He said nothing about the buggy move function causing his data loss, or about any other cause. (It seems he's too technologically clueless to figure one out, anyway. I don't know how he got onto Slashdot, unless he's a troll.)
And OSes have bugs. That doesn't excuse Apple, but anyone who doesn't have a backup at this point in computing history is both willfully ignorant and bereft of common sense. I simply don't have any sympathy for their data loss, no matter what the cause.
Maybe I'm just too geeky, but I find your argument smacks of willful ignorance -- kind of like saying "The salesman didn't tell me I had to change the car's oil when I bought it."
External hard drives (or DVD-Rs, if a backup of a small amount is all that's required) are available right next to that iMac in the Apple Store, at prices that are only a little bit outrageous. SuperDuper has been a very, very easy-to-use backup program for years, and is widely publicized in even the most beginner-level Mac magazines and online materials. (Or, for a one-time backup of something like travel movies, a Finder copy works fine.)
People have been advised to back up their data by ads, non-techie magazines and even the newspaper at least since I've been old enough to read. (I'm 31.)
To me, it just seems like common sense that machines, no matter how user-friendly, break sometimes. If something is that important to me, I'm not trusting it to just one mechanical device.
So your irreplaceable videos were made the previous year and you had no backup.
I suppose the PC makers should like you. You'll shoot up a PC and have to buy a new one every couple years. And each maker will get a piece of the action, since you'll blame the previous maker for routine data loss.
Or you could just do what everyone in the computer business has been telling you to do for at least 30 years and... make a backup.
Meanwhile, the only thing saving Netflix's ass is the anticompetitive nature of the telecom industry in the US, which causes us to have broadband slow enough to make downloading DVD-quality movies too painful... time marches on.
The mini only supports 2GB RAM max (limit of Intel's 945GM mobile chipset).
While most of your points have some merit (although cheap is relative; a tricked-out-to-the-gills Mini is way cheaper than a Pro, especially if you start with a refurb or demo 1.5GHz Core Solo machine), the one quoted above is wrong.
Apple doesn't officially support it, but plenty of people are running C2D minis with 3GB of RAM. The mini sees and uses all the RAM. You lose a little bit of video performance by not having matching RAM sticks (I don't know if, as with a C2D MacBook, you can install 4GB and have only 3GB accessible but get your video performance back). For most reasonably proficient users, especially in Leopard which seems quite RAM-hungry so far, the performance benefits of 3GB RAM will outweigh the slight drop in video performance.
Time for Mandatory Mac Price Differential Repeat Post #3525119.
Please be clear about the sense in which Mac hardware is more expensive. It is NOT substantially more expensive for comparable hardware (except for the occasional huge Dell sale). The reason prices on store.apple.com are 50%-100% higher than those on dell.com is because Macs come with more stuff. And that is part of the Mac brand.
If you configure a major-brand PC to be fully comparable to a Mac, the prices are usually comparable. And, for better or for worse, Apple is not interested in selling less lavishly configured machines. The lack of low-end Mac hardware, not a significant Apple premium, is what makes Macs look more expensive at first glance.
In fact, the high end -- where people loudly whine about Apple's $2500-$3000 offerings and disingenuously compare them to $1000 Dells -- is where Apple gives the best value. For much of its life (right now it's *right* at the end of its lifecycle) the first-gen Mac Pro had a $500+ advantage over comparable workstations from other vendors. It's virtually impossible to configure any other manufacturer's 17" laptop to match the specs of a $2700 17" MBP for under $3000.
If Apple really wanted to, they could offer OS X for generic PCs along with a list of hardware required for OS X to run as intended with a nice disclaimer stating that if people choose to veer outside of the required hardware list, they are doing so at their own risk.
No one but geeks would read the fine print. Joe Sixpack would still try to install on his $150 Wal-Mart PC, run into problems, call Apple, and complain loudly how much Apple sucked when they told him to read the disclaimer.
I agree that hardware sales are the main motivation for Apple not to support non-Apple hardware, but OS X's very good reputation (which helps lead to those hardware sales) would be severely affected if it were allowed to run, whether supported or not, on unstable junk hardware.
A better approach would be for Apple to allow one or two known high-quality boutique PC makers to ship OS X with their systems. At least that way the systems would be as stable as Macs out of the box. (Furthermore, Apple could carefully restrict the types of systems sold, ensuring that the third-party makers only sold in segments where Apple doesn't try to compete.)
Nah. Cheap(R)Ass(TM) EMachines suck because they include dodgy components and often fail. The mini is not super-fast but it's one of the most reliable Macs Apple has ever made. While it won't play 3D games, a Mini with a modern 7200rpm drive, 3GB of RAM, and (optionally) a faster drop-in C2D provides a highly satisfying experience for nearly everything else. Quiet, tiny, and (somewhat) cheap. For better disk performance many people have modified mini-specific 3.5" disk enclosures to use the mini's SATA port. No one will get a bad impression of OS X from a well-configured mini.
If a mini is not enough, though, I hear you about the giant performance gap between iMacs and drool-worthy but ridiculously expensive Mac Pros.
No, because it's an expensive rig I consider it expensive. The sort of consumer Apple has abandoned (for the reasons I listed above) has no need for a $2500+ (plus expensive FB-DIMMs) box featuring ECC RAM, two workstation processors, a 1000W PSU, and the world's slickest expansion mechanisms. If you're after an upgradable machine with merely decent performance, a $2500+ machine, no matter how upgradable, is hardly competitive with a $1500 tower with ordinary desktop-class components. Thus my characterization of the Mac Pro as "limited" (by price) for such a user.
Apple allowed the clone makers too much discretion to cannibalize its market. This time, it should limit the licensing program much more carefully, by restricting them to the hobbyist/prosumer market, which is a small niche where Apple does not compete, and by carefully specifying specs. Keep the machines to 2 internal drives, 1 PCI Express slot, and 8GB max RAM in order to minimize cannibalizing the Mac Pro. Make them just expensive enough to make an iMac look more appealing to consumers. And don't sell them at retail or advertise them extensively -- sell them online, relying on word of mouth and reviews, etc.
My guess is that such a business would be small, non-threatening to Apple, and highly profitable, both for Apple and the clone maker.
Nor would I. That's why I bought a Mac desktop, where I can replace all the same components I can with a PC desktop... and lets face it, with just about any PC chassis you're going to be almost as limited since motherboard formats change over time.
Sadly that's not really possible anymore, as each of the three desktop offerings is made less versatile than a standard desktop PC by design decisions. The Mini uses low-end laptop components, sacrificing performance in the quest for small and quiet. The iMac uses a laptop MB and processor (most notably limiting RAM expansion), can fit only one hard disk, and saddles the buyer with a non-reusable, non-upgradable monitor that will still be looking gorgeous when the iMac is obsolete. The Mac Pro uses a staggeringly expensive dual-Xeon board (with equally expensive FB-DIMMs) and custom componentry throughout. (Oh, yeah, and costs $2200 and way up.)
I see the logic behind Steve's not wanting to offer a prosumer/hobbyist desktop. It would violate his design principles, cannibalize his high-margin iMacs, and create support problems for some users. But what he should do is license OS X on a very narrow basis. Allow one or two white box manufacturers to sell OS X-capable mid-price desktop machines with a very limited range of hardware, that could be extensively tested to keep "it just works" intact. Make the boutique makers offer their own support. I think you'd find small makers eager to take up the challenge for what would probably be a $200-$300/box OS X premium. I know I'd pay it!
That's a little many, but I get at least one per day to update antivirus and/or antispyware definitions. And, like GP, I use Vista for occasional specialized tasks (in my case, in a VM in OS X).
I get quite a few authentication requests in OS X too. But I don't find them nearly as annoying because they don't dim the screen, block all my other applications, and sometimes hang the system for a second or two before appearing.
Also genuinely curious what those issues are (other than lack of reasonable desktop hardware).
OS X has had considerable performance problems in certain specific server applications. And it's not a platform for gaming. Other than those two weaknesses (and occasional Apple lack of configurability) what have you found lacking?
Ironically, Apple's ads pushed the idea that Vista needed major new hardware upgrades to run more than anyone else has, and their new Leopard demands more in hardware than Vista. And with Leopard it is not even about the OS running slower, if you have an older Mac with a RAGE 128 video for example, several applications just fail to run at all.
This is FUD.
Leopard's minimum system requirements are an 867MHz G4 and 512MB RAM. The CPU requirement is realistic; the RAM requirement should be 1GB. An 867MHz 1GB system will run Leopard very satisfactorily. A comparable system will run Vista, but not Aero, and it will be dog slow. (I have found Vista useless with less than 2GB RAM.)
As for RAGE 128 issues, those are only to be expected -- no machines that came stock with a RAGE 128 meet Leopard's requirements (unless they had aftermarket CPU upgrades). A comparable card would likely have trouble under Vista too, because no one would bother to write compatible drivers, although I haven't tried it.
I know, don't feed the trolls. I can't resist this one.
Let's see those "couple of tweaks." Give us the details -- scripts, source code, whatever you like -- for how in "a couple of tweaks" you'll make Linux act like Leopard. Make sure to include Time Machine, Core Graphics, and Back to my Mac.
These will be impressive tweaks! I can't wait.
Re:Got me excited there for a minute.
on
Free IMAP On Gmail
·
· Score: 1
I have an account from the invite-only days... no IMAP for me yet. Too bad. Once it's available to me and I can spend the time to configure it, Gmail IMAP will seriously improve my life.
I liked 4.0 better. It was a truly elegant piece of software. It had formatting options nearly as comprehensive as Word does today in a package that ran as fast as you could think on a 1MB 8MHz Mac Plus.
What's more, there were no toolbars taking up space -- everything was in the menus. And those menus were FULLY customizable. You could put any menu item in any menu, in any order, with user-defined groupings. I spent hours tweaking the Word 4.0 menu structure and by the time I was done I had a writing tool that, while not as powerful as today's, felt like it had been designed especially for me.
It's very sad that today the predominant feeling I get when using today's version of the same software is that I'm having someone else's idea of how to prepare a document forced on me, and that it takes huge amounts of effort to impose my will. Parent is exactly right about the reason: Word 6.0 for Mac had nothing to do with previous versions, and was a buggy and hasty port of Word for Windows. Today I use Nisus Writer Pro unless I am going to have to send a complex.doc file.
I'm far from an uneducated consumer. I still pay Comcast to rent both my modem and my HD DVR (which, incidentally, uses a CableCard to handle decryption, protestations of incompetent Comcast support staff notwithstanding).
With the modem, I've come out behind financially, if you assume that the whole time I've been with Comcast I would have been able to use the same modem. But I doubt that, for two reasons. First, cable modems, like other cheap electronics, are prone to breakage. I've had one go south on me in the past few years, which Comcast replaced free. Second, Comcast has upgraded cable internet service three times since I started subscribing; the first modems I got were not capable of handling today's data rates.
The case for renting the HD DVR is even simpler. To buy a comparable two-way capable HD DVR would cost me $900. I pay $10 a month. You do the math.
As long as the bulk of voters are easily manipulable through expensive TV ads, the ultimate loyalty of politicians will be to those who fund the expensive TV ads.
Is there any OS, software, or music player left that can't handle DRM-free AACs? Anywhere? DRM-free AACs are what iTunes Plus is selling.
It amazes me after all this time that people still think AAC is a proprietary format, or that iTunes somehow contaminates DRM-free files with DRM. Sometimes I think it's willful ignorance.
No mainstream vendor will want to have to be responsible for training their employees to accurate sort between who are the under-18 minors and who are the 18-and-older adults. Not the technical training of checking IDs and spotting fakes, and not for absorbing the penalties if they falsely identify a minor as an adult. You don't find stores that sell video games also selling tobacco (same age restriction in the US).
Oh, please. If gas station and convenience store employees can do it, game store employees can do it. It won't cost retailers nearly enough to make selling games (or movies, for that matter) unprofitable. There are plenty of good reasons for opposing a bill like Yee's. This is not one of them. Use your strongest arguments.
Personally, I'm more concerned that the bill would help propel us into a situation like we have in movies, where even the best NC-17 movies are considered "porn" and ghettoized, resulting in a bunch of watered-down pabulum.
Slashdot Mirror
He said nothing about the buggy move function causing his data loss, or about any other cause. (It seems he's too technologically clueless to figure one out, anyway. I don't know how he got onto Slashdot, unless he's a troll.)
And OSes have bugs. That doesn't excuse Apple, but anyone who doesn't have a backup at this point in computing history is both willfully ignorant and bereft of common sense. I simply don't have any sympathy for their data loss, no matter what the cause.
Maybe I'm just too geeky, but I find your argument smacks of willful ignorance -- kind of like saying "The salesman didn't tell me I had to change the car's oil when I bought it."
External hard drives (or DVD-Rs, if a backup of a small amount is all that's required) are available right next to that iMac in the Apple Store, at prices that are only a little bit outrageous. SuperDuper has been a very, very easy-to-use backup program for years, and is widely publicized in even the most beginner-level Mac magazines and online materials. (Or, for a one-time backup of something like travel movies, a Finder copy works fine.)
People have been advised to back up their data by ads, non-techie magazines and even the newspaper at least since I've been old enough to read. (I'm 31.)
To me, it just seems like common sense that machines, no matter how user-friendly, break sometimes. If something is that important to me, I'm not trusting it to just one mechanical device.
So your irreplaceable videos were made the previous year and you had no backup.
I suppose the PC makers should like you. You'll shoot up a PC and have to buy a new one every couple years. And each maker will get a piece of the action, since you'll blame the previous maker for routine data loss.
Or you could just do what everyone in the computer business has been telling you to do for at least 30 years and... make a backup.
I prefer my movies to be of reasonable quality. Netflix's selection of DVDs is also much greater than its selection of downloadable movies.
Meanwhile, the only thing saving Netflix's ass is the anticompetitive nature of the telecom industry in the US, which causes us to have broadband slow enough to make downloading DVD-quality movies too painful... time marches on.
While most of your points have some merit (although cheap is relative; a tricked-out-to-the-gills Mini is way cheaper than a Pro, especially if you start with a refurb or demo 1.5GHz Core Solo machine), the one quoted above is wrong.
Apple doesn't officially support it, but plenty of people are running C2D minis with 3GB of RAM. The mini sees and uses all the RAM. You lose a little bit of video performance by not having matching RAM sticks (I don't know if, as with a C2D MacBook, you can install 4GB and have only 3GB accessible but get your video performance back). For most reasonably proficient users, especially in Leopard which seems quite RAM-hungry so far, the performance benefits of 3GB RAM will outweigh the slight drop in video performance.
Time for Mandatory Mac Price Differential Repeat Post #3525119.
Please be clear about the sense in which Mac hardware is more expensive. It is NOT substantially more expensive for comparable hardware (except for the occasional huge Dell sale). The reason prices on store.apple.com are 50%-100% higher than those on dell.com is because Macs come with more stuff. And that is part of the Mac brand.
If you configure a major-brand PC to be fully comparable to a Mac, the prices are usually comparable. And, for better or for worse, Apple is not interested in selling less lavishly configured machines. The lack of low-end Mac hardware, not a significant Apple premium, is what makes Macs look more expensive at first glance.
In fact, the high end -- where people loudly whine about Apple's $2500-$3000 offerings and disingenuously compare them to $1000 Dells -- is where Apple gives the best value. For much of its life (right now it's *right* at the end of its lifecycle) the first-gen Mac Pro had a $500+ advantage over comparable workstations from other vendors. It's virtually impossible to configure any other manufacturer's 17" laptop to match the specs of a $2700 17" MBP for under $3000.
No one but geeks would read the fine print. Joe Sixpack would still try to install on his $150 Wal-Mart PC, run into problems, call Apple, and complain loudly how much Apple sucked when they told him to read the disclaimer.
I agree that hardware sales are the main motivation for Apple not to support non-Apple hardware, but OS X's very good reputation (which helps lead to those hardware sales) would be severely affected if it were allowed to run, whether supported or not, on unstable junk hardware.
A better approach would be for Apple to allow one or two known high-quality boutique PC makers to ship OS X with their systems. At least that way the systems would be as stable as Macs out of the box. (Furthermore, Apple could carefully restrict the types of systems sold, ensuring that the third-party makers only sold in segments where Apple doesn't try to compete.)
Nah. Cheap(R)Ass(TM) EMachines suck because they include dodgy components and often fail. The mini is not super-fast but it's one of the most reliable Macs Apple has ever made. While it won't play 3D games, a Mini with a modern 7200rpm drive, 3GB of RAM, and (optionally) a faster drop-in C2D provides a highly satisfying experience for nearly everything else. Quiet, tiny, and (somewhat) cheap. For better disk performance many people have modified mini-specific 3.5" disk enclosures to use the mini's SATA port. No one will get a bad impression of OS X from a well-configured mini.
If a mini is not enough, though, I hear you about the giant performance gap between iMacs and drool-worthy but ridiculously expensive Mac Pros.
No, because it's an expensive rig I consider it expensive. The sort of consumer Apple has abandoned (for the reasons I listed above) has no need for a $2500+ (plus expensive FB-DIMMs) box featuring ECC RAM, two workstation processors, a 1000W PSU, and the world's slickest expansion mechanisms. If you're after an upgradable machine with merely decent performance, a $2500+ machine, no matter how upgradable, is hardly competitive with a $1500 tower with ordinary desktop-class components. Thus my characterization of the Mac Pro as "limited" (by price) for such a user.
Apple allowed the clone makers too much discretion to cannibalize its market. This time, it should limit the licensing program much more carefully, by restricting them to the hobbyist/prosumer market, which is a small niche where Apple does not compete, and by carefully specifying specs. Keep the machines to 2 internal drives, 1 PCI Express slot, and 8GB max RAM in order to minimize cannibalizing the Mac Pro. Make them just expensive enough to make an iMac look more appealing to consumers. And don't sell them at retail or advertise them extensively -- sell them online, relying on word of mouth and reviews, etc.
My guess is that such a business would be small, non-threatening to Apple, and highly profitable, both for Apple and the clone maker.
Sadly that's not really possible anymore, as each of the three desktop offerings is made less versatile than a standard desktop PC by design decisions. The Mini uses low-end laptop components, sacrificing performance in the quest for small and quiet. The iMac uses a laptop MB and processor (most notably limiting RAM expansion), can fit only one hard disk, and saddles the buyer with a non-reusable, non-upgradable monitor that will still be looking gorgeous when the iMac is obsolete. The Mac Pro uses a staggeringly expensive dual-Xeon board (with equally expensive FB-DIMMs) and custom componentry throughout. (Oh, yeah, and costs $2200 and way up.)
I see the logic behind Steve's not wanting to offer a prosumer/hobbyist desktop. It would violate his design principles, cannibalize his high-margin iMacs, and create support problems for some users. But what he should do is license OS X on a very narrow basis. Allow one or two white box manufacturers to sell OS X-capable mid-price desktop machines with a very limited range of hardware, that could be extensively tested to keep "it just works" intact. Make the boutique makers offer their own support. I think you'd find small makers eager to take up the challenge for what would probably be a $200-$300/box OS X premium. I know I'd pay it!
That's a little many, but I get at least one per day to update antivirus and/or antispyware definitions. And, like GP, I use Vista for occasional specialized tasks (in my case, in a VM in OS X).
I get quite a few authentication requests in OS X too. But I don't find them nearly as annoying because they don't dim the screen, block all my other applications, and sometimes hang the system for a second or two before appearing.
Also genuinely curious what those issues are (other than lack of reasonable desktop hardware).
OS X has had considerable performance problems in certain specific server applications. And it's not a platform for gaming. Other than those two weaknesses (and occasional Apple lack of configurability) what have you found lacking?
This is FUD.
Leopard's minimum system requirements are an 867MHz G4 and 512MB RAM. The CPU requirement is realistic; the RAM requirement should be 1GB. An 867MHz 1GB system will run Leopard very satisfactorily. A comparable system will run Vista, but not Aero, and it will be dog slow. (I have found Vista useless with less than 2GB RAM.)
As for RAGE 128 issues, those are only to be expected -- no machines that came stock with a RAGE 128 meet Leopard's requirements (unless they had aftermarket CPU upgrades). A comparable card would likely have trouble under Vista too, because no one would bother to write compatible drivers, although I haven't tried it.
I know, don't feed the trolls. I can't resist this one.
Let's see those "couple of tweaks." Give us the details -- scripts, source code, whatever you like -- for how in "a couple of tweaks" you'll make Linux act like Leopard. Make sure to include Time Machine, Core Graphics, and Back to my Mac.
These will be impressive tweaks! I can't wait.
I have an account from the invite-only days... no IMAP for me yet. Too bad. Once it's available to me and I can spend the time to configure it, Gmail IMAP will seriously improve my life.
I liked 4.0 better. It was a truly elegant piece of software. It had formatting options nearly as comprehensive as Word does today in a package that ran as fast as you could think on a 1MB 8MHz Mac Plus.
What's more, there were no toolbars taking up space -- everything was in the menus. And those menus were FULLY customizable. You could put any menu item in any menu, in any order, with user-defined groupings. I spent hours tweaking the Word 4.0 menu structure and by the time I was done I had a writing tool that, while not as powerful as today's, felt like it had been designed especially for me.
It's very sad that today the predominant feeling I get when using today's version of the same software is that I'm having someone else's idea of how to prepare a document forced on me, and that it takes huge amounts of effort to impose my will. Parent is exactly right about the reason: Word 6.0 for Mac had nothing to do with previous versions, and was a buggy and hasty port of Word for Windows. Today I use Nisus Writer Pro unless I am going to have to send a complex .doc file.
I'm far from an uneducated consumer. I still pay Comcast to rent both my modem and my HD DVR (which, incidentally, uses a CableCard to handle decryption, protestations of incompetent Comcast support staff notwithstanding).
With the modem, I've come out behind financially, if you assume that the whole time I've been with Comcast I would have been able to use the same modem. But I doubt that, for two reasons. First, cable modems, like other cheap electronics, are prone to breakage. I've had one go south on me in the past few years, which Comcast replaced free. Second, Comcast has upgraded cable internet service three times since I started subscribing; the first modems I got were not capable of handling today's data rates.
The case for renting the HD DVR is even simpler. To buy a comparable two-way capable HD DVR would cost me $900. I pay $10 a month. You do the math.
We did that in 2006. It had no effect.
As long as the bulk of voters are easily manipulable through expensive TV ads, the ultimate loyalty of politicians will be to those who fund the expensive TV ads.
Is there any OS, software, or music player left that can't handle DRM-free AACs? Anywhere? DRM-free AACs are what iTunes Plus is selling.
It amazes me after all this time that people still think AAC is a proprietary format, or that iTunes somehow contaminates DRM-free files with DRM. Sometimes I think it's willful ignorance.
Where is our desperately needed "-1, Godwin" moderation?
Hi, Dick. Not so nice to see you on Slashdot. Go back to your spider hole^W^W undisclosed location.
Oh, please. If gas station and convenience store employees can do it, game store employees can do it. It won't cost retailers nearly enough to make selling games (or movies, for that matter) unprofitable. There are plenty of good reasons for opposing a bill like Yee's. This is not one of them. Use your strongest arguments.
Personally, I'm more concerned that the bill would help propel us into a situation like we have in movies, where even the best NC-17 movies are considered "porn" and ghettoized, resulting in a bunch of watered-down pabulum.
You must be new here.
/ducks... it had to be said...