of applications using other OSes -- but that market is awfully small even compared with the market for used Macs.)
Waddaya mean? Deez things don't take dubbl-A's? F*&in' ripoff...
...especially all those Windows trolls who keep their iBooks under lock and key, in a dark closet, and only use them at night, under the covers, where no one can see.
Sue/fine/arrest/jail spammers? They'll move abroad where we can't find them.
Get a legal framework that will be enforced in all the countries connected to the Internet? Good fscking luck.
Today, we are obsessed with our own personal wealth. Sure, we think, it would be nice if we could "afford" to do basic research, to spend serious money on exploration -- but no, we can't afford it, because it's more important to be able to buy more fancy cars (or boats or airplanes) than anyone else.
Reading sources from the '50s and '60s, I get the impression that there was much more concern (possibly driven by the race with the Soviets, but who cares?) for the advancement of knowledge for its own sake. People were much more willing to sacrifice a little bit of wealth for the long-term future of the society.
I wish people would think less about whether they can afford the electronic seat cooler in their new Benz and more about what kind of society they want to live in over the long term. And, no, I'm not trying to take away anyone's "freedom" -- I'm just exhorting them to think less shortsightedly.
Space tourism seems to me like it might end up being more of a fad than anything else unless we can make space an actual destination... in other words, space stations or bases on $celestial_body that can be used as resorts...
(or at least really expensive restaurants... heh).
The biggest problem is that diesels and electric motors are both biased toward low-end torque -- electric generates max torque from a stop, and diesel at or near idle. Taller gearing can ameliorate this problem, but at the expense of off-the-line responsiveness, especially in a simpler inline system like Honda's IMA or the GM and Dodge truck systems.
Another problem is cost. Current direct-injection diesels with their extremely high-pressure fuel systems are rather expensive to make -- and more expensive to buy, although in countries like France where they are popular the lower cost of diesel fuel makes them a smart investment. With a hybrid powertrain the cost would become very high indeed.
And when a well-designed diesel is competitive with gas-electric hybrids in both fuel economy and performance, the incentive to add the hybrid hardware is limited.
Now, in city buses, on the other hand... until recently, I was a driver for King County Metro in Seattle, and regularly drove their new hybrid diesel-electric buses. Those things are *fantastic.* Low-end torque is the be-all end-all for city buses, and the hybrid powertrain was smooth, quiet, and amazingly quick for a 25-ton 60-foot bus.
I'd appreciate it if you would justify to me why you're wearing out the roads faster, the ones I pay for with my tax dollars. Until there are higher registration fees for heavier vehicles, SUV drivers are getting subsidized by the rest of us.
And that doesn't even touch the global warming issue.
Have you actually been to Europe? Sure, houses are closer together and a little smaller. But there is *more* usable open space there, because space planning is so much more sensible. They just don't get into this trap of giving everyone huge private yards that they never use. Instead, there is serious, expansive open space that everyone can access easily -- often without even getting into the car!
As another benefit of this kind of planning, you don't need to drive 20 fucking minutes to get anywhere at all. Usually you can walk, and when you have to drive the drives are short. For me, at least, it's a much less stressful way to live.
And this is what separates you from the doofuses we're complaining about. I don't think anyone has a problem with a Suburban that's carrying 7 people, cargo and a trailer. It's when they're driven back and forth to work, by one or two people with no cargo, that they take up too much road space, use too much fuel, and present too much danger to reasonable cars.
Think in terms of passenger miles per gallon. Your Suburban probably gets about 13 mpg on the highway. With your family of 7, you get 91 pmpg. Better than a solo-driven Prius (or Metro, or diesel, or whatever). You look good.
And the idiot who drives his SUV everywhere to feel "safer" when he's actually putting both himself and the motoring public at greater risk looks like, well, an idiot.
I think their server has been warmed by more than 3C.
Anything that will never be seen by /.
I *knew* we had a Microsoft troll here somewhere.
Um, hello? It's not the land that causes us to foam at the mouth about pipelines... it's the nonrenewable, polluting, greenhouse-causing nature of oil.
You'd be hearing a lot less about ANWR if someone had figured out that the sun was 4 times as bright there and was trying to put a bunch of Stirling engines.
0mG \|\|tF 1 \/|/111 h4xX0r j00r t04x73|2!@#!@!!11 411 j00|2 7o@$t |' b33|0|\|6 t0o u$!@#!#@!!11thirty-two
...which is so easy when the only jobs you can get pay barely enough to buy Top Ramen.
You "anything collective is bad" people need to wake up and realize that not everyone is in a situation where they can become independently wealthy. If you were not born into a family that bought you advantages from the beginning, odds are that you will not be able to save, no matter how hard you work.
Before Social Security, entire classes of the population were destitute when they could no longer work, as they were unable to save because they did not make enough. Is that really where you want to return us to? Think about the real-life consequences before you get up on your ideological horse.
American traffic magistrates (at least in WA) would not even understand what an "algorithm" is. They will just see another glib speeder trying to scam the county out of $162.
(Warning for visitors: WA has one of the most zealous state highway patrol forces in the nation. Just don't exceed 10 over the limit here.)
Out of all the n00bs with broadband, how many of them just have a PC hooked to a cable/DSL modem? Just to use their fancy player they will have to get and connect a router (and set it up for PPPoE if they are on DSL, in most cases).
No fuckin' way. If makers try to require an Internet connection for truly mass-market equipment they are out of their minds.
Harpsichord music is *very* difficult to compress without artifacts/sound changes because the waveforms are so totally gnarly. (Check them out.)
There will probably be at least some harpsichords in any decent classical collection. I use my harpsichord recordings (along with a few others) to evaluate formats, and what I found was that even at 256kbps they sounded very different from the original with mp3 and somewhat different with aac. (Using iTunes -- no ogg available.) So I went with Apple Lossless; I would have chosen FLAC if I were using a player that supported it.
FWIW, for me most pop is transparent with 192kbps AAC. But there are things out there that don't compress as well.