f



Mac Mini vs. Pundit-R

Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.

http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp

ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL PHY)
Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
1 x Security Key
1 x S/PDIF out
2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
2 x USB 2.0
1 x Mic-in
1 x Headphone
Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
1 x PS /2 Mouse
1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
1 x S-Video
1 x TV-Out
2 x USB 2.0
1 x RJ45 (LAN)
1 x DVI-D
1 x VGA
1 x Parallel
1 x Serial
Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
IncludedHDD Security Key

$189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, 
hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink 
and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)

$470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R system,
which includes:

Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache

 PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
(increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)

40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
(with options all the way up to 300 GB)

52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
(with several other optical drive options)

ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support

DOS Format (Linux Ready)
(with three other OS choices)

1 Year Warranty
(but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . . 
[+$47.00] ) 


0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 5:06:26 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

1169 Replies
4821 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 19

In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> 
> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp

<<crappy post snipped>>

$470 with no OS and no software.

And..have you checked the Cappucino web site?  They don't look too good. 
Stuff out of stock, all specs subject to change.  Would you buy a PC 
from them?

-- 
Cheers,

Bob S
0
Bob_S (487)
1/20/2005 5:49:20 PM
In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> 
> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> 
> ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL PHY)
> Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> 1 x Security Key
> 1 x S/PDIF out
> 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x Mic-in
> 1 x Headphone
> Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> 1 x S-Video
> 1 x TV-Out
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> 1 x DVI-D
> 1 x VGA
> 1 x Parallel
> 1 x Serial
> Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> IncludedHDD Security Key
> 
> $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, 
> hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink 
> and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> 
> $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R system,
> which includes:
> 
> Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> 
>  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
> 
> 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> 
> 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> (with several other optical drive options)
> 
> ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> 
> DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> (with three other OS choices)
> 
> 1 Year Warranty
> (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . . 
> [+$47.00] ) 

Wow, a cheap PC - No oen saw THAT one coming!

Did your Mac mini arrive yet Edwin?

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
1/20/2005 5:55:58 PM
In article <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>,
 Bob S <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote:

> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> > 
> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> 
> <<crappy post snipped>>
> 
> $470 with no OS and no software.
> 
> And..have you checked the Cappucino web site?  They don't look too good. 
> Stuff out of stock, all specs subject to change.  Would you buy a PC 
> from them?

And...one more thing.  I think both the Mac group (myself included) and 
the Win group are wasting time with these comparisons.  When you get 
down to $499, the differences are small and only a dollars either way.

Let's *assume* you can eke out a slightly better value for $499.00 in a 
PC.  I think it doesn't matter.  I think all Apple had to do was get in 
the ball park.  The prices are so close that those who were waiting for 
a stripped down Mac will probably go for it.

-- 
Cheers,

Bob S
0
Bob_S (487)
1/20/2005 6:04:42 PM
"Bob S" <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote in message 
news:Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from 
>> a
>> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>>
>> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>
> <<crappy post snipped>>

What was crappy about it?   The fact the PC shown is better and cheaper than 
the comparable Mac?

> $470 with no OS and no software.

You can get that for free.

> And..have you checked the Cappucino web site?  They don't look too good.
> Stuff out of stock, all specs subject to change.  Would you buy a PC
> from them?

As you haven't cited any difference between them and any other vendor, I see 
no reason not to buy from them. 


0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 6:34:13 PM
"Bob S" <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote in message 
news:Bob_S-544D02.12043820012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>,
> Bob S <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>
>> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
>> > from a
>> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>> >
>> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>>
[snip]
> And...one more thing.  I think both the Mac group (myself included) and
> the Win group are wasting time with these comparisons.  When you get
> down to $499, the differences are small and only a dollars either way.

The difference between 1 GB of Apple RAM for $425, and 1 GB of CuppuccinoPC 
RAM for $155 seems like more than "dollars either way."


> Let's *assume* you can eke out a slightly better value for $499.00 in a
> PC.

Why would you want to make such a false assumption when I just showed you a 
MUCH BETTER value in a PC for $470?    If you buy the barebones kit for 
$189, and add your own parts, the deal is even better.

> I think it doesn't matter.  I think all Apple had to do was get in
> the ball park.  The prices are so close that those who were waiting for
> a stripped down Mac will probably go for it.

Apple will sell plenty of Mac Minis, no doubt about it.    People wanting to 
replace old Macs, or even PC people who want to try the Mac will buy them.

But that doesn't change what's a better value for the money. 


0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 6:44:10 PM
Edwin wrote:
> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> 
> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> 
> ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL PHY)
> Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> 1 x Security Key
> 1 x S/PDIF out
> 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x Mic-in
> 1 x Headphone
> Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> 1 x S-Video
> 1 x TV-Out
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> 1 x DVI-D
> 1 x VGA
> 1 x Parallel
> 1 x Serial
> Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> IncludedHDD Security Key
> 
> $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, 
> hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink 
> and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> 
> $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R system,
> which includes:
> 
> Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> 
>  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
> 
> 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> 
> 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> (with several other optical drive options)
> 
> ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> 
> DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> (with three other OS choices)
> 
> 1 Year Warranty
> (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . . 
> [+$47.00] ) 

I've seen it in Think Geek, and it's surely the cutiest PC
i've ever seen. I want one of those when I have the money....


-- 

Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
Director Tecnico de bgSEC
jkerouac@bgsec.com
bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos
http://www.bgsec.com
ESPA�A

The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live,
mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn
like fabulous yellow Roman candles.
                 -- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road"
0
jkerouac (1287)
1/20/2005 6:47:06 PM
Sandman wrote:
> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out
PCs from a
> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for
them.
> >
> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >
> > ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> > ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> > FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> > DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> > GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> > AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> > LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek
8201BL PHY)
> > Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> > Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> > 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> > Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> > 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> > 1 x Security Key
> > 1 x S/PDIF out
> > 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> > 2 x USB 2.0
> > 1 x Mic-in
> > 1 x Headphone
> > Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> > 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> > 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> > 1 x S-Video
> > 1 x TV-Out
> > 2 x USB 2.0
> > 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> > 1 x DVI-D
> > 1 x VGA
> > 1 x Parallel
> > 1 x Serial
> > Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> > IncludedHDD Security Key
> >
> > $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU,
memory,
> > hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU
heatsink
> > and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> >
> > $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R
system,
> > which includes:
> >
> > Intel=AE Celeron=AE Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> >
> >  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> > (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store
charges)
> >
> > 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> > (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> >
> > 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> > (with several other optical drive options)
> >
> > ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> >
> > DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> > (with three other OS choices)
> >
> > 1 Year Warranty
> > (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . .

> > [+$47.00] )
>
> Wow, a cheap PC - No oen saw THAT one coming!

Alan Baker and Joe Ragosta didn't.   They couldn't even find it on
CappuccinoPC's Web site by themselves.   They needed me to point it out
to them.

> Did your Mac mini arrive yet Edwin?

Nope.   It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all, seeing how
Joe Ragosta took a turn at convincing me of my igorance of Mac OS X
(much as you had done) and that was my only reason to buy a Mac Mini.

0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 7:00:58 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
<Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
 wrote
on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
<Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
>> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>> 
>> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>
> <<crappy post snipped>>
>
> $470 with no OS and no software.

So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.

Plenty of software, from the base OS to all sorts of stuff:

- Audacity
- GIMP
- KDE or Gnome
etc.

:-)

>
> And..have you checked the Cappucino web site?  They don't look too good. 
> Stuff out of stock, all specs subject to change.  Would you buy a PC 
> from them?
>

I can't say regarding such since I've not seen the website.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill (4394)
1/20/2005 7:01:40 PM
"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
1106247658.222725.10060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:00 PM:

> Wow, a cheap PC - No oen saw THAT one coming!
> 
> Alan Baker and Joe Ragosta didn't.   They couldn't even find it on
> CappuccinoPC's Web site by themselves.   They needed me to point it out
> to them.
> 
>> Did your Mac mini arrive yet Edwin?
> 
> Nope.   It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all, seeing how
> Joe Ragosta took a turn at convincing me of my igorance of Mac OS X
> (much as you had done) and that was my only reason to buy a Mac Mini.

Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than to
have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications sent to you.

When people have to sink to such levels to make a "point", it is clear Apple
is doing well.

As I have been saying for a long time - Apple is quite competitive in their
pricing.  Now that Apple is going after the low end market, this becomes
easier to see.

Wonder who will still argue against it?  Edwin?  Seems so.  Mackay?  He was
a major opponent to this view.  Who else?


-- 
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.

0
SNIT (24281)
1/20/2005 7:06:40 PM
On 2005-01-20, Bob S <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
> In article <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>,
>  Bob S <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>
>> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
>> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>> > 
>> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>> 
>> <<crappy post snipped>>
>> 
>> $470 with no OS and no software.
>> 
>> And..have you checked the Cappucino web site?  They don't look too good. 
>> Stuff out of stock, all specs subject to change.  Would you buy a PC 
>> from them?
>
> And...one more thing.  I think both the Mac group (myself included) and 
> the Win group are wasting time with these comparisons.  When you get 
> down to $499, the differences are small and only a dollars either way.
>
> Let's *assume* you can eke out a slightly better value for $499.00 in a 
> PC.  I think it doesn't matter.  I think all Apple had to do was get in 
> the ball park.  The prices are so close that those who were waiting for 
> a stripped down Mac will probably go for it.

	...which is not the sort of proposition that triggered these discussions.

	Yeah, it's a nice $500 apple equivalent of a $260 book pc. It is not 
revolutionary and it is no threat to Linux. It might help Apple get back into 
double digits again. However, it is no real threat to Redmond either.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/20/2005 7:08:31 PM
Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
> 1106247658.222725.10060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:00
PM:
>
> > Wow, a cheap PC - No oen saw THAT one coming!
> >
> > Alan Baker and Joe Ragosta didn't.   They couldn't even find it on
> > CappuccinoPC's Web site by themselves.   They needed me to point it
out
> > to them.
> >
> >> Did your Mac mini arrive yet Edwin?
> >
> > Nope.   It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all, seeing
how
> > Joe Ragosta took a turn at convincing me of my igorance of Mac OS X
> > (much as you had done) and that was my only reason to buy a Mac
Mini.
>
> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>  sent to you.

The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.

> When people have to sink to such levels to make a "point", it is
clear > Apple is doing well.

So far you and your fellow Mac Advocate are the ones "sinking to such
levels to make a 'point,'" so Apple must not be doing so well.

> As I have been saying for a long time - Apple is quite competitive in
> their pricing.  Now that Apple is going after the low end market,
this > becomes easier to see.

You're as wrong as ever you were.

> Wonder who will still argue against it?  Edwin?  Seems so.  Mackay?
> He was a major opponent to this view.  Who else?

So you're not going to let the facts and figures I pointed out to you
slow you down a bit, eh?

0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 7:15:01 PM
wonder how much NOISE the el-cheapo PC emits. I really hate fan noise.

Fully configuring the eddie's wonder machine to be usable
(2.8Ghz Celeron, 80GB HD, DVD-R/W, 512MB RAM, Windows XP Pro)

I get a $754 price, compared to Apple's $775 for the 1.42Ghz G4 w/
512MB & DVD-R.

sheez, we're reduced to arguing over $20 now. How will I be able to
live with myself for spending $20 more on a computer...

And funny how the comparisons end once you assemble it.
Fuckin' PC wankers. Just not gettin' it for 21+ years now...

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 7:22:59 PM
"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 PM:

>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>>  sent to you.
> 
> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.

You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.

Is there any surprise that you can get a machine that does so little out of
the box for less than one that does so much (I assume a keyboard, mouse,
monitor, etc. for each).
> 
>> When people have to sink to such levels to make a "point", it is clear
>> Apple is doing well.
> 
> So far you and your fellow Mac Advocate are the ones "sinking to such
> levels to make a 'point,'" so Apple must not be doing so well.

Nope.  See above.
> 
>> As I have been saying for a long time - Apple is quite competitive in their
>> pricing.  Now that Apple is going after the low end market, this becomes
>> easier to see.
> 
> You're as wrong as ever you were.

Nope.  See above.
> 
>> Wonder who will still argue against it?  Edwin?  Seems so.  Mackay?
>> He was a major opponent to this view.  Who else?
> 
> So you're not going to let the facts and figures I pointed out to you
> slow you down a bit, eh?

Add Windows (even home) and the lowest end office software cappuccino
offers.  When you figure out that you now have a system considerably more
expensive than the Mini, you will have begun to learn something.  I wish you
luck.



-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/20/2005 7:24:06 PM
oh, eddie's no-name site charges $20.03 for shipping, so guess what --
we're talking the same exact price.

It's arguable whether a 1.42Ghz G4 is totally equivalent to a 2.8Ghz
celeron, but I think the G4+9200 will whomp on the celeron+integrated
ATI shit in the cappuccino box.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 7:27:35 PM
In article <1106247658.222725.10060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > Wow, a cheap PC - No oen saw THAT one coming!
> 
> Alan Baker and Joe Ragosta didn't.   They couldn't even find it on
> CappuccinoPC's Web site by themselves.   They needed me to point it out
> to them.

Ah, boy are they happy now.

> > Did your Mac mini arrive yet Edwin?
> 
> Nope.   It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all, seeing how
> Joe Ragosta took a turn at convincing me of my igorance of Mac OS X
> (much as you had done) and that was my only reason to buy a Mac Mini.

Ah, so it turns out that you DIDN'T know what a good deal was? I was correct 
all along. Too bad you lied about buying one then, right? :)

Plus, I think it's way cool that I have the power to control your computer 
choices! I had no idea how easy it was to influence you!

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
1/20/2005 7:28:48 PM
Sandman wrote:
> In article <1106247658.222725.10060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > Wow, a cheap PC - No oen saw THAT one coming!
> >
> > Alan Baker and Joe Ragosta didn't.   They couldn't even find it on
> > CappuccinoPC's Web site by themselves.   They needed me to point it
out
> > to them.
>
> Ah, boy are they happy now.
>
> > > Did your Mac mini arrive yet Edwin?
> >
> > Nope.   It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all, seeing
how
> > Joe Ragosta took a turn at convincing me of my igorance of Mac OS X
> > (much as you had done) and that was my only reason to buy a Mac
Mini.
>
> Ah, so it turns out that you DIDN'T know what a good deal was? I was
> correct all along.

That my praise of Apple and the Mac was based on ignorance?

> Too bad you lied about buying one then, right? :)

Wrong.   You and other Mac advocates talked me out of it.

> Plus, I think it's way cool that I have the power to control your
> computer choices! I had no idea how easy it was to influence you!

When a long time Mac user tells you the positive things you said about
the Mac are the result of ignorance, one ought to let that influence
them strongly.

0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 7:34:02 PM
Bob S wrote:

> And...one more thing.  I think both the Mac group (myself included)
and
> the Win group are wasting time with these comparisons.  When you get
> down to $499, the differences are small and only a dollars either
way.
>
> Let's *assume* you can eke out a slightly better value for $499.00 in
a
> PC.  I think it doesn't matter.  I think all Apple had to do was get
in
> the ball park.  The prices are so close that those who were waiting
for
> a stripped down Mac will probably go for it.

I agree.  Hell, I'll go one step further...let's just say that a
comparably spec'd PC is $0 (after rebate of course;)  iLife and OS X
still make the Mac worth the price.  When you get to the point that the
cost of the Mac broken down by day over the 3-5 year lifespan (even
while assuming $0 resale value) is well under a dollar a day, price
comparisons are rather silly.

For quite some time now I've received free PCs for consulting and
reviewing, but I've almost always had to buy my own Macintosh.  My Mac
purchases are usually top of the line (as are my free PCs), but I still
buy Macs because the ability to use the Mac is worth the price to me,
even if it is the full price of the Mac versus a free PC.

To use the old car analogy, I could've gotten a Ford Pinto for free,
but I bought a Mercedes.

0
macslut (287)
1/20/2005 7:36:51 PM
oh eddie please buy a mini mac and see how good OS X really really is !

windows sucks so much and you just don't know it!

sure the performa you bought 10 years ago was crap but that wasn't
Steve's fault!

Things are much better now on the Mac side.

If you don't buy a Mac now I just don't know what I will do with
myself. The suspense is killing me.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 7:37:36 PM
<imouttahere@mac.com> wrote in message 
news:1106248979.873123.111030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> wonder how much NOISE the el-cheapo PC emits. I really hate fan noise.
>
> Fully configuring the eddie's wonder machine to be usable
> (2.8Ghz Celeron, 80GB HD, DVD-R/W, 512MB RAM, Windows XP Pro)
>
> I get a $754 price, compared to Apple's $775 for the 1.42Ghz G4 w/
> 512MB & DVD-R.

So how did you get a 533 FSB, a second RAM slot, 6 channel audio, a Mic in 
port, a line level audio in port, and two PCI slots into the Mac Mini, 
without raising its price?   What, you thought spec matching was a one way 
street?

Why did you ignore matching to Apple's $499 offering, and jump to an 
upgraded Mac Mini as the base line?


> sheez, we're reduced to arguing over $20 now. How will I be able to
> live with myself for spending $20 more on a computer...

After you contrived the situation to make it appear that way.

> And funny how the comparisons end once you assemble it.

If you go out of your way to assemble it incorrectly.



0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 7:46:57 PM
<imouttahere@mac.com> wrote in message 
news:1106249255.890305.130970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> oh, eddie's no-name site charges $20.03 for shipping, so guess what --
> we're talking the same exact price.

For less in the Mac Mini.

> It's arguable whether a 1.42Ghz G4 is totally equivalent to a 2.8Ghz
> celeron, but I think the G4+9200 will whomp on the celeron+integrated
> ATI shit in the cappuccino box.

As long as you don't let facts get in your way... 


0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 7:48:01 PM
Edwin wrote:
> <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1106248979.873123.111030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > wonder how much NOISE the el-cheapo PC emits. I really hate fan
noise.
> >
> > Fully configuring the eddie's wonder machine to be usable
> > (2.8Ghz Celeron, 80GB HD, DVD-R/W, 512MB RAM, Windows XP Pro)
> >
> > I get a $754 price, compared to Apple's $775 for the 1.42Ghz G4 w/
> > 512MB & DVD-R.
>
> So how did you get a 533 FSB,

meaningless penis measuring for the most part. Like I said, the mini's
dedicated 9200 (and OS X's use of the graphics chipset for compositing
windows and GUI) will result in a comparable system speedwise.

technically speaking the 533 FSB is a quad-pumped 133Mhz FSB, while the
166 Mhz FSB on the G4 is a SDR bus. QDR is only about 75% as efficient
as SDR (there is more empty space on the QDR bus to allow for
synchronizatoin issues) so it's not as simple as it appears. Plus the
G4 in the MiniMac has 4x the L2 cache memory of the celeron.


> a second RAM slot

unnecessary for use with 512MB

> 6 channel audio

That's nice but for an el-cheapo totally unnecessaary.

>,a Mic in port
> a line level audio in port

USB suffices

> and two PCI slots into the Mac Mini,

The mini has a built-in adapter for 802.11g, the most common PCI card
addition.

So really the pundit has one additional PCI slot.

Big fucking whoop.

> without raising its price?   What, you thought spec matching was a
one way
> street?

Just sayin' the prices were identical. Spec matching with such a
fuckhead as you is just a pissing match tho.

> Why did you ignore matching to Apple's $499 offering, and jump to an
> upgraded Mac Mini as the base line?

Cuz the $100 upgrade to 1.42Ghz and 80GB hard drive is a good value, as
was the upgrade to 2.8Ghz Celeron on the pundit.

> > sheez, we're reduced to arguing over $20 now. How will I be able to
> > live with myself for spending $20 more on a computer...
>
> After you contrived the situation to make it appear that way.

Nothing "contrived" at all. Just configuring the two boxes as I would
order them for a friend or relative.

> > And funny how the comparisons end once you assemble it.
> 
> If you go out of your way to assemble it incorrectly.

LOL.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 8:01:39 PM
On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
> 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 PM:
>
>>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
>>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>>>  sent to you.
>> 
>> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
>> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
>
> You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
> install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
> similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.

	...except to really exploit that software, you will need more storage
than the mini can accomodate. Based on that usage pattern, a $260 bookpc would
suffice. 
[deletia]

	XPCs are overkill for this exercise.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/20/2005 8:08:09 PM
correction apparently the celeron Ds have 256k of L2 cache, half the
G4's.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 8:08:29 PM
On 2005-01-20, Macslut <macslut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Bob S wrote:
>
>> And...one more thing.  I think both the Mac group (myself included)
> and
>> the Win group are wasting time with these comparisons.  When you get
>> down to $499, the differences are small and only a dollars either
> way.
>>
>> Let's *assume* you can eke out a slightly better value for $499.00 in
> a
>> PC.  I think it doesn't matter.  I think all Apple had to do was get
> in
>> the ball park.  The prices are so close that those who were waiting
> for
>> a stripped down Mac will probably go for it.
>
> I agree.  Hell, I'll go one step further...let's just say that a
> comparably spec'd PC is $0 (after rebate of course;)  iLife and OS X
> still make the Mac worth the price.  When you get to the point that the

	Why? 

	Please provide relevant details and enough information to demonstrate
you've actually USED this stuff yourself.

[deletia]

	It's one thing to declare that a Lada is infact a Porche and 
quite another to actually open up the hood and give a guided tour.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/20/2005 8:11:02 PM
> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.

> Plenty of software, from the base OS to all sorts of stuff:

> - Audacity
> - GIMP
> - KDE or Gnome
> etc.

Something tells me that the targeted customer of the MiniMac will not
be able to spell Linux much less have it up and running with a suite
of open-sourced software. Sounds like a great solution for techies
and not many others.

* posted via http://mymac.ws
0
myname2856 (54)
1/20/2005 8:21:08 PM
In article <RUTHd.11569$Vj3.10986@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote in message 
> news:1106248979.873123.111030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > wonder how much NOISE the el-cheapo PC emits. I really hate fan noise.
> >
> > Fully configuring the eddie's wonder machine to be usable
> > (2.8Ghz Celeron, 80GB HD, DVD-R/W, 512MB RAM, Windows XP Pro)
> >
> > I get a $754 price, compared to Apple's $775 for the 1.42Ghz G4 w/
> > 512MB & DVD-R.
> 
> So how did you get a 533 FSB, a second RAM slot, 6 channel audio, a Mic in 
> port, a line level audio in port, and two PCI slots into the Mac Mini, 
> without raising its price?   What, you thought spec matching was a one way 
> street?
> 
> Why did you ignore matching to Apple's $499 offering, and jump to an 
> upgraded Mac Mini as the base line?
> 
> 
> > sheez, we're reduced to arguing over $20 now. How will I be able to
> > live with myself for spending $20 more on a computer...
> 
> After you contrived the situation to make it appear that way.
> 
> > And funny how the comparisons end once you assemble it.
> 
> If you go out of your way to assemble it incorrectly.

Still looks like we're splitting hairs here.

-- 
Cheers,

Bob S
0
Bob_S (487)
1/20/2005 8:39:41 PM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
>
> OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
> it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> software.
>
> Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're 
> STILL going to suffer from malware.
>
> Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a 
> better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.

Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up your
tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.


-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 3:00PM  up  3:58, 1 user, load averages: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/20/2005 9:06:27 PM
In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> 
> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> 
> ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL PHY)
> Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> 1 x Security Key
> 1 x S/PDIF out
> 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x Mic-in
> 1 x Headphone
> Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> 1 x S-Video
> 1 x TV-Out
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> 1 x DVI-D
> 1 x VGA
> 1 x Parallel
> 1 x Serial
> Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> IncludedHDD Security Key
> 
> $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, 
> hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink 
> and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> 
> $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R system,
> which includes:
> 
> Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> 
>  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
> 
> 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> 
> 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> (with several other optical drive options)
> 
> ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> 
> DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> (with three other OS choices)
> 
> 1 Year Warranty
> (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . . 
> [+$47.00] ) 

OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
software.

Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're 
STILL going to suffer from malware.

Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a 
better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 9:06:59 PM
"TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message 
news:Nowhere-71074C.15030020012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
>> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
>>  wrote
>> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
>> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
>> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
>> >> from
>> >> a
>> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for 
>> >> them.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>> >
>> > <<crappy post snipped>>
>> >
>> > $470 with no OS and no software.
>>
>> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
>>
>
> None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.

Which of those Linux distros did you use, and which applications did you run 
on them, Joe? 


0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 9:08:04 PM
In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
 The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
>  wrote
> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from 
> >> a 
> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> >> 
> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >
> > <<crappy post snipped>>
> >
> > $470 with no OS and no software.
> 
> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
> 

None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 9:08:12 PM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:12 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
>  The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
>> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
>>  wrote
>> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
>> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
>> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from 
>> >> a 
>> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>> >> 
>> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>> >
>> > <<crappy post snipped>>
>> >
>> > $470 with no OS and no software.
>> 
>> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
>> 
>
> None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.

Which is what you would think, having only ever used OS X and iLife.  Is it
true what they say about ignorance and bliss?

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 3:05PM  up  4:03, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/20/2005 9:09:25 PM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:12 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
wrote:

>In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
>> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
>>  wrote
>> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
>> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
>> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from 
>> >> a 
>> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>> >> 
>> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>> >
>> > <<crappy post snipped>>
>> >
>> > $470 with no OS and no software.
>> 
>> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
>> 
>
>None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.

That's opinion, not fact. I have iLife on my G4 tower at home, I
played with it for about an hour and have never used it since. It
simply dosn't do anything I care about. Most people who buy computers
like the Mini will use it for three things eMail,web and office. Linux
is very usable for these things.

That having been said I would rather have the Mini.
0
jfizer
1/20/2005 9:16:16 PM
"TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message 
news:Nowhere-093A13.15014620012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from 
>> a
>> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>>
>> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>>
>> ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
>> ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
>> FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
>> DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
>> GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
>> AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
>> LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL 
>> PHY)
>> Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
>> Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
>> 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
>> Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
>> 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
>> 1 x Security Key
>> 1 x S/PDIF out
>> 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
>> 2 x USB 2.0
>> 1 x Mic-in
>> 1 x Headphone
>> Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
>> 1 x PS /2 Mouse
>> 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
>> 1 x S-Video
>> 1 x TV-Out
>> 2 x USB 2.0
>> 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
>> 1 x DVI-D
>> 1 x VGA
>> 1 x Parallel
>> 1 x Serial
>> Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
>> IncludedHDD Security Key
>>
>> $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, 
>> memory,
>> hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink
>> and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
>>
>> $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R 
>> system,
>> which includes:
>>
>> Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
>>
>>  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
>> (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
>>
>> 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
>> (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
>>
>> 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
>> (with several other optical drive options)
>>
>> ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
>>
>> DOS Format (Linux Ready)
>> (with three other OS choices)
>>
>> 1 Year Warranty
>> (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . .
>> [+$47.00] )
>
> OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
> for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.

Add in free Linux and free applications.

> Then add shipping cost (not included).

I've been told it's $29.

> Then add in your time for getting
> it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going
> to have to spend time on it).

$470 is for an assembled system.

> Then add in the obligatory security software.

Linux doesn't need it.

> Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini.

Nope.

> And hugely larger.

It's the size of a book.

> And you're
> STILL going to suffer from malware.

Not with Linux.

> Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
> better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.

Only because you skewed the comparison.  You demand the same things in the 
PC as the Mac has, but you don't demand the Mac have everything the PC does.

What is the cost of adding the following to the Mac Mini:

line level audio in
Mic in
S-Video out
2 PCI slots
another RAM slot
533 FSB
Increase RAM limit to 2 GB
Add 6 channel audio
Be able to add RAM without voiding warranty 


0
thorne25 (21019)
1/20/2005 9:25:40 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,

> OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
> it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> software.
>

Why in heaven's name would I want to put redmondware on it? I'd install
Linux, a task which takes me less time than setting up a new preinstalled XP
system. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8CSjd90bcYOAWPYRAqM7AKDklgI0BLw9rralKGlIZpXsb3SLaQCeJIV6
EfUmZT3WBCBz5GevufwDTxc=
=MtRP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Rule 1: You can't cure stupid
0
warlock (9522)
1/20/2005 9:37:39 PM
In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> 
> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> 
> ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL PHY)
> Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> 1 x Security Key
> 1 x S/PDIF out
> 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x Mic-in
> 1 x Headphone
> Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> 1 x S-Video
> 1 x TV-Out
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> 1 x DVI-D
> 1 x VGA
> 1 x Parallel
> 1 x Serial
> Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> IncludedHDD Security Key
> 
> $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, 
> hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink 
> and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> 
> $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R system,
> which includes:
> 
> Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> 
>  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
> 
> 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> 
> 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> (with several other optical drive options)
> 
> ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> 
> DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> (with three other OS choices)
> 
> 1 Year Warranty
> (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . . 
> [+$47.00] ) 

Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the 
software that comes with the minimac?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/20/2005 9:38:18 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:12 GMT,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
>  The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
>> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
>>  wrote
>> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
>> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
>> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from 
>> >> a 
>> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>> >> 
>> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>> >
>> > <<crappy post snipped>>
>> >
>> > $470 with no OS and no software.
>> 
>> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
>> 
>
> None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.


Personally, I find them more useful, especially Ubuntu and the rest of
the Debian derivatives. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8CTSd90bcYOAWPYRAj+wAKDUc405giB1JL2pReOrqBSl+ERClACgtOCZ
UAz4pBvORPG3uOhc05PQO4Q=
=oMYq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Those who live by the sword are shot by those who don't.
0
warlock (9522)
1/20/2005 9:38:26 PM
In article <1106247658.222725.10060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all,

Nobody really thought you would, edwin.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/20/2005 9:39:41 PM
In article <RUTHd.11569$Vj3.10986@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > wonder how much NOISE the el-cheapo PC emits. I really hate fan noise.
> >
> > Fully configuring the eddie's wonder machine to be usable
> > (2.8Ghz Celeron, 80GB HD, DVD-R/W, 512MB RAM, Windows XP Pro)
> >
> > I get a $754 price, compared to Apple's $775 for the 1.42Ghz G4 w/
> > 512MB & DVD-R.
> 
> So how did you get a 533 FSB, a second RAM slot, 6 channel audio, a Mic in 
> port, a line level audio in port, and two PCI slots into the Mac Mini, 
> without raising its price?   What, you thought spec matching was a one way 
> street?

Of course it is. There is no such thing as a BYO Mac, so you can't order a Mac 
without firewire ports, but you can build a PC without optical-in for example. 
You can't buy a iMac without a high-quality LCD display, but you can build a PC 
without free PCI slots.

See where I am going? If you want to compare Macs with pre-set features, don't 
use PCs that have MORE features. Heck, removing those features from your BYO PC 
will make it -cheaper- and be in FAVOR of your comparison, just like having 
other features adds to the price of the Mac.

The problem with being a Maccie when it comes to comparisons is when you say 
that no one needs FireWire (for example) we can't remove it from the machine 
and lower the price, which makes it stupid for you to claim that you don't need 
to add FW to your PC that you want to compare to the Mac, and so on. A Mac is a 
given set of features that Apple has decided is a good starting point. You can 
add or change some of them, but far from all of them. As it is - I am one of 
those lucky guys that happen to think that - apart from a modem still being a 
part of every Mac - those are good decisions. I use all of the feauters of my 
Macs and I never paid for a feature I didn't use.

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
1/20/2005 9:40:44 PM
In article <FQSHd.11558$Vj3.10077@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > $470 with no OS and no software.
> 
> You can get that for free.

XP is free these days?

And care to list the *free* Windows software that is equal the the 
iLife quite and the rest of the apps that are bundled with the minimac?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/20/2005 9:42:36 PM
In article <1106249642.549564.160600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

>>>> Wow, a cheap PC - No oen saw THAT one coming!
>>> 
>>> Alan Baker and Joe Ragosta didn't.   They couldn't even find it on
>>> CappuccinoPC's Web site by themselves.   They needed me to point it
>>> out to them.
>> 
>> Ah, boy are they happy now.
>>>> 
>>>> Did your Mac mini arrive yet Edwin?
>>> 
>>> Nope.   It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all, seeing
>>> how Joe Ragosta took a turn at convincing me of my igorance of Mac
>>> OS X (much as you had done) and that was my only reason to buy a Mac
>>> Mini.
>> 
>> Ah, so it turns out that you DIDN'T know what a good deal was? I was
>> correct all along.
> 
> That my praise of Apple and the Mac was based on ignorance?

No, that you didn't even know what a good deal was for yourself. Hilarious. :)

>> Too bad you lied about buying one then, right? :)
> 
> Wrong.   You and other Mac advocates talked me out of it.

But you still claimed you would buy one. 

>> Plus, I think it's way cool that I have the power to control your
>> computer choices! I had no idea how easy it was to influence you!
> 
> When a long time Mac user tells you the positive things you said about
> the Mac are the result of ignorance, one ought to let that influence
> them strongly.

Wow, what should I make you do next? The Macarena? This has been truly 
humiliating for you. :)

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
1/20/2005 9:45:20 PM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:42:36 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> In article <FQSHd.11558$Vj3.10077@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > $470 with no OS and no software.
>> 
>> You can get that for free.
>
> XP is free these days?
>
> And care to list the *free* Windows software that is equal the the 
> iLife quite and the rest of the apps that are bundled with the minimac?

I looked at http://www.apple.com/ilife/
and realized I -- like many, many others -- have absolutely no need for
iLife.


-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 3:45PM  up  4:43, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/20/2005 9:48:03 PM
"TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:Nowhere-71074C.15030020012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
>  The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
> > <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
> >  wrote
> > on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
> > <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
> > > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs
from
> > >> a
> > >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for
them.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> > >
> > > <<crappy post snipped>>
> > >
> > > $470 with no OS and no software.
> >
> > So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
> >
>
> None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.

     That's only a matter of opinion. There is nothing that iLife does that
can't be done on Linux. There is nothing special that iLife does that can't
be done easily with Windows. I've checked.

John


0
hitman86 (2158)
1/20/2005 9:49:59 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy C Lund <clund@notam02spamblock.no> wrote:
[pundit]
> 
> Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the 
> software that comes with the minimac?

Nothing if it's available as OSS!

BTW what does it cost to insert a PCI device, a PCMCIA card or a
microphone in a mini? Or use both a VGA and a DVI monitor at the same
time?

0
spam206 (250)
1/20/2005 9:52:38 PM
In article <U4VHd.11591$Vj3.9977@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message 
> news:Nowhere-71074C.15030020012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
> >> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
> >>  wrote
> >> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
> >> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
> >> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
> >> >> from
> >> >> a
> >> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for 
> >> >> them.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >> >
> >> > <<crappy post snipped>>
> >> >
> >> > $470 with no OS and no software.
> >>
> >> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
> >>
> >
> > None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
> 
> Which of those Linux distros did you use, and which applications did you run 
> on them, Joe? 

Several distributions. Most recently, Yellow Dog (which is, btw, 
appropriately named). Applications like the built in browser  and Open 
Office.

Now, your turn. What OS X applications have you sued recently.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 9:55:36 PM
In article <slrncv076s.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
 General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> >
> > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> > Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
> > it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> > to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> > software.
> >
> > Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're 
> > STILL going to suffer from malware.
> >
> > Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a 
> > better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> 
> Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up your
> tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.

Because for the target audience, Linux is not a suitable alternative.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 9:56:36 PM
In article <slrncv07cf.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
 General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:12 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
> >  The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
> >> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
> >>  wrote
> >> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
> >> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
> >> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
> >> >> from 
> >> >> a 
> >> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> >> >> 
> >> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >> >
> >> > <<crappy post snipped>>
> >> >
> >> > $470 with no OS and no software.
> >> 
> >> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
> >> 
> >
> > None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
> 
> Which is what you would think, having only ever used OS X and iLife.  Is it
> true what they say about ignorance and bliss?

You're going to have to tell me.

I've used Windows pretty extensively (everything from 3.1 to XP Pro), 
multiple versions of LInux, Solaris, and (to a much lesser extent) IBM's 
desktop OS (the name has slipped my mind - OS2?).
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 9:57:40 PM
In article <olVHd.11601$Vj3.6728@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message 
> news:Nowhere-093A13.15014620012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from 
> >> a
> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> >>
> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >>
> >> ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> >> ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> >> FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> >> DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> >> GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> >> AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> >> LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL 
> >> PHY)
> >> Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> >> Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> >> 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> >> Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> >> 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> >> 1 x Security Key
> >> 1 x S/PDIF out
> >> 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> >> 2 x USB 2.0
> >> 1 x Mic-in
> >> 1 x Headphone
> >> Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> >> 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> >> 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> >> 1 x S-Video
> >> 1 x TV-Out
> >> 2 x USB 2.0
> >> 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> >> 1 x DVI-D
> >> 1 x VGA
> >> 1 x Parallel
> >> 1 x Serial
> >> Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> >> IncludedHDD Security Key
> >>
> >> $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, 
> >> memory,
> >> hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink
> >> and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> >>
> >> $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R 
> >> system,
> >> which includes:
> >>
> >> Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> >>
> >>  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> >> (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
> >>
> >> 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> >> (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> >>
> >> 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> >> (with several other optical drive options)
> >>
> >> ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> >>
> >> DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> >> (with three other OS choices)
> >>
> >> 1 Year Warranty
> >> (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . .
> >> [+$47.00] )
> >
> > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
> > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
> 
> Add in free Linux and free applications.

OK. Inferior OS and software.

Now, tell us exactly which Linux software is equivalent to iLife, 
Quicken, and AppleWorks.

> 
> > Then add shipping cost (not included).
> 
> I've been told it's $29.

So you lied when you said your computer was less than the Mac. 

Apple ships Macs free. So instead of being $20 less, yours is $9 more.

Why am I not suprised. Another Edwin lie. Ho-hum.

> 
> > Then add in your time for getting
> > it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going
> > to have to spend time on it).
> 
> $470 is for an assembled system.

I'll take your word for it (which, given your penchant for lying, is a 
big assumpttion on my part). Still, your system is more expensive and 
not as good.

> 
> > Then add in the obligatory security software.
> 
> Linux doesn't need it.

The target audience won't find Linux to be as good.

And tell me  the Linux equivalents to iLife, AppleWorks, and Quicken.

> 
> > Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini.
> 
> Nope.

Amazing. Even when you admitted in THIS post that you need to add $29 to 
your system for shipping (making it $9 more than the Mac), you're 
pretending that it's not.

> 
> > And hugely larger.
> 
> It's the size of a book.

That's what I said.

> 
> > And you're
> > STILL going to suffer from malware.
> 
> Not with Linux.

Not as usuable.

> 
> > Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
> > better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> 
> Only because you skewed the comparison.  You demand the same things in the 
> PC as the Mac has, but you don't demand the Mac have everything the PC does.
> 
> What is the cost of adding the following to the Mac Mini:
> 
> line level audio in
> Mic in
> S-Video out
> 2 PCI slots
> another RAM slot
> 533 FSB
> Increase RAM limit to 2 GB
> Add 6 channel audio
> Be able to add RAM without voiding warranty 

None of those is important for the target audience.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 10:01:32 PM
"General Protection Fault" <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in message
news:slrncv07cf.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com...
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:12 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
> >  The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
> >> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
> >>  wrote
> >> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
> >> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
> >> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs
from
> >> >> a
> >> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for
them.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >> >
> >> > <<crappy post snipped>>
> >> >
> >> > $470 with no OS and no software.
> >>
> >> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
> >>
> >
> > None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
>
> Which is what you would think, having only ever used OS X and iLife.  Is
it
> true what they say about ignorance and bliss?

    I just got into it with Snit over this iLife issue and Windows. I asked
Snit what was so special about iLife and what could it do that couldn't be
done on Windows. Well he gave me examples and I responded sowing him that
there are programs that do everything iLife does and more. He talked about
iPhoto. He said if he wanted to edit an image in iPhoto, it would open up
PhotoShop. I thought boy this is nothing really special. What would really
be special is if iPhoto would have a built in photo editor. Then he said you
could then take those edited images and put them into iDVD so they could add
stuff and burn a slide show DVD with nice bells and whistles. The I thought.
I looked at a program I got free with a ATI 9200 video card. It was WinDVD
Creator that did everything that iDVD did.  Then I looked around and found
commercial packages that do everything that iPhoto, Photoshop and iDVD do in
one program. The programs don't even cost much either. Snit kept saying that
I just don't get what iLife is.

     I get what iLife is and so does anyone else who knows computers. I
iLife is a $79 software package that is included with new Macs. The
"integration" in iLife is that it's set up to launch other programs included
in the iLife package and/or default programs in Mac OS X. This is no
different than programs in Windows that allow you to chose the default
application for certain tasks. I posed an example of my ISO editing
software. I can edit an ISO and burn it to CD or DVD using the burner
software of my choice. I asked him was this capable in iLife? Can you pick
the DVD burner software. I didn't get an answer on all of this. Snit dropped
iLife from the conversation and snipped everything I said about it.

    So now we all know what the power of iLife is and that power can exist
on practically every OS out there.

John


0
hitman86 (2158)
1/20/2005 10:12:51 PM
In article <slrncv09ks.13k.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
 General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:42:36 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> > In article <FQSHd.11558$Vj3.10077@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > $470 with no OS and no software.
> >> 
> >> You can get that for free.
> >
> > XP is free these days?
> >
> > And care to list the *free* Windows software that is equal the the 
> > iLife quite and the rest of the apps that are bundled with the minimac?
> 
> I looked at http://www.apple.com/ilife/
> and realized I -- like many, many others -- have absolutely no need for
> iLife.

Then don't buy it.

See how easy life is?
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 10:13:45 PM
In article <bIVHd.13551$5R.4352@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
 "John Slade" <hitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

> "TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message
> news:Nowhere-71074C.15030020012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
> >  The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
> > > <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
> > >  wrote
> > > on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
> > > <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
> > > > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs
> from
> > > >> a
> > > >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for
> them.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> > > >
> > > > <<crappy post snipped>>
> > > >
> > > > $470 with no OS and no software.
> > >
> > > So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
> > >
> >
> > None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
> 
>      That's only a matter of opinion. There is nothing that iLife does that
> can't be done on Linux. There is nothing special that iLife does that can't
> be done easily with Windows. I've checked.
> 
> John

Then why don't you give us the equivalent software on LInux and Windows 
that does the same thing as iLife - including the integration.

Oh, and since we're talking about iLife bundled with the Mini, make sure 
that the software you recommend is free.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 10:14:40 PM
In article <olVHd.11601$Vj3.6728@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message 
> news:Nowhere-093A13.15014620012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from 
> >> a
> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> >>
> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >>
> >> ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> >> ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> >> FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> >> DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> >> GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> >> AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> >> LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL 
> >> PHY)
> >> Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> >> Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> >> 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> >> Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> >> 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> >> 1 x Security Key
> >> 1 x S/PDIF out
> >> 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> >> 2 x USB 2.0
> >> 1 x Mic-in
> >> 1 x Headphone
> >> Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> >> 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> >> 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> >> 1 x S-Video
> >> 1 x TV-Out
> >> 2 x USB 2.0
> >> 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> >> 1 x DVI-D
> >> 1 x VGA
> >> 1 x Parallel
> >> 1 x Serial
> >> Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> >> IncludedHDD Security Key
> >>
> >> $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, 
> >> memory,
> >> hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink
> >> and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> >>
> >> $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R 
> >> system,
> >> which includes:
> >>
> >> Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> >>
> >>  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> >> (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
> >>
> >> 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> >> (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> >>
> >> 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> >> (with several other optical drive options)
> >>
> >> ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> >>
> >> DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> >> (with three other OS choices)
> >>
> >> 1 Year Warranty
> >> (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . .
> >> [+$47.00] )
> >
> > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
> > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
> 
> Add in free Linux and free applications.

Since the Mini is targeted at the Average Windows User, you think that 
average user is going to spec out this box, install and configure Linux 
and then go find apps?

That is what you've implied.


> 
> > Then add shipping cost (not included).
> 
> I've been told it's $29.
> 
> > Then add in your time for getting
> > it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going
> > to have to spend time on it).
> 
> $470 is for an assembled system.
> 
> > Then add in the obligatory security software.
> 
> Linux doesn't need it.
> 
> > Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> > And hugely larger.
> 
> It's the size of a book.
> 
> > And you're
> > STILL going to suffer from malware.
> 
> Not with Linux.

And the average user isn't going to use Linux.
> 
> > Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
> > better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> 
> Only because you skewed the comparison.  You demand the same things in the 
> PC as the Mac has, but you don't demand the Mac have everything the PC does.
> 
> What is the cost of adding the following to the Mac Mini:
> 
> line level audio in
> Mic in
> S-Video out
> 2 PCI slots
> another RAM slot
> 533 FSB
> Increase RAM limit to 2 GB
> Add 6 channel audio
> Be able to add RAM without voiding warranty 
> 
>

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
 expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
0
jpolaski4 (3157)
1/20/2005 10:15:28 PM
In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> 
> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> 
> ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL PHY)
> Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> 1 x Security Key
> 1 x S/PDIF out
> 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x Mic-in
> 1 x Headphone
> Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> 1 x S-Video
> 1 x TV-Out
> 2 x USB 2.0
> 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> 1 x DVI-D
> 1 x VGA
> 1 x Parallel
> 1 x Serial
> Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> IncludedHDD Security Key
> 
> $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, 
> hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink 
> and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> 
> $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R system,
> which includes:
> 
> Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> 
>  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
> 
> 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> 
> 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> (with several other optical drive options)
> 
> ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> 
> DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> (with three other OS choices)
> 
> 1 Year Warranty
> (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . . 
> [+$47.00] ) 

Doesn't look bad.

Of course, it wouldn't look quite so good if you actually added software 
to it...

Pretending that system with out software represents a "MUCH BETTER 
value" than the Mac Mini for the vast majority of consumers at whom the 
Mac Mini is aimed is utterly specious.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
0
alangbaker (17682)
1/20/2005 10:16:37 PM
In article <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>,
 Bob S <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote:

> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> > 
> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> 
> <<crappy post snipped>>
> 
> $470 with no OS and no software.
> 
> And..have you checked the Cappucino web site?  They don't look too good. 
> Stuff out of stock, all specs subject to change.  Would you buy a PC 
> from them?

eddie apparently would since he's also apparently recommending them.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
 expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
0
jpolaski4 (3157)
1/20/2005 10:17:41 PM
In article <1106247658.222725.10060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Sandman wrote:
> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out
> PCs from a
> > > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for
> them.
> > >
> > > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> > >
> > > ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> > > ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> > > FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> > > DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> > > GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> > > AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> > > LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek
> 8201BL PHY)
> > > Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> > > Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> > > 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> > > Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> > > 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> > > 1 x Security Key
> > > 1 x S/PDIF out
> > > 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> > > 2 x USB 2.0
> > > 1 x Mic-in
> > > 1 x Headphone
> > > Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> > > 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> > > 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> > > 1 x S-Video
> > > 1 x TV-Out
> > > 2 x USB 2.0
> > > 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> > > 1 x DVI-D
> > > 1 x VGA
> > > 1 x Parallel
> > > 1 x Serial
> > > Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> > > IncludedHDD Security Key
> > >
> > > $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU,
> memory,
> > > hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU
> heatsink
> > > and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> > >
> > > $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R
> system,
> > > which includes:
> > >
> > > Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> > >
> > >  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> > > (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store
> charges)
> > >
> > > 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> > > (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> > >
> > > 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> > > (with several other optical drive options)
> > >
> > > ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> > >
> > > DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> > > (with three other OS choices)
> > >
> > > 1 Year Warranty
> > > (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . .
> 
> > > [+$47.00] )
> >
> > Wow, a cheap PC - No oen saw THAT one coming!
> 
> Alan Baker and Joe Ragosta didn't.   They couldn't even find it on
> CappuccinoPC's Web site by themselves.   They needed me to point it out
> to them.

It was never my job to find it.

> 
> > Did your Mac mini arrive yet Edwin?
> 
> Nope.   It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all, seeing how
> Joe Ragosta took a turn at convincing me of my igorance of Mac OS X
> (much as you had done) and that was my only reason to buy a Mac Mini.

LOL

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
0
alangbaker (17682)
1/20/2005 10:18:16 PM
In article <fn70v05m7snkl2dljmknocl83fvmajsoov@4ax.com>, jfizer wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:12 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
> >> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
> >>  wrote
> >> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
> >> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
> >> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
> >> >> from 
> >> >> a 
> >> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> >> >> 
> >> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >> >
> >> > <<crappy post snipped>>
> >> >
> >> > $470 with no OS and no software.
> >> 
> >> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
> >> 
> >
> >None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
> 
> That's opinion, not fact. I have iLife on my G4 tower at home, I
> played with it for about an hour and have never used it since. It
> simply dosn't do anything I care about. Most people who buy computers
> like the Mini will use it for three things eMail,web and office. Linux
> is very usable for these things.
> 
> That having been said I would rather have the Mini.

Since last year, 2004 that is, Digital Cameras outsold film cameras, 
it's a fair bet that folks who have a computer are using them for their 
digital still images.

How many of those folks also have kids in school where they use 
dedicated education apps? How many kids in k-8 are going to learn the 
linux as a desktop if this is the case?

So, it's going to be more than just email,web and office.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
 expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
0
jpolaski4 (3157)
1/20/2005 10:20:23 PM
In article <_ZSHd.11559$Vj3.8588@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "Bob S" <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote in message 
> news:Bob_S-544D02.12043820012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>,
> > Bob S <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
> >> > from a
> >> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >>
> [snip]
> > And...one more thing.  I think both the Mac group (myself included) and
> > the Win group are wasting time with these comparisons.  When you get
> > down to $499, the differences are small and only a dollars either way.
> 
> The difference between 1 GB of Apple RAM for $425, and 1 GB of CuppuccinoPC 
> RAM for $155 seems like more than "dollars either way."
> 
> 
> > Let's *assume* you can eke out a slightly better value for $499.00 in a
> > PC.
> 
> Why would you want to make such a false assumption when I just showed you a 
> MUCH BETTER value in a PC for $470?    If you buy the barebones kit for 
> $189, and add your own parts, the deal is even better.
> 
> > I think it doesn't matter.  I think all Apple had to do was get in
> > the ball park.  The prices are so close that those who were waiting for
> > a stripped down Mac will probably go for it.
> 
> Apple will sell plenty of Mac Minis, no doubt about it.    People wanting to 
> replace old Macs, or even PC people who want to try the Mac will buy them.
> 
> But that doesn't change what's a better value for the money. 
> 
> 

When the cappucino comes with OS X then it will be a better value. Until 
then, it's like any other cheap PC.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
 expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
0
jpolaski4 (3157)
1/20/2005 10:22:00 PM
In article <alangbaker-CEF131.14163720012005@news.telus.net>,
 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> > 
> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> > 
> > ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> > ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> > FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> > DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> > GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> > AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> > LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL PHY)
> > Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> > Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> > 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> > Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> > 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> > 1 x Security Key
> > 1 x S/PDIF out
> > 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> > 2 x USB 2.0
> > 1 x Mic-in
> > 1 x Headphone
> > Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> > 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> > 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> > 1 x S-Video
> > 1 x TV-Out
> > 2 x USB 2.0
> > 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> > 1 x DVI-D
> > 1 x VGA
> > 1 x Parallel
> > 1 x Serial
> > Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> > IncludedHDD Security Key
> > 
> > $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, 
> > hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink 
> > and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> > 
> > $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R system,
> > which includes:
> > 
> > Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> > 
> >  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> > (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
> > 
> > 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> > (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> > 
> > 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> > (with several other optical drive options)
> > 
> > ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> > 
> > DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> > (with three other OS choices)
> > 
> > 1 Year Warranty
> > (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . . 
> > [+$47.00] ) 
> 
> Doesn't look bad.
> 
> Of course, it wouldn't look quite so good if you actually added software 
> to it...
> 
> Pretending that system with out software represents a "MUCH BETTER 
> value" than the Mac Mini for the vast majority of consumers at whom the 
> Mac Mini is aimed is utterly specious.

He also left off shipping - which he later stated was $29.

So if he included shipping, his system is more expensive.

The funny part is that he STILL claims that his system is less - even in 
the same post where he admitted that shipping cost $29 (free for the 
Mac).
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 10:23:01 PM
In article <3uk5c2-abh.ln1@grendel.myth>,
 Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT,
>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> 
> > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> > Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
> > it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> > to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> > software.
> >
> 
> Why in heaven's name would I want to put redmondware on it? I'd install
> Linux, a task which takes me less time than setting up a new preinstalled XP
> system. 

The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 10:23:19 PM
In article <olVHd.11601$Vj3.6728@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message 
> news:Nowhere-093A13.15014620012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from 
> >> a
> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> >>
> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp<snip>

> > And hugely larger.
> 
> It's the size of a book.

This is one of your typically disingenuous and misleading claims.

"Dimensions
91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm"

That means it's nearly 4 inches wide, 14 inches deep and 11 inches high.

Not the size of a typical book at all.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
0
alangbaker (17682)
1/20/2005 10:24:47 PM
Daniel Tryba wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy C Lund <clund@notam02spamblock.no> wrote:
> [pundit]
> >
> > Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the
> > software that comes with the minimac?
>
> Nothing if it's available as OSS!

that's where you're fucked looking for freeware equivalent to iMovie,
iPhoto, hell even the ease of use of built-in apps of the DVD player,
iTunes, and TextEdit. Out of the box + freeware, Macs are leagues ahead
of linux, not to mention that Macs can also compile & run most linux
crap too.

> BTW what does it cost to insert a PCI device

which PCI device? The mini already has an internal connection for
bluetooth and 802.11g.

> a PCMCIA card

pure wankery. Nobody with a $500 computer needs crappy PC-card
expansion. Sheez.

> or a microphone in a mini?

USB microphone options exist. Not that I've needed sound input in about
15 years since I bought the old ADB Farallon MacRecorder for my Mac
IIcx, really.

> Or use both a VGA and a DVI monitor at the same time?

Not sure the pundit-r supports this, either, but people looking for a
$500 computer generally don't need multi-head.

This pissing match at the $500 level is silly. Apple now has a
WONDERFUL $500 machine that meets nearly everyone's needs *at this
level* much more than adequately.

If we want to move up to $1500, I will gladly admit that Apple has a
big gaping hole in its lineup in the $1000-$1500 high-end consumer
desktop range.

I for one would like to see the Mac Mini evolve into a G5 component
microtower with external mix-n-match expansion options (external SATA,
PCI-Express, etc) to more fully meet my needs.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 10:27:08 PM
Actually ground shipping is $21 for NY -> CA.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 10:28:27 PM
In article <alangbaker-07A14E.14244820012005@news.telus.net>,
 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> In article <olVHd.11601$Vj3.6728@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> > "TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message 
> > news:Nowhere-093A13.15014620012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
> > >> from 
> > >> a
> > >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp<snip>
> 
> > > And hugely larger.
> > 
> > It's the size of a book.
> 
> This is one of your typically disingenuous and misleading claims.
> 
> "Dimensions
> 91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm"
> 
> That means it's nearly 4 inches wide, 14 inches deep and 11 inches high.
> 
> Not the size of a typical book at all.

Well, Eddie is apparently still working on Dr. Seuss. Some of those are 
nearly that large (except for the thickness). That's probably why he 
refers to 11x14 as the size of a book.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/20/2005 10:28:56 PM
Hey I LIKE Steve's dick up my ass.

Feels good.

uh, lemme rephrase that. Apple's OS X team are doing a great job
producing the most usable OS, API, and application mix available.

OpenGL, AppKit, Java, POSIX, OpenAL, OSS/GPL stuff like Apache, PHP,
Ruby, MySQL, SQLite, Python -- OS X has got it all.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 10:31:25 PM
Eddie, the King of Speciosity.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 10:34:15 PM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:20:23 -0600, Jim Polaski
<jpolaski@NOSPMync.net> wrote:

>In article <fn70v05m7snkl2dljmknocl83fvmajsoov@4ax.com>, jfizer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:12 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
>> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
>> >> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
>> >>  wrote
>> >> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
>> >> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
>> >> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
>> >> >> from 
>> >> >> a 
>> >> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>> >> >
>> >> > <<crappy post snipped>>
>> >> >
>> >> > $470 with no OS and no software.
>> >> 
>> >> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
>> 
>> That's opinion, not fact. I have iLife on my G4 tower at home, I
>> played with it for about an hour and have never used it since. It
>> simply dosn't do anything I care about. Most people who buy computers
>> like the Mini will use it for three things eMail,web and office. Linux
>> is very usable for these things.
>> 
>> That having been said I would rather have the Mini.
>
>Since last year, 2004 that is, Digital Cameras outsold film cameras, 
>it's a fair bet that folks who have a computer are using them for their 
>digital still images.
>

I agree. I use my digital camera a lot. I take the memory card out,
look around for a slot on my Mac, shrug and stick it in my PC. I tried
using iPhoto but it just didn't do anything usefull to me.

If you realy must have a digital photo app for Linux, CompuPic looks
very nice and is free for home use.

http://www.photodex.com/products/compupic/linux/

>How many of those folks also have kids in school where they use 
>dedicated education apps? How many kids in k-8 are going to learn the 
>linux as a desktop if this is the case?

As many as will learn Windows or MacOS. They learn "click here to
launch Reader Rabbit". Then they are using the applications UI and not
the OS. Gnome and KDE are not that hard to use.

>So, it's going to be more than just email,web and office.

Not realy, thats all most people use a computer for.
0
jfizer
1/20/2005 10:34:26 PM
begin  TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <slrncv076s.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
>> >
>> > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
>> > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
>> > Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for
>> > getting it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but
>> > you're going to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory
>> > security software.
>> >
>> > Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're
>> > STILL going to suffer from malware.
>> >
>> > Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
>> > better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
>> 
>> Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up your
>> tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.
> 
> Because for the target audience, Linux is not a suitable alternative.

You mean, the target audience is a bunch of brain dead "Joe User"?
Like any assortment of Mac users? Not quite as smart as a brick?
-- 
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
1/20/2005 11:03:14 PM
no, people who have better things to do with their life than fuck
around with semi-supported hardware and its hobbyist OS.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 11:04:33 PM
"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
olVHd.11601$Vj3.6728@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 1/20/05 2:25 PM:

> 
> "TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message
> news:Nowhere-093A13.15014620012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a
>>> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>>> 
>>> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp

<SNIP>

>> OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
>> for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
> 
> Add in free Linux and free applications.

Not on option on the site.  You can add DOS or a flavor of Windows.

And DOS hardly counts.  :)
> 
>> Then add shipping cost (not included).
> 
> I've been told it's $29.

Were you told before or after you neglected to include that cost in your
listing?
> 
>> Then add in your time for getting
>> it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going
>> to have to spend time on it).
> 
> $470 is for an assembled system.

Not including software.  Or shipping.
> 
>> Then add in the obligatory security software.
> 
> Linux doesn't need it.

The offer no Linux software - so now you are talking adding it yourself.
> 
>> Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini.
> 
> Nope.

You are clearly lying.  When you add a version of Windows it goes above the
Mini.  When you add some office software, it goes higher still.
> 
>> And hugely larger.
> 
> It's the size of a book.

Maybe an infants book... one with squeaky toys and stuff like that in the
pages.
> 
>> And you're STILL going to suffer from malware.
> 
> Not with Linux.

You mention Linux as though the computer comes with it.  It does not.
> 
>> Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
>> better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> 
> Only because you skewed the comparison.  You demand the same things in the
> PC as the Mac has, but you don't demand the Mac have everything the PC does.

Not true at all.  I see nothing similar to Quicken.  I see nothing similar
close to the size of the Mini.  I do not believe your system has DVI.
Nothing like Expos�.  Does not include high quality fonts.  Does not include
the ability to save as PDF.  Your system comes with no games (other than the
ones that ship with Windows).
> 
> What is the cost of adding the following to the Mac Mini:
> 
> line level audio in
> Mic in
> S-Video out
> 2 PCI slots
> another RAM slot
> 533 FSB
> Increase RAM limit to 2 GB
> Add 6 channel audio
> Be able to add RAM without voiding warranty

Yes - they each have things the other does not.  Bottom line - for a fully
functioning system, Apple, once again, does well in price comparisons.

When comparing Apple to *all* other computer manufacturers, Apple still does
not have a configuration to match every one in existence.  And they never
will.  With the Mini, however, they have expanded their offerings very
nicely.  


-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/20/2005 11:05:22 PM
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in post
mr-346914.22404420012005@individual.net on 1/20/05 2:40 PM:

> In article <RUTHd.11569$Vj3.10986@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>> wonder how much NOISE the el-cheapo PC emits. I really hate fan noise.
>>> 
>>> Fully configuring the eddie's wonder machine to be usable (2.8Ghz Celeron,
>>> 80GB HD, DVD-R/W, 512MB RAM, Windows XP Pro)
>>> 
>>> I get a $754 price, compared to Apple's $775 for the 1.42Ghz G4 w/ 512MB &
>>> DVD-R.
>>> 
>> So how did you get a 533 FSB, a second RAM slot, 6 channel audio, a Mic in
>> port, a line level audio in port, and two PCI slots into the Mac Mini,
>> without raising its price?   What, you thought spec matching was a one way
>> street?
>> 
> Of course it is. There is no such thing as a BYO Mac, so you can't order a Mac
> without firewire ports, but you can build a PC without optical-in for example.
> You can't buy a iMac without a high-quality LCD display, but you can build a
> PC without free PCI slots.
> 
> See where I am going? If you want to compare Macs with pre-set features, don't
> use PCs that have MORE features. Heck, removing those features from your BYO
> PC will make it -cheaper- and be in FAVOR of your comparison, just like having
> other features adds to the price of the Mac.
> 
> The problem with being a Maccie when it comes to comparisons is when you say
> that no one needs FireWire (for example) we can't remove it from the machine
> and lower the price, which makes it stupid for you to claim that you don't
> need to add FW to your PC that you want to compare to the Mac, and so on. A
> Mac is a given set of features that Apple has decided is a good starting
> point. You can add or change some of them, but far from all of them. As it is
> - I am one of those lucky guys that happen to think that - apart from a modem
> still being a part of every Mac - those are good decisions. I use all of the
> feauters of my Macs and I never paid for a feature I didn't use.

Apple does not now, and likely never will, offer configurations to match
those of *all* other PC venders.  If you are looking for a particular
configuration that Apple does not have, this is a potential downside for
Apple, though they have done a good job of closing one major hole with the
Mini.

Many people who are not able to understand this concept make poor
comparisons and claim Macs are far more expensive.  Even some in the Mac
camp repeatedly make this mistake and belittle others - mostly me - for
saying otherwise.

So be it.


-- 
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

0
SNIT (24281)
1/20/2005 11:12:04 PM
"John Slade" <hitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in post
bIVHd.13551$5R.4352@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 1/20/05 2:49 PM:

>> None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
> 
>    That's only a matter of opinion. There is nothing that iLife does that
> can't be done on Linux. There is nothing special that iLife does that can't
> be done easily with Windows. I've checked.

It is not just about what can be done, but about how one does it.

So, what on Linux allows one to easily connect to the world's largest online
music store, buy a song for less than a buck, and burn in onto several CD's?
What allows you to use this same song in a smart play list and even in a
"Party Shuffle" (by any name, of course).

Then what video software lets you look at your play lists to more easily
find this song and use it in a movie?

I look forward to your answer.  It will likely be amusing - but not on
purpose.

-- 
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

0
SNIT (24281)
1/20/2005 11:15:05 PM
(good point about the itunes -> iMovie integration... that does indeed
REALLY kick ass for casual movie making)

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/20/2005 11:17:56 PM
"imouttahere@mac.com" <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote in post
1106263076.005493.52970@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 4:17 PM:

> (good point about the itunes -> iMovie integration... that does indeed
> REALLY kick ass for casual movie making)

The fact that it ties into your play lists is a very cool feature.  I know
people that set up a play list in iTunes, where they can best work with
their music, with all the songs they are likely to use in a movie, and then
go to iMovie. 

Saves them lots of time.  Allows them the power to be creative.

This is a type of power that benchmarks miss... and a type of power than
many in CSMA, and elsewhere, simply do not understand.


-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 

0
SNIT (24281)
1/20/2005 11:20:23 PM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:38:18 +0100, C Lund wrote:

> 
> Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the 
> software that comes with the minimac?

Linux = $0 downloaded, or a few bucks off cheapbytes.
A great many high quality Open Source applications that do pretty much
everything Macs do = $0

0
liam8 (4986)
1/20/2005 11:26:17 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
>> > Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the
>> > software that comes with the minimac?
>>
>> Nothing if it's available as OSS!
> 
> that's where you're fucked looking for freeware equivalent to iMovie,
> iPhoto, hell even the ease of use of built-in apps of the DVD player,
> iTunes, and TextEdit. Out of the box + freeware, Macs are leagues ahead
> of linux, not to mention that Macs can also compile & run most linux
> crap too.

Texteditors and mediaplayers there are plenty, photo viewers aer
sufficient, and I don't think people buying a 499 machine for editing
movies/pictures.

>> BTW what does it cost to insert a PCI device
> 
> which PCI device? The mini already has an internal connection for
> bluetooth and 802.11g.

A TV tuner card? A SCSI card to hookup legacy scanners? ISDN TA?
Additional ethernet or video? Who knows what the future might bring, a
new wireless standard or even just a plain 80211a device?

>> a PCMCIA card
> 
> pure wankery. Nobody with a $500 computer needs crappy PC-card
> expansion. Sheez.

I sure use it (wireless)

>> or a microphone in a mini?
> 
> USB microphone options exist. Not that I've needed sound input in about
> 15 years since I bought the old ADB Farallon MacRecorder for my Mac
> IIcx, really.

Just like I don't need any software preinstalled on the mini.

>> Or use both a VGA and a DVI monitor at the same time?
> 
> Not sure the pundit-r supports this, either, but people looking for a
> $500 computer generally don't need multi-head.

Such a small quite machine should be able to be connected to a TV, but I
see that there is an optional adapter.

> This pissing match at the $500 level is silly. Apple now has a
> WONDERFUL $500 machine that meets nearly everyone's needs *at this
> level* much more than adequately.

Sure, maybe. But just like it says on the mini page: 
Inexpensive, But Never Cheap


0
spam206 (250)
1/20/2005 11:26:36 PM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:

> OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> for OEM WIndows XP Home.

Why the fuck would we do that?

0
liam8 (4986)
1/20/2005 11:28:46 PM
Liam Slider wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
> 
> 
>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
>>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
> 
> 
> Why the fuck would we do that?
> 

To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.
0
nospam21 (19047)
1/20/2005 11:29:54 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
>> Pretending that system with out software represents a "MUCH BETTER 
>> value" than the Mac Mini for the vast majority of consumers at whom the 
>> Mac Mini is aimed is utterly specious.
> 
> He also left off shipping - which he later stated was $29.
> 
> So if he included shipping, his system is more expensive.
> 
> The funny part is that he STILL claims that his system is less - even in 
> the same post where he admitted that shipping cost $29 (free for the 
> Mac).

But it is surely cheaper overhere.

A pundit-r will cost about 385 EUR
(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.os.windows-xp/msg/69dd654fdd6d601d)
at the nearest store (http://www.mycom.nl/), compared to 499 EUR for the
mini (http://www.apple.com/nl/macmini/)

0
spam206 (250)
1/20/2005 11:36:07 PM
In article <pan.2005.01.20.23.26.17.697263@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:38:18 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the 
> > software that comes with the minimac?
> 
> Linux = $0 downloaded, or a few bucks off cheapbytes.
> A great many high quality Open Source applications that do pretty much
> everything Macs do = $0

Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS 
that's the equivalent of OS X.
0
trman (1068)
1/20/2005 11:36:27 PM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:29:54 -0800, John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>Liam Slider wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
>>>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
>> 
>> 
>> Why the fuck would we do that?
>> 

>To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.

Uh huh.  Linux sure is Worse as in worse at giving you reasons 
to buy a new machine every 18 months;  worse at passing along 
worms and worse for strangers to install spyware;  worse at disabling itself 
if you replace too much hardware.

0
TCS
1/20/2005 11:44:26 PM
begin  TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.01.20.23.26.17.697263@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:38:18 +0100, C Lund wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the
>> > software that comes with the minimac?
>> 
>> Linux = $0 downloaded, or a few bucks off cheapbytes.
>> A great many high quality Open Source applications that do pretty much
>> everything Macs do = $0
> 
> Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS
> that's the equivalent of OS X.

Atari? Ca 1992. Maybe easier
-- 
Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way
before it is understood.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
1/20/2005 11:53:59 PM
General Protection Fault wrote:
> 
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:42:36 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> > In article <FQSHd.11558$Vj3.10077@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > $470 with no OS and no software.
> >>
> >> You can get that for free.
> >
> > XP is free these days?
> >
> > And care to list the *free* Windows software that is equal the the
> > iLife quite and the rest of the apps that are bundled with the minimac?
> 
> I looked at http://www.apple.com/ilife/
> and realized I -- like many, many others -- have absolutely no need for
> iLife.

No, you just need a life.
0
cumulus (7752)
1/21/2005 12:00:03 AM
In article <cspd3b$qi5$05$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Kohlmann <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> begin  TravelinMan wrote:
> 
> > In article <slrncv076s.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
> >  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> >> >
> >> > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
> >> > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
> >> > Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for
> >> > getting it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but
> >> > you're going to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory
> >> > security software.
> >> >
> >> > Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're
> >> > STILL going to suffer from malware.
> >> >
> >> > Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
> >> > better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> >> 
> >> Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up your
> >> tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.
> > 
> > Because for the target audience, Linux is not a suitable alternative.
> 
> You mean, the target audience is a bunch of brain dead "Joe User"?
> Like any assortment of Mac users? Not quite as smart as a brick?

Nope. Smart enough to want to spend their energy on useful work rather 
than trying to get their computer to work.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 12:10:05 AM
In article <m5c0v0lg0kdgj9cirrjig4jmrbuo6lsm40@4ax.com>, jfizer wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:20:23 -0600, Jim Polaski
> <jpolaski@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
> 
> >In article <fn70v05m7snkl2dljmknocl83fvmajsoov@4ax.com>, jfizer wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:12 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
> >> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
> >> >> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
> >> >>  wrote
> >> >> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
> >> >> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
> >> >> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> >> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
> >> >> >> from 
> >> >> >> a 
> >> >> >> Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for 
> >> >> >> them.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <<crappy post snipped>>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > $470 with no OS and no software.
> >> >> 
> >> >> So load RedHat, Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu, Slackware, or Gentoo on it.
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> >None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
> >> 
> >> That's opinion, not fact. I have iLife on my G4 tower at home, I
> >> played with it for about an hour and have never used it since. It
> >> simply dosn't do anything I care about. Most people who buy computers
> >> like the Mini will use it for three things eMail,web and office. Linux
> >> is very usable for these things.
> >> 
> >> That having been said I would rather have the Mini.
> >
> >Since last year, 2004 that is, Digital Cameras outsold film cameras, 
> >it's a fair bet that folks who have a computer are using them for their 
> >digital still images.
> >
> 
> I agree. I use my digital camera a lot. I take the memory card out,
> look around for a slot on my Mac, shrug and stick it in my PC. I tried
> using iPhoto but it just didn't do anything usefull to me.

Of course not. If you're not bright enough to figure out that you need a 
card reader, it's not going to help you much.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 12:10:54 AM
In article <1106251689.4f7f5c41d8116d2eca93b7f4dcc4a277@1usenet>,
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
> > 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 PM:
> >
> >>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
> >>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
> >>>  sent to you.
> >> 
> >> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
> >> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
> >
> > You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
> > install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
> > similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
> 
>  ...except to really exploit that software, you will need more storage
> than the mini can accomodate. Based on that usage pattern, a $260 bookpc would
> suffice. 
> [deletia]
> 
>  XPCs are overkill for this exercise.

OK, smartass, give us the specs on that $260 bookpc.  Complete with OS
and all the apps that you and others claim are the equal of just iLife
alone.
0
lloydparsons (1421)
1/21/2005 12:10:55 AM
In article <cspg2f$s54$04$3@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Kohlmann <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> begin  TravelinMan wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2005.01.20.23.26.17.697263@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:38:18 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the
> >> > software that comes with the minimac?
> >> 
> >> Linux = $0 downloaded, or a few bucks off cheapbytes.
> >> A great many high quality Open Source applications that do pretty much
> >> everything Macs do = $0
> > 
> > Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS
> > that's the equivalent of OS X.
> 
> Atari? Ca 1992. Maybe easier

Which merely proves that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Hint: how would you transfer stuff from your video camera to the 
computer, edit it, combine it with music ripped from a CD, and write a 
DVD on the Atari? For that matter, how would you manage your finances at 
the level of Quicken?
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 12:15:33 AM

C Lund wrote:
> In article <FQSHd.11558$Vj3.10077@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>$470 with no OS and no software.
>>
>>You can get that for free.
> 
> 
> XP is free these days?
> 
> And care to list the *free* Windows software that is equal the the 
> iLife quite and the rest of the apps that are bundled with the minimac?
> 

Who said anything about Windows? Why not install Linux?

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 12:28:19 AM

Snit wrote:
> "John Slade" <hitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> bIVHd.13551$5R.4352@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 1/20/05 2:49 PM:
> 
> 
>>>None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
>>
>>   That's only a matter of opinion. There is nothing that iLife does that
>>can't be done on Linux. There is nothing special that iLife does that can't
>>be done easily with Windows. I've checked.
> 
> 
> It is not just about what can be done, but about how one does it.
> 
> So, what on Linux allows one to easily connect to the world's largest online
> music store, buy a song for less than a buck, and burn in onto several CD's?
> What allows you to use this same song in a smart play list and even in a
> "Party Shuffle" (by any name, of course).

And what if one doesn't want to connect to the world's largest online
music store? Are you saying that the main advantage of iLife is that
one gets to spend more money?

> 
> Then what video software lets you look at your play lists to more easily
> find this song and use it in a movie?
> 
> I look forward to your answer.  It will likely be amusing - but not on
> purpose.
> 

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 12:32:54 AM

Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
> 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 PM:
> 
> 
>>>Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
>>>to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>>> sent to you.
>>
>>The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
>>have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
> 
> 
> You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
> install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
> similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
> 

If one already has a commercial Linux distro, one just installs it.
Most such distros include OpenOffice.Org.


> Is there any surprise that you can get a machine that does so little out of
> the box for less than one that does so much (I assume a keyboard, mouse,
> monitor, etc. for each).

It seems the Pundit-R had beefier hardware, so which machine can do
so little?

> 
>>>When people have to sink to such levels to make a "point", it is clear
>>>Apple is doing well.
>>
>>So far you and your fellow Mac Advocate are the ones "sinking to such
>>levels to make a 'point,'" so Apple must not be doing so well.
> 
> 
> Nope.  See above.
> 
>>>As I have been saying for a long time - Apple is quite competitive in their
>>>pricing.  Now that Apple is going after the low end market, this becomes
>>>easier to see.
>>
>>You're as wrong as ever you were.
> 
> 
> Nope.  See above.
> 
>>>Wonder who will still argue against it?  Edwin?  Seems so.  Mackay?
>>>He was a major opponent to this view.  Who else?
>>
>>So you're not going to let the facts and figures I pointed out to you
>>slow you down a bit, eh?
> 
> 
> Add Windows (even home) and the lowest end office software cappuccino
> offers.  When you figure out that you now have a system considerably more
> expensive than the Mini, you will have begun to learn something.  I wish you
> luck.
> 

I don't recall asking for Windows.

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 12:37:47 AM

imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
> wonder how much NOISE the el-cheapo PC emits. I really hate fan noise.
> 
> Fully configuring the eddie's wonder machine to be usable
> (2.8Ghz Celeron, 80GB HD, DVD-R/W, 512MB RAM, Windows XP Pro)
> 

How much without Windows XP Prp?

> I get a $754 price, compared to Apple's $775 for the 1.42Ghz G4 w/
> 512MB & DVD-R.
> 
> sheez, we're reduced to arguing over $20 now. How will I be able to
> live with myself for spending $20 more on a computer...
> 
> And funny how the comparisons end once you assemble it.
> Fuckin' PC wankers. Just not gettin' it for 21+ years now...
> 

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 12:41:19 AM

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
>>Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>>
>>http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>>
>>ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
>>ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
>>FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
>>DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
>>GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
>>AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
>>LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL PHY)
>>Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
>>Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
>>1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
>>Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
>>1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
>>1 x Security Key
>>1 x S/PDIF out
>>2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
>>2 x USB 2.0
>>1 x Mic-in
>>1 x Headphone
>>Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
>>1 x PS /2 Mouse
>>1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
>>1 x S-Video
>>1 x TV-Out
>>2 x USB 2.0
>>1 x RJ45 (LAN)
>>1 x DVI-D
>>1 x VGA
>>1 x Parallel
>>1 x Serial
>>Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
>>IncludedHDD Security Key
>>
>>$189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, 
>>hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink 
>>and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
>>
>>$470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R system,
>>which includes:
>>
>>Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
>>
>> PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
>>(increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
>>
>>40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
>>(with options all the way up to 300 GB)
>>
>>52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
>>(with several other optical drive options)
>>
>>ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
>>
>>DOS Format (Linux Ready)
>>(with three other OS choices)
>>
>>1 Year Warranty
>>(but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . . 
>>[+$47.00] ) 
> 
> 
> OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
> it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> software.

And why in Knuth's name would I pay for Windows XP?

> 
> Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're 
> STILL going to suffer from malware.
> 
> Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a 
> better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 12:43:36 AM

imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
> Hey I LIKE Steve's dick up my ass.
> 
> Feels good.
> 
> uh, lemme rephrase that. Apple's OS X team are doing a great job
> producing the most usable OS, API, and application mix available.
> 
> OpenGL, AppKit, Java, POSIX, OpenAL, OSS/GPL stuff like Apache, PHP,
> Ruby, MySQL, SQLite, Python -- OS X has got it all.
> 

Hey, Linux has (most of?) that. What is OpenAL, though?

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 12:45:09 AM

Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
> olVHd.11601$Vj3.6728@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 1/20/05 2:25 PM:
> 
> 
>>"TravelinMan" <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote in message
>>news:Nowhere-093A13.15014620012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a
>>>>Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>>>
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
>>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
>>>for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
>>
>>Add in free Linux and free applications.
> 
> 
> Not on option on the site.  You can add DOS or a flavor of Windows.

You can't buy it without an OS?

> 
> And DOS hardly counts.  :)
> 
>>>Then add shipping cost (not included).
>>
>>I've been told it's $29.
> 
> 
> Were you told before or after you neglected to include that cost in your
> listing?
> 
>>>Then add in your time for getting
>>>it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going
>>>to have to spend time on it).
>>
>>$470 is for an assembled system.
> 
> 
> Not including software.  Or shipping.
> 
>>>Then add in the obligatory security software.
>>
>>Linux doesn't need it.
> 
> 
> The offer no Linux software - so now you are talking adding it yourself.

That's OK if one already has a nice distro.

> 
>>>Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini.
>>
>>Nope.
> 
> 
> You are clearly lying.  When you add a version of Windows it goes above the
> Mini.  When you add some office software, it goes higher still.
> 
>>>And hugely larger.
>>
>>It's the size of a book.
> 
> 
> Maybe an infants book... one with squeaky toys and stuff like that in the
> pages.
> 
>>>And you're STILL going to suffer from malware.
>>
>>Not with Linux.
> 
> 
> You mention Linux as though the computer comes with it.  It does not.
> 
>>>Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
>>>better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
>>
>>Only because you skewed the comparison.  You demand the same things in the
>>PC as the Mac has, but you don't demand the Mac have everything the PC does.
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  I see nothing similar to Quicken.  I see nothing similar
> close to the size of the Mini.  I do not believe your system has DVI.
> Nothing like Expos�.  Does not include high quality fonts.  Does not include
> the ability to save as PDF.  Your system comes with no games (other than the
> ones that ship with Windows).

Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.

> 
>>What is the cost of adding the following to the Mac Mini:
>>
>>line level audio in
>>Mic in
>>S-Video out
>>2 PCI slots
>>another RAM slot
>>533 FSB
>>Increase RAM limit to 2 GB
>>Add 6 channel audio
>>Be able to add RAM without voiding warranty
> 
> 
> Yes - they each have things the other does not.  Bottom line - for a fully
> functioning system, Apple, once again, does well in price comparisons.
> 
> When comparing Apple to *all* other computer manufacturers, Apple still does
> not have a configuration to match every one in existence.  And they never
> will.  With the Mini, however, they have expanded their offerings very
> nicely.  
> 
> 

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 12:50:53 AM

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <3uk5c2-abh.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT,
>> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>>
>>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
>>>for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
>>>Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
>>>it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
>>>to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
>>>software.
>>>
>>
>>Why in heaven's name would I want to put redmondware on it? I'd install
>>Linux, a task which takes me less time than setting up a new preinstalled XP
>>system. 
> 
> 
> The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.

Why not? And does it really take a geek to use Linux?

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 12:51:41 AM

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.01.20.23.26.17.697263@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:38:18 +0100, C Lund wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the 
>>>software that comes with the minimac?
>>
>>Linux = $0 downloaded, or a few bucks off cheapbytes.
>>A great many high quality Open Source applications that do pretty much
>>everything Macs do = $0
> 
> 
> Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS 
> that's the equivalent of OS X.

And I need these why?

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 12:54:42 AM
In article <41F06927.8060302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <pan.2005.01.20.23.26.17.697263@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:38:18 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the 
> >>>software that comes with the minimac?
> >>
> >>Linux = $0 downloaded, or a few bucks off cheapbytes.
> >>A great many high quality Open Source applications that do pretty much
> >>everything Macs do = $0
> > 
> > 
> > Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS 
> > that's the equivalent of OS X.
> 
> And I need these why?
> 
> Colin Day

Which open source applications are you referring to? 

Bob B.
0
bobb (87)
1/21/2005 1:01:05 AM
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06842.1050001@sc.rr.com on
1/20/05 5:50 PM:

>>>>> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from
>>>>> a Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>>>> 
>> 
>> <SNIP>
>> 
>>>> OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
>>>> for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
>>> 
>>> Add in free Linux and free applications.
>> 
>> 
>> Not on option on the site.  You can add DOS or a flavor of Windows.
> 
> You can't buy it without an OS?

Correct.  The options are:

    DOS Format (Linux Ready)
    Microsoft� Windows� XP Home
    Microsoft� Windows� XP Professional
    Microsoft� Windows� 2000 Professional

>> And DOS hardly counts.  :)
>> 
>>>> Then add shipping cost (not included).
>>> 
>>> I've been told it's $29.
>> 
>> Were you told before or after you neglected to include that cost in your
>> listing?
>> 
>>>> Then add in your time for getting
>>>> it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going
>>>> to have to spend time on it).
>>> 
>>> $470 is for an assembled system.
>> 
>> 
>> Not including software.  Or shipping.
>> 
>>>> Then add in the obligatory security software.
>>> 
>>> Linux doesn't need it.
>> 
>> 
>> The offer no Linux software - so now you are talking adding it yourself.
> 
> That's OK if one already has a nice distro.

Well, still not the same as getting a commercial OS with commercial and
best-of-class applications pre-installed.

I am not saying that getting a computer and having to add such things is a
bad thing - only that to compare the two and claim they are the same is
dishonest.  I have nothing against Linux, other, perhaps, than the
fragmentation of the market with all the distros and GUIs, etc.  Even that
is not really a problem for technical Linux users with time to do research.
Too often, though, people will say distro A has feature A, distro B has
feature B, distro C has feature C, so Linux is as good as OS X (or whatever)
which also has feature A, B, and C.
>> 
>>>> Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini.
>>> 
>>> Nope.
>> 
>> 
>> You are clearly lying.  When you add a version of Windows it goes above the
>> Mini.  When you add some office software, it goes higher still.
>> 
>>>> And hugely larger.
>>> 
>>> It's the size of a book.
>> 
>> 
>> Maybe an infants book... one with squeaky toys and stuff like that in the
>> pages.
>> 
>>>> And you're STILL going to suffer from malware.
>>> 
>>> Not with Linux.
>> 
>> 
>> You mention Linux as though the computer comes with it.  It does not.
>> 
>>>> Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
>>>> better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Only because you skewed the comparison.  You demand the same things in the
>>> PC as the Mac has, but you don't demand the Mac have everything the PC does.
>> 
>> 
>> Not true at all.  I see nothing similar to Quicken.  I see nothing similar
>> close to the size of the Mini.  I do not believe your system has DVI.
>> Nothing like Expos�.  Does not include high quality fonts.  Does not include
>> the ability to save as PDF.  Your system comes with no games (other than the
>> ones that ship with Windows).
> 
> Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.

Yes, it does. The Mac version of Quicken is very different from the Windows
version - generally easier to use but fewer bells, whistles, and missing
some pretty cool features that exist on the Windows version.
> 
>> 
>>> What is the cost of adding the following to the Mac Mini:
>>> 
>>> line level audio in
>>> Mic in
>>> S-Video out
>>> 2 PCI slots
>>> another RAM slot
>>> 533 FSB
>>> Increase RAM limit to 2 GB
>>> Add 6 channel audio
>>> Be able to add RAM without voiding warranty
>> 
>> 
>> Yes - they each have things the other does not.  Bottom line - for a fully
>> functioning system, Apple, once again, does well in price comparisons.
>> 
>> When comparing Apple to *all* other computer manufacturers, Apple still does
>> not have a configuration to match every one in existence.  And they never
>> will.  With the Mini, however, they have expanded their offerings very
>> nicely.  
>> 
>> 
> 
> Colin Day
> 



-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/21/2005 1:06:54 AM
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F0640B.5080005@sc.rr.com on
1/20/05 5:32 PM:

> 
> 
> Snit wrote:
>> "John Slade" <hitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in post
>> bIVHd.13551$5R.4352@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 1/20/05 2:49 PM:
>> 
>> 
>>>> None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
>>> 
>>>   That's only a matter of opinion. There is nothing that iLife does that
>>> can't be done on Linux. There is nothing special that iLife does that can't
>>> be done easily with Windows. I've checked.
>> 
>> 
>> It is not just about what can be done, but about how one does it.
>> 
>> So, what on Linux allows one to easily connect to the world's largest online
>> music store, buy a song for less than a buck, and burn in onto several CD's?
>> What allows you to use this same song in a smart play list and even in a
>> "Party Shuffle" (by any name, of course).
> 
> And what if one doesn't want to connect to the world's largest online
> music store? 

Nobody makes you.  It is a choice.

> Are you saying that the main advantage of iLife is that
> one gets to spend more money?

No.
> 
>> 
>> Then what video software lets you look at your play lists to more easily
>> find this song and use it in a movie?
>> 
>> I look forward to your answer.  It will likely be amusing - but not on
>> purpose.
>> 
> 
> Colin Day
> 

-- 
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

0
SNIT (24281)
1/21/2005 1:07:25 AM
In article <trman-6CF212.17362720012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.01.20.23.26.17.697263@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:38:18 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the 
> > > software that comes with the minimac?
> > 
> > Linux = $0 downloaded, or a few bucks off cheapbytes.
> > A great many high quality Open Source applications that do pretty much
> > everything Macs do = $0
> 
> Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS 
> that's the equivalent of OS X.

Operating system: Debian is fine.
iTunes: XMMS, Rhythmbox, etc.
iMovie: Kino or Cinelerra (though iMovie supports HD...)
iDVD: Nothing even remotely as easy to use, though there are a few 
XML-based authoring apps that are more powerful.
iPhoto: Nautilus/Eye of GNOME is just as easy to use and just as 
functional. There are a number of other more integrated options here, 
but this is my preferred method.
GarageBand: You'd need to use several (free) applications to duplicate 
the functionality. Varying ease of use.
Quicken: You'd have to use WINE or Crossover Office.
AppleWorks: OpenOffice or Koffice blows it out of the water.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:03:09 AM
In article <1106260028.880309.278820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 imouttahere@mac.com wrote:

> Daniel Tryba wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy C Lund <clund@notam02spamblock.no> wrote:
> > [pundit]
> > >
> > > Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the
> > > software that comes with the minimac?
> >
> > Nothing if it's available as OSS!
> 
> that's where you're fucked looking for freeware equivalent to iMovie,
> iPhoto, hell even the ease of use of built-in apps of the DVD player,
> iTunes, and TextEdit. Out of the box + freeware, Macs are leagues ahead
> of linux, not to mention that Macs can also compile & run most linux
> crap too.
DVD player: xine is very nice, though the questionable legality of DeCSS 
is annoying.
iTunes: Rhythmbox
TextEdit: You MUST be joking. If your looking for a weak GUI text 
editor, Gedit is every bit as easy to use as TextEdit.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:07:39 AM
In article <Nowhere-093A13.15014620012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from a 
> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
> > 
> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> > 
> > ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> > ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> > FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> > DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> > GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> > AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> > LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek 8201BL PHY)
> > Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> > Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> > 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> > Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> > 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> > 1 x Security Key
> > 1 x S/PDIF out
> > 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> > 2 x USB 2.0
> > 1 x Mic-in
> > 1 x Headphone
> > Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> > 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> > 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> > 1 x S-Video
> > 1 x TV-Out
> > 2 x USB 2.0
> > 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> > 1 x DVI-D
> > 1 x VGA
> > 1 x Parallel
> > 1 x Serial
> > Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> > IncludedHDD Security Key
> > 
> > $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU, memory, 
> > hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU heatsink 
> > and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> > 
> > $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R system,
> > which includes:
> > 
> > Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> > 
> >  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> > (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store charges)
> > 
> > 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> > (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> > 
> > 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> > (with several other optical drive options)
> > 
> > ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> > 
> > DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> > (with three other OS choices)
> > 
> > 1 Year Warranty
> > (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . . 
> > [+$47.00] ) 
> 
> OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> for OEM WIndows XP Home.
Why?
> Then, add the cost of application software.  
Nothing, I get by with freeware just fine.
> Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
> it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> software.
Wouldn't need any security software, but your right--the Mac is an 
easier solution.
> 
> Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're 
> STILL going to suffer from malware.
Mmm, I'd probably just use a mini-ITX system running a Linux distro 
(probably Debian).
> 
> Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a 
> better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
This is certainly true.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:10:14 AM
In article <10v0fnjr80si04e@news.supernews.com>,
 John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Liam Slider wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> >>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
> > 
> > 
> > Why the fuck would we do that?
> > 
> 
> To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.

That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:11:26 AM
In article <theletterk-5B0293.21030920012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:

> In article <trman-6CF212.17362720012005@news.central.cox.net>,
>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2005.01.20.23.26.17.697263@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:38:18 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the 
> > > > software that comes with the minimac?
> > > 
> > > Linux = $0 downloaded, or a few bucks off cheapbytes.
> > > A great many high quality Open Source applications that do pretty much
> > > everything Macs do = $0
> > 
> > Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS 
> > that's the equivalent of OS X.
> 
> Operating system: Debian is fine.
> iTunes: XMMS, Rhythmbox, etc.
> iMovie: Kino or Cinelerra (though iMovie supports HD...)
> iDVD: Nothing even remotely as easy to use, though there are a few 
> XML-based authoring apps that are more powerful.
> iPhoto: Nautilus/Eye of GNOME is just as easy to use and just as 
> functional. There are a number of other more integrated options here, 
> but this is my preferred method.
> GarageBand: You'd need to use several (free) applications to duplicate 
> the functionality. Varying ease of use.
> Quicken: You'd have to use WINE or Crossover Office.
> AppleWorks: OpenOffice or Koffice blows it out of the water.

The only one that you're even remotely close to is OpenOffice. It's more 
powerful than AppleWorks, but not as polished.

The rest of them aren't even close in ease of use, features, and 
integration. Not even close.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 2:15:46 AM
In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <3uk5c2-abh.ln1@grendel.myth>,
> >  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT,
> >> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>
> >>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> >>>for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> >>>Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
> >>>it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> >>>to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> >>>software.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Why in heaven's name would I want to put redmondware on it? I'd install
> >>Linux, a task which takes me less time than setting up a new preinstalled XP
> >>system. 
> > 
> > 
> > The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
> 
> Why not? 

Because it's targeted at people who don't want to futz with their 
computer. They  just want to use it.

> And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> 

At any reasonable level, yes.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 2:16:36 AM
In article <BE15A3BE.1C046%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

> "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06842.1050001@sc.rr.com on
> 1/20/05 5:50 PM:
> 
> >>>>> Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
> >>>>> from
> >>>>> a Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for 
> >>>>> them.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >>>> 
> >> 
> >> <SNIP>
> >> 
> >>>> OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
> >>>> for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
> >>> 
> >>> Add in free Linux and free applications.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Not on option on the site.  You can add DOS or a flavor of Windows.
> > 
> > You can't buy it without an OS?
> 
> Correct.  The options are:
> 
>     DOS Format (Linux Ready)
>     Microsoft� Windows� XP Home
>     Microsoft� Windows� XP Professional
>     Microsoft� Windows� 2000 Professional
> 
> >> And DOS hardly counts.  :)
> >> 
> >>>> Then add shipping cost (not included).
> >>> 
> >>> I've been told it's $29.
> >> 
> >> Were you told before or after you neglected to include that cost in your
> >> listing?
> >> 
> >>>> Then add in your time for getting
> >>>> it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going
> >>>> to have to spend time on it).
> >>> 
> >>> $470 is for an assembled system.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Not including software.  Or shipping.
> >> 
> >>>> Then add in the obligatory security software.
> >>> 
> >>> Linux doesn't need it.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The offer no Linux software - so now you are talking adding it yourself.
> > 
> > That's OK if one already has a nice distro.
> 
> Well, still not the same as getting a commercial OS with commercial and
> best-of-class applications pre-installed.
Why should I care if the OS is commercial or not? Why should I care 
about the origins of the applications if they function just as well and 
cost me less? Not saying iLife isn't worth it, but justifying it simply 
because a company charged you for it is silly.
> 
> I am not saying that getting a computer and having to add such things is a
> bad thing - only that to compare the two and claim they are the same is
> dishonest.  I have nothing against Linux, other, perhaps, than the
> fragmentation of the market with all the distros and GUIs, etc.  Even that
> is not really a problem for technical Linux users with time to do research.
> Too often, though, people will say distro A has feature A, distro B has
> feature B, distro C has feature C, so Linux is as good as OS X (or whatever)
> which also has feature A, B, and C.
Usually you can add features A, B, and C to any one distribution without 
much hassle. Debian is quite good about this.
> >> 
> >>>> Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini.
> >>> 
> >>> Nope.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> You are clearly lying.  When you add a version of Windows it goes above 
> >> the
> >> Mini.  When you add some office software, it goes higher still.
> >> 
> >>>> And hugely larger.
> >>> 
> >>> It's the size of a book.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Maybe an infants book... one with squeaky toys and stuff like that in the
> >> pages.
> >> 
> >>>> And you're STILL going to suffer from malware.
> >>> 
> >>> Not with Linux.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> You mention Linux as though the computer comes with it.  It does not.
> >> 
> >>>> Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
> >>>> better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> >>> 
> >>> Only because you skewed the comparison.  You demand the same things in 
> >>> the
> >>> PC as the Mac has, but you don't demand the Mac have everything the PC 
> >>> does.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Not true at all.  I see nothing similar to Quicken.  I see nothing similar
> >> close to the size of the Mini.  I do not believe your system has DVI.
> >> Nothing like Expos�.  Does not include high quality fonts.  Does not 
> >> include
> >> the ability to save as PDF.  Your system comes with no games (other than 
> >> the
> >> ones that ship with Windows).
> > 
> > Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.
> 
> Yes, it does. The Mac version of Quicken is very different from the Windows
> version - generally easier to use but fewer bells, whistles, and missing
> some pretty cool features that exist on the Windows version.
I question the value of Quicken on such a system, but it does indeed 
offer expanded value for those that need Quicken. Edwin needs to stop 
trying to claim PC superiority in situations where it clearly is not 
superior.
> > 
> >> 
> >>> What is the cost of adding the following to the Mac Mini:
> >>> 
> >>> line level audio in
> >>> Mic in
> >>> S-Video out
> >>> 2 PCI slots
> >>> another RAM slot
> >>> 533 FSB
> >>> Increase RAM limit to 2 GB
> >>> Add 6 channel audio
> >>> Be able to add RAM without voiding warranty
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Yes - they each have things the other does not.  Bottom line - for a fully
> >> functioning system, Apple, once again, does well in price comparisons.
> >> 
> >> When comparing Apple to *all* other computer manufacturers, Apple still 
> >> does
> >> not have a configuration to match every one in existence.  And they never
> >> will.  With the Mini, however, they have expanded their offerings very
> >> nicely.  
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > Colin Day
> >
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:18:06 AM
In article <Nowhere-EFE944.15525520012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article <slrncv076s.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> > >
> > > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> > > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> > > Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
> > > it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> > > to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> > > software.
> > >
> > > Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're 
> > > STILL going to suffer from malware.
> > >
> > > Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a 
> > > better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> > 
> > Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up your
> > tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.
> 
> Because for the target audience, Linux is not a suitable alternative.

IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:22:31 AM
In article <theletterk-A68833.21223120012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:

> In article <Nowhere-EFE944.15525520012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <slrncv076s.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
> >  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> > > > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> > > > Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for 
> > > > getting 
> > > > it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> > > > to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> > > > software.
> > > >
> > > > Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're 
> > > > STILL going to suffer from malware.
> > > >
> > > > Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a 
> > > > better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up your
> > > tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.
> > 
> > Because for the target audience, Linux is not a suitable alternative.
> 
> IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
> of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
> between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.

I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones - 
and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.

MAYBE if you get someone experienced to set the whole thing up and they 
install everything you're going to need and if your needs are very 
limited (particularly wrt multimedia). Maybe. But in the real world, 
it's not even close.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 2:25:38 AM
In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:

> In article <10v0fnjr80si04e@news.supernews.com>,
>  John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> > Liam Slider wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> > >>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Why the fuck would we do that?
> > > 
> > 
> > To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.
> 
> That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
> only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).

Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.

This ought to be good.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 2:26:10 AM
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06530.1070608@sc.rr.com on
1/20/05 5:37 PM:

>>>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
>>>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>>>> sent to you.
>>> 
>>> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
>>> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
>> 
>> 
>> You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
>> install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
>> similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
>> 
> 
> If one already has a commercial Linux distro, one just installs it.
> Most such distros include OpenOffice.Org.

Did you read what I wrote?  Your comments hardly seem connected.
> 
>> Is there any surprise that you can get a machine that does so little out of
>> the box for less than one that does so much (I assume a keyboard, mouse,
>> monitor, etc. for each).
> 
> It seems the Pundit-R had beefier hardware, so which machine can do
> so little?

I suggest you look up the meaning of the phrase "out of the box".  It is not
a reference to avoiding the fast food place with the funny round headed
clown.


<SNIP>
 
>> Add Windows (even home) and the lowest end office software cappuccino
>> offers.  When you figure out that you now have a system considerably more
>> expensive than the Mini, you will have begun to learn something.  I wish you
>> luck.
>> 
> 
> I don't recall asking for Windows.

Ok.  So?


-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

0
SNIT (24281)
1/21/2005 2:26:14 AM
In article <1106248979.873123.111030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 imouttahere@mac.com wrote:

> wonder how much NOISE the el-cheapo PC emits. I really hate fan noise.
> 
> Fully configuring the eddie's wonder machine to be usable
> (2.8Ghz Celeron, 80GB HD, DVD-R/W, 512MB RAM, Windows XP Pro)
I wouldn't consider that usable; It's running Windows after all. However 
a totally silent (fanless) mini-ITX system based off Via's Eden would be 
about the same as the Mac mini. It'd even be usable if you ran a Linux 
distro on it.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:26:37 AM
In article <theletterk-DD605F.21180620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:

> In article <BE15A3BE.1C046%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> 
> > "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06842.1050001@sc.rr.com on
> > 1/20/05 5:50 PM:
> > 

> > > 
> > > Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.
> > 
> > Yes, it does. The Mac version of Quicken is very different from the Windows
> > version - generally easier to use but fewer bells, whistles, and missing
> > some pretty cool features that exist on the Windows version.
> I question the value of Quicken on such a system, but it does indeed 
> offer expanded value for those that need Quicken. Edwin needs to stop 
> trying to claim PC superiority in situations where it clearly is not 
> superior.

Why in the world would you question the value of Quicken on 'such a 
system'? Quicken is exactly the kind of app that Mini users are going to 
want.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 2:29:21 AM
In article <RUTHd.11569$Vj3.10986@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote in message 
> news:1106248979.873123.111030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > wonder how much NOISE the el-cheapo PC emits. I really hate fan noise.
> >
> > Fully configuring the eddie's wonder machine to be usable
> > (2.8Ghz Celeron, 80GB HD, DVD-R/W, 512MB RAM, Windows XP Pro)
> >
> > I get a $754 price, compared to Apple's $775 for the 1.42Ghz G4 w/
> > 512MB & DVD-R.
> 
> So how did you get a 533 FSB, a second RAM slot, 6 channel audio, a Mic in 
> port, a line level audio in port, and two PCI slots into the Mac Mini, 
> without raising its price?   What, you thought spec matching was a one way 
> street?
Can you tell me what you would use a line level audio in port for? I'm 
just sort of wondering if you realize exactly how inane that complaint 
is...
> 
> Why did you ignore matching to Apple's $499 offering, and jump to an 
> upgraded Mac Mini as the base line?
It is a good question, isn't it?
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:29:41 AM
In article <clund-16B78C.22394120012005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:

> In article <1106247658.222725.10060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> > It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all,
> 
> Nobody really thought you would, edwin.

Wait, why on earth is he bashing a platform he doesn't use? Oh, right...
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:33:28 AM
>Hey, Linux has (most of?) that.

Of course. OS X shares a lot of stuff with GNU/Linux. AFAIK the main
difference between OS X and Linux is the mach microkernel, a totally
different kernel extension mechanism, FreeBSD userland, and the
different window server (though X11 can be installed over the OS X's
window server).

The main difference is that Apple pays a lot of people a lot of money
to maintain and roll this stuff into an OS release every year. Probably
around 1000 people or more.

>What is OpenAL, though?

OpenAL is the new cross-platform audio API, kinda like the old DOS
Soundblaster API was back in the day.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/21/2005 2:34:04 AM
In article <trman-6FF899.20253820012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <theletterk-A68833.21223120012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <Nowhere-EFE944.15525520012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> >  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <slrncv076s.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
> > >  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add 
> > > > > $79 
> > > > > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> > > > > Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for 
> > > > > getting 
> > > > > it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're 
> > > > > going 
> > > > > to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> > > > > software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And you're 
> > > > > STILL going to suffer from malware.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a 
> > > > > better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up your
> > > > tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.
> > > 
> > > Because for the target audience, Linux is not a suitable alternative.
> > 
> > IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
> > of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
> > between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
> 
> I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones - 
> and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
Granted, Ubuntu uses a purely text-based installer... but it's about as 
simple to install as it is possible to get. Basically, if your not 
trying to dual boot, you just say "install" and tell it what your 
planning on doing with the system. Redhat/Fedora and other RPM distros 
billed as 'newbie' distros are usually more difficult to work with than 
'difficult' distros such as Debian or even Gentoo (which is simple only 
because of the excellent documentation, not because it's particularly 
easy to figure out). However, Debian and Debian-based systems are the 
only legitimate options for 'ease of use' distros (mostly because 
source-based distros like Gentoo can take more than a day to install in 
some cases, I usually take about 14 hours--on the other hand, you can 
install Debian in about 30-45 minutes). Ubuntu is definitely the easiest 
of the distros I've run across and I've used all of the remotely common 
ones.
> 
> MAYBE if you get someone experienced to set the whole thing up and they 
> install everything you're going to need and if your needs are very 
> limited (particularly wrt multimedia). Maybe. But in the real world, 
> it's not even close.
I don't consider my needs 'very limited', and I use Linux every day. 
It's my preferred platform in fact. This is with both Windows and OS X 
as legitimate options. I do prefer some of the applications on Os X 
(NewsWatcher, Quicksilver, Omniweb, to name a few), but I prefer using 
Ion as my default Window manager (which I can't do on OS X).
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 2:54:25 AM
In article <trman-5FE7F2.20261020012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <10v0fnjr80si04e@news.supernews.com>,
> >  John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Liam Slider wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> > > >>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Why the fuck would we do that?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.
> > 
> > That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
> > only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
> 
> Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
I've got choice in how I go about performing tasks. I can literally make 
a Linux distro dance, whereas OS X is pretty much limited to acting like 
Apple wants it to. I can alter the way Linux acts as I need to, 
on-the-fly, at a basic level. You can do the same with the BSDs (Os X 
isn't a BSD, just uses a FreeBSD-like userspace layer), but the hardware 
support isn't nearly as good. There's really not too many concrete 
advantages to using Linux instead of OS X (hence the reason I said 
"marginally better than Os X", rather than "Vastly superior to OS X"), 
it's mostly a difference in philosophy.

Os X is fine if you like Apple's way of doing things. But if you don't, 
Linux/*BSD is a better option. Unless you absolutely have to use 
commercial applications.
> 
> This ought to be good.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 3:00:17 AM
"TravelinMan" <trman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:trman-306211.20154620012005@news.central.cox.net...
> The only one that you're even remotely close to is OpenOffice. It's more
> powerful than AppleWorks, but not as polished.

And it probably wont' be long before iWork comes pre-installed on your new
Mac in place of AppleWorks, correct?


0
g_kercheck (34)
1/21/2005 3:05:54 AM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:16:36 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:

>> And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
>> 
> 
> At any reasonable level, yes.


My Grandfather uses it on the desktop...uses it for all his everyday
computing. He's very far from a geek, doesn't know his grep from his
startx. Doesn't have to.
0
liam8 (4986)
1/21/2005 3:05:57 AM
In article <trman-306211.20154620012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <theletterk-5B0293.21030920012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <trman-6CF212.17362720012005@news.central.cox.net>,
> >  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <pan.2005.01.20.23.26.17.697263@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
> > >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:38:18 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Uh huh.. so what does it cost when you add the equivalents of the 
> > > > > software that comes with the minimac?
> > > > 
> > > > Linux = $0 downloaded, or a few bucks off cheapbytes.
> > > > A great many high quality Open Source applications that do pretty much
> > > > everything Macs do = $0
> > > 
> > > Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS 
> > > that's the equivalent of OS X.
> > 
> > Operating system: Debian is fine.
> > iTunes: XMMS, Rhythmbox, etc.
> > iMovie: Kino or Cinelerra (though iMovie supports HD...)
> > iDVD: Nothing even remotely as easy to use, though there are a few 
> > XML-based authoring apps that are more powerful.
> > iPhoto: Nautilus/Eye of GNOME is just as easy to use and just as 
> > functional. There are a number of other more integrated options here, 
> > but this is my preferred method.
> > GarageBand: You'd need to use several (free) applications to duplicate 
> > the functionality. Varying ease of use.
> > Quicken: You'd have to use WINE or Crossover Office.
> > AppleWorks: OpenOffice or Koffice blows it out of the water.
> 
> The only one that you're even remotely close to is OpenOffice. It's more 
> powerful than AppleWorks, but not as polished.
> 
> The rest of them aren't even close in ease of use, features, and 
> integration. Not even close.

Right, Nautilus/Eye of GNOME is a more powerful combination (and easier 
to use) than iPhoto is.
XMMS and Rhythmbox both offer things that iTunes does not, and vice 
versa. 
Kino or Cinelerra are in much the same situation. While iMovie is 
marginally better for regular DV (as I said, they don't handle HD), the 
difference isn't that great.
Some of the XML-based DVD authoring applications for Linux are far more 
powerful than iDVD, I don't mention them simply because they're horribly 
difficult to use in comparison.

And I'd definitely prefer Koffice or OpenOffice to AppleWorks. Both are 
every bit as polished as Appleworks is.

I suppose it's pretty easy for you to argue when you just throw around 
generalizations.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 3:06:00 AM
In article <trman-C913BC.20292120012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <theletterk-DD605F.21180620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <BE15A3BE.1C046%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > 
> > > "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06842.1050001@sc.rr.com on
> > > 1/20/05 5:50 PM:
> > > 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.
> > > 
> > > Yes, it does. The Mac version of Quicken is very different from the 
> > > Windows
> > > version - generally easier to use but fewer bells, whistles, and missing
> > > some pretty cool features that exist on the Windows version.
> > I question the value of Quicken on such a system, but it does indeed 
> > offer expanded value for those that need Quicken. Edwin needs to stop 
> > trying to claim PC superiority in situations where it clearly is not 
> > superior.
> 
> Why in the world would you question the value of Quicken on 'such a 
> system'? Quicken is exactly the kind of app that Mini users are going to 
> want.

Can't see why. Most of the people I know who use budget systems don't 
even know what Quicken is.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 3:11:26 AM
In article <trman-25A357.20163620012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > TravelinMan wrote:
> > > In article <3uk5c2-abh.ln1@grendel.myth>,
> > >  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >>Hash: SHA1
> > >>
> > >>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT,
> > >> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >>
> > >>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> > >>>for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> > >>>Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
> > >>>it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> > >>>to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> > >>>software.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Why in heaven's name would I want to put redmondware on it? I'd install
> > >>Linux, a task which takes me less time than setting up a new preinstalled 
> > >>XP
> > >>system. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
> > 
> > Why not? 
> 
> Because it's targeted at people who don't want to futz with their 
> computer. They  just want to use it.
Which is exactly why I use Linux.
> 
> > And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> > 
> 
> At any reasonable level, yes.
It's easier to use than Windows is, that's for certain.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 3:12:15 AM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:13:45 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <slrncv09ks.13k.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:42:36 +0100, C Lund wrote:
>> > In article <FQSHd.11558$Vj3.10077@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > $470 with no OS and no software.
>> >> 
>> >> You can get that for free.
>> >
>> > XP is free these days?
>> >
>> > And care to list the *free* Windows software that is equal the the 
>> > iLife quite and the rest of the apps that are bundled with the minimac?
>> 
>> I looked at http://www.apple.com/ilife/
>> and realized I -- like many, many others -- have absolutely no need for
>> iLife.
>
> Then don't buy it.
>
> See how easy life is?

Then that pretty much shreds your argument for the Mac Mini being better
than the other PC, because you ASSUMED everyone wanted iLife and would need
to purchase the equivalent software.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 9:10PM  up 10:08, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/21/2005 3:16:58 AM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:26:10 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
>> That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
>> only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
>
> Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
>
> This ought to be good.

It's really simple: it runs on commodity hardware, not overpriced Apple crap.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 9:15PM  up 10:13, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/21/2005 3:18:35 AM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:15:46 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
> The only one that you're even remotely close to is OpenOffice. It's more 
> powerful than AppleWorks, but not as polished.
>
> The rest of them aren't even close in ease of use, features, and 
> integration. Not even close.

Apparently they gave up porting OO.org 2.0 to OS X.


-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 9:15PM  up 10:13, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/21/2005 3:20:01 AM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:54:42 GMT, Colin Day wrote:
>
> TravelinMan wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS 
>> that's the equivalent of OS X.
>
> And I need these why?

Why, to support his strawman argument, silly!


-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 9:15PM  up 10:13, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/21/2005 3:20:38 AM
"TheLetterK" <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote in post
theletterk-9C32C1.22112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net on 1/20/05 8:11 PM:

> In article <trman-C913BC.20292120012005@news.central.cox.net>,
> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <theletterk-DD605F.21180620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <BE15A3BE.1C046%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06842.1050001@sc.rr.com on
>>>> 1/20/05 5:50 PM:
>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, it does. The Mac version of Quicken is very different from the
>>>> Windows
>>>> version - generally easier to use but fewer bells, whistles, and missing
>>>> some pretty cool features that exist on the Windows version.
>>> I question the value of Quicken on such a system, but it does indeed
>>> offer expanded value for those that need Quicken. Edwin needs to stop
>>> trying to claim PC superiority in situations where it clearly is not
>>> superior.
>> 
>> Why in the world would you question the value of Quicken on 'such a
>> system'? Quicken is exactly the kind of app that Mini users are going to
>> want.
> 
> Can't see why. Most of the people I know who use budget systems don't
> even know what Quicken is.

A number of my customers use it - and most of my customers are relative
novices and / or senior citizens who are hardly techies.  In the last few
days I have had at least two calls about it (well, one was about MS
Money...)


-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/21/2005 3:27:05 AM
In article <theletterk-BD778F.22001720012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:

> In article <trman-5FE7F2.20261020012005@news.central.cox.net>,
>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <10v0fnjr80si04e@news.supernews.com>,
> > >  John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Liam Slider wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add 
> > > > >>$79 
> > > > >>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why the fuck would we do that?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.
> > > 
> > > That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
> > > only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
> > 
> > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
> I've got choice in how I go about performing tasks. I can literally make 
> a Linux distro dance, whereas OS X is pretty much limited to acting like 
> Apple wants it to. I can alter the way Linux acts as I need to, 
> on-the-fly, at a basic level. You can do the same with the BSDs (Os X 
> isn't a BSD, just uses a FreeBSD-like userspace layer), but the hardware 
> support isn't nearly as good. There's really not too many concrete 
> advantages to using Linux instead of OS X (hence the reason I said 
> "marginally better than Os X", rather than "Vastly superior to OS X"), 
> it's mostly a difference in philosophy.

Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.

> 
> Os X is fine if you like Apple's way of doing things. But if you don't, 
> Linux/*BSD is a better option. Unless you absolutely have to use 
> commercial applications.
> > 
> > This ought to be good.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
0
alangbaker (17682)
1/21/2005 3:47:34 AM
In article <slrncv0t0l.21g.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
 General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:26:10 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> >> That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
> >> only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
> >
> > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
> >
> > This ought to be good.
> 
> It's really simple: it runs on commodity hardware, not overpriced Apple crap.

Oh. You didn't mean better, you meant cheaper.

That's probably true - until you include support costs.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 3:51:25 AM
In article <theletterk-BD778F.22001720012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:

> In article <trman-5FE7F2.20261020012005@news.central.cox.net>,
>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <10v0fnjr80si04e@news.supernews.com>,
> > >  John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Liam Slider wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add 
> > > > >>$79 
> > > > >>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why the fuck would we do that?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.
> > > 
> > > That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
> > > only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
> > 
> > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
> I've got choice in how I go about performing tasks. I can literally make 
> a Linux distro dance, whereas OS X is pretty much limited to acting like 
> Apple wants it to. I can alter the way Linux acts as I need to, 

Which proves merely that you don't know anything about OS X.

> on-the-fly, at a basic level. You can do the same with the BSDs (Os X 
> isn't a BSD, just uses a FreeBSD-like userspace layer), but the hardware 
> support isn't nearly as good. There's really not too many concrete 

OS X has far better support for the hardware it runs on than most 
Linuxes.

> advantages to using Linux instead of OS X (hence the reason I said 
> "marginally better than Os X", rather than "Vastly superior to OS X"), 
> it's mostly a difference in philosophy.

Except that OS X has a better interface, is more consistent, and far, 
far easier to use.

> 
> Os X is fine if you like Apple's way of doing things. But if you don't, 
> Linux/*BSD is a better option. Unless you absolutely have to use 
> commercial applications.

Unfortunately for you, most people need commercial apps.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 3:52:50 AM
In article <pan.2005.01.21.03.05.57.699645@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:16:36 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
> 
> >> And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> >> 
> > 
> > At any reasonable level, yes.
> 
> 
> My Grandfather uses it on the desktop...uses it for all his everyday
> computing. He's very far from a geek, doesn't know his grep from his
> startx. Doesn't have to.

As I said:

If you can get someone else to set up your Linux system, and if your 
hardware happens to be supported, and if you have no intention to add 
software or change anything around later, Linux is OK.

But if you actually want to be in control of your computer, it requires 
far more skill than most users have.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 3:53:54 AM
In article <theletterk-9C32C1.22112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:

> In article <trman-C913BC.20292120012005@news.central.cox.net>,
>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <theletterk-DD605F.21180620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <BE15A3BE.1C046%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > >  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06842.1050001@sc.rr.com 
> > > > on
> > > > 1/20/05 5:50 PM:
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, it does. The Mac version of Quicken is very different from the 
> > > > Windows
> > > > version - generally easier to use but fewer bells, whistles, and 
> > > > missing
> > > > some pretty cool features that exist on the Windows version.
> > > I question the value of Quicken on such a system, but it does indeed 
> > > offer expanded value for those that need Quicken. Edwin needs to stop 
> > > trying to claim PC superiority in situations where it clearly is not 
> > > superior.
> > 
> > Why in the world would you question the value of Quicken on 'such a 
> > system'? Quicken is exactly the kind of app that Mini users are going to 
> > want.
> 
> Can't see why. Most of the people I know who use budget systems don't 
> even know what Quicken is.

How does that make Quicken less useful?
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 3:54:12 AM
In article <theletterk-C088C5.21542520012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:

> In article <trman-6FF899.20253820012005@news.central.cox.net>,
>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <theletterk-A68833.21223120012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <Nowhere-EFE944.15525520012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> > >  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <slrncv076s.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
> > > >  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add 
> > > > > > $79 
> > > > > > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application 
> > > > > > software. 
> > > > > > Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for 
> > > > > > getting 
> > > > > > it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're 
> > > > > > going 
> > > > > > to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> > > > > > software.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And 
> > > > > > you're 
> > > > > > STILL going to suffer from malware.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is 
> > > > > > a 
> > > > > > better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up 
> > > > > your
> > > > > tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.
> > > > 
> > > > Because for the target audience, Linux is not a suitable alternative.
> > > 
> > > IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
> > > of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
> > > between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
> > 
> > I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones - 
> > and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
> Granted, Ubuntu uses a purely text-based installer... but it's about as 
> simple to install as it is possible to get. Basically, if your not 

Sorry, but as soon as you start with a text based installer, you've lost 
95% of the Mac Mini's target audience.

> trying to dual boot, you just say "install" and tell it what your 
> planning on doing with the system. Redhat/Fedora and other RPM distros 
> billed as 'newbie' distros are usually more difficult to work with than 
> 'difficult' distros such as Debian or even Gentoo (which is simple only 
> because of the excellent documentation, not because it's particularly 
> easy to figure out). However, Debian and Debian-based systems are the 
> only legitimate options for 'ease of use' distros (mostly because 
> source-based distros like Gentoo can take more than a day to install in 
> some cases, I usually take about 14 hours--on the other hand, you can 
> install Debian in about 30-45 minutes). Ubuntu is definitely the easiest 
> of the distros I've run across and I've used all of the remotely common 
> ones.

ROTFLMAO.

It takes you 14 hours to install Linux - and you want to pretend that 
it's as easy to use as OS X?

It's amazing how some people can delude themselves.

> > 
> > MAYBE if you get someone experienced to set the whole thing up and they 
> > install everything you're going to need and if your needs are very 
> > limited (particularly wrt multimedia). Maybe. But in the real world, 
> > it's not even close.
> I don't consider my needs 'very limited', and I use Linux every day. 
> It's my preferred platform in fact. This is with both Windows and OS X 

That's because you're not the newbie user I'm talking about.

> as legitimate options. I do prefer some of the applications on Os X 
> (NewsWatcher, Quicksilver, Omniweb, to name a few), but I prefer using 
> Ion as my default Window manager (which I can't do on OS X).

There are alternative finders on the Mac.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 3:56:05 AM
In article <35b9siF4gk635U1@individual.net>,
 "Gary Kercheck" <g_kercheck@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "TravelinMan" <trman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:trman-306211.20154620012005@news.central.cox.net...
> > The only one that you're even remotely close to is OpenOffice. It's more
> > powerful than AppleWorks, but not as polished.
> 
> And it probably wont' be long before iWork comes pre-installed on your new
> Mac in place of AppleWorks, correct?

Wouldn't surprise me.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 3:57:17 AM
In article <slrncv0t4g.21g.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
 General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:54:42 GMT, Colin Day wrote:
> >
> > TravelinMan wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS 
> >> that's the equivalent of OS X.
> >
> > And I need these why?
> 
> Why, to support his strawman argument, silly!

Well, no. Because the Mac Mini is targeted at Home users - you know, 
people who do things like digital photography, manage their checkbook, 
write letters, and so on.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 3:58:12 AM
On 2005-01-21, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
> In article <1106251689.4f7f5c41d8116d2eca93b7f4dcc4a277@1usenet>,
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
>> > 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 PM:
>> >
>> >>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
>> >>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>> >>>  sent to you.
>> >> 
>> >> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
>> >> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
>> >
>> > You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
>> > install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
>> > similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
>> 
>>  ...except to really exploit that software, you will need more storage
>> than the mini can accomodate. Based on that usage pattern, a $260 bookpc would
>> suffice. 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>>  XPCs are overkill for this exercise.
>
> OK, smartass, give us the specs on that $260 bookpc.  Complete with OS
> and all the apps that you and others claim are the equal of just iLife
> alone.

	Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
there.

	Although, everything except perhaps iMovie is easily replacable even
with free/shareware. Even iMovie doesn't look to be anything particularly 
special.

	Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?


	One has to seriously wonder if you idiots actually use any of this
software that you claim makes a Mac superior to any other system on the face
of the planet.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 4:18:13 AM
On 2005-01-20, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <slrncv07cf.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:08:12 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
>> > In article <4i95c2-lse.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>,
>> >  The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob S
>> >> <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com>
>> >>  wrote
>> >> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:49:20 GMT
>> >> <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>:
>> >> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
[deletia]
> You're going to have to tell me.
>
> I've used Windows pretty extensively (everything from 3.1 to XP Pro), 
> multiple versions of LInux, Solaris, and (to a much lesser extent) IBM's 
> desktop OS (the name has slipped my mind - OS2?).

	Then you should have no problems going into gory detail about just
why it is that iLife is so nifty.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 4:23:14 AM
On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "John Slade" <hitman86@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> bIVHd.13551$5R.4352@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com on 1/20/05 2:49 PM:
>
>>> None of which is any where near as useful as OS X and iLife.
>> 
>>    That's only a matter of opinion. There is nothing that iLife does that
>> can't be done on Linux. There is nothing special that iLife does that can't
>> be done easily with Windows. I've checked.
>
> It is not just about what can be done, but about how one does it.
>
> So, what on Linux allows one to easily connect to the world's largest online
> music store, buy a song for less than a buck, and burn in onto several CD's?

	Netscape+RipperX+Xcdroast.

[deletia]

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 4:27:02 AM
JEDIDIAH wrote:


> 	Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
> there.

Apple gives you all these wonderful tools to manage your music, pictures 
and video and you don't want to acknowledge them because you don't get 
infinite HD storage on the mini?  Allrighty.  Add a freakin' firewire 
drive if 40G or 80G isn't enough.

> 	Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?

Do you have any clue how large your music collection would have to be to 
completely fill the mini's optional 80G drive, even allowing for the 
space OSX and the built in apps take up?

0
hamms (11)
1/21/2005 5:02:42 AM
> If you can get someone else to set up your Linux system, and if your
> hardware happens to be supported, and if you have no intention to add
> software or change anything around later, Linux is OK.

> But if you actually want to be in control of your computer, it
> requires
> far more skill than most users have.

It's funny how every mac mini comparison / debate turns into an OS
war.

We all know the pros and cons of the different OSs, and which
software is better than the other, like some ppl saying that quicken
is better than anything on a PC. Point is that everything you can do
on a mac you can do on a PC. Graphics design, Video editing, Audio
editing, run a business, surf the net, watch movies, listen to
music, CAD design, play games etc etc....

I'm one of those odd people who own both Macs and PCs and I see no
advantage in the Mac. I also find it odd that Mac users refer to
self built PCs as hobbyist computers and somehow describe them with
a feeling of inferiority.
Most self built PCs blow away the brand name giants in all benchmark
tests and the world records in benchmark tests are all from self
built PCs. The world of DIY PCs has changed dramatically in the past
3 or 4 years. DIY PCs (if you are an experienced builder) are cheaper
and faster than their brand name counterparts. and the DIY PC market
is now enormous. In Asia 75% of all PCs are DIY and most people
there wouldn't even consider getting a name brand.

http://www.worldssmallestpc.com/800_serious.htm
I own one of these with a Hyperthreaded 3Gig P4c 800MHz FSB, 1024MB
DDR400 RAM and a slim DVD RW. It cost me US$640 when I bought it. I
also have an iMac G5 1.8GHz.

My Corretto mini-pc is faster than my iMac and way faster than a mini
Mac.

The Corretto mini-pc has been around for 2 years. The Mini mac
although much more aesthetically refined is nothing new and for
power the corretto blows it away.
However I must say the software bundle in the mini mac makes it a
good buy.

http://www.giga-byte.com/ThinClient/Products/Products_NewProduct_List.htm
A little bit wider than the mini mac but very versatile and powerful.
Also been around for 2 years or so.

http://www.tomshardware.com/firstlook/20050117/index.html
With a PCI-E x16 slot, a 3.6gig CPU and 2 gig of DDR400 RAM this PC
although a bit bigger than the mini mac will give even the big macs
a run for their money. (OK not the dual processor G5s)

Now I'm not saying these micro PCs are as cheap. No the mini Mac wins
the price war hands down.....especialy with the bundled software. But
the mini Mac is most certainly nothing new so stop going on as if its
breakthrough technology and stop saying PC cant build something like
this because they can and have.......and much more powerful.

And my Corretto mini-pc can basically do everything a mini mac can do
and some things a mini mac cant do.

* posted via http://mymac.ws
0
joshvee2 (3)
1/21/2005 5:13:08 AM
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
1106281093.5f627ddfc8a728372c72635067db5674@1usenet on 1/20/05 9:18 PM:

> On 2005-01-21, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
>> In article <1106251689.4f7f5c41d8116d2eca93b7f4dcc4a277@1usenet>,
>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
>>>> 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
>>>>>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>>>>>>  sent to you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
>>>>> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
>>>> 
>>>> You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
>>>> install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
>>>> similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
>>> 
>>>  ...except to really exploit that software, you will need more storage
>>> than the mini can accomodate. Based on that usage pattern, a $260 bookpc
>>> would
>>> suffice. 
>>> [deletia]
>>> 
>>>  XPCs are overkill for this exercise.
>> 
>> OK, smartass, give us the specs on that $260 bookpc.  Complete with OS
>> and all the apps that you and others claim are the equal of just iLife
>> alone.
> 
> Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
> there.

Sure it does.  It has plenty for music and images, and even for a small
amount of video.  For folks doing more video, it is easy to connect an
external drive - if needed.  The system can easily grow if the person gets
that need.
> 
> Although, everything except perhaps iMovie is easily replacable even
> with free/shareware. Even iMovie doesn't look to be anything particularly
> special.

Please, name the titles.

My guess: you won't.  Predictable...
> 
> Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?
> 
> 
> One has to seriously wonder if you idiots actually use any of this
> software that you claim makes a Mac superior to any other system on the face
> of the planet.

--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.


0
SNIT (24281)
1/21/2005 5:23:53 AM
In article <35bgniF4l72klU1@individual.net> (Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:02:42
-0800), Gary Kercheck wrote:

> Apple gives you all these wonderful tools

Apple gives you nothing: What you get is included in the purchase price,
Mac Fan-boy.

-- 
"[Caldera, a/k/a 'The SCO Group', a] company that helped build
 that whole [Linux] industry has now turned against it."
-- Ransom Love.  Former CEO, Caldera/The SCO Group.

0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/21/2005 5:33:07 AM
TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
> > of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
> > between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
> 
> I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones - 
> and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.

Ah, here's a screenshot of the Ubuntu OS/UI... (smirk) Kinda looks like 
the Apple IIgs OS/UI circa, 1988... Gosh, Linux is in a world of hurt.

http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=156&slide=36
0
csma (3267)
1/21/2005 6:03:52 AM
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> 	Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
> there.

What an idiot, it has unlimited storage via the firewire port... Have 
you even used firewire? do you even understand you can have 63 HD's 
connected to the 1 port? It will run Final Cut if needed... iLife will 
run fine.  A couple terabytes should be plenty for the mini.

> 	Although, everything except perhaps iMovie is easily replacable even
> with free/shareware. Even iMovie doesn't look to be anything particularly 
> special.

You can't find a iTunes class app, nor iDVD, nor GarageBand. iPhoto, 
sure...

> 	Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?

Not enough to fill up a mini... 13mb per sec for DV, a couple hundred 
hours on a mini is very manageable. I did it on a 800Mhz G4 several 
years ago, so the mini will breeze through any of the iLife tasks...

> 	One has to seriously wonder if you idiots actually use any of this
> software that you claim makes a Mac superior to any other system on the face
> of the planet.

YOU were the one that said "iMovie doesn't look to be anything"... 
Meaning you've never touched it... iMovie is the top movie editing 
software made. it's like iTunes is for music, best of breed.

You have some reading to do:

http://www.apple.com/ilife/imovie/

oxford

-
0
csma (3267)
1/21/2005 6:15:17 AM
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.

just curious where this comes from... Apple never said that, so why do 
you attribute it to Apple?

hum...
0
csma (3267)
1/21/2005 6:17:01 AM
Hamilcar Barca <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote:

> > Apple gives you all these wonderful tools
> 
> Apple gives you nothing: What you get is included in the purchase price,
> Mac Fan-boy.

opps, Hamilcar makes another goof... Yes, apple "gives" you iLife with 
the purchase of the Mini. It's $79 for everyone else....

If apple included it in the purchase price, the mini would cost $578.

Back to the calculator, Hamilcar

http://www.apple.com/ilife
http://www.apple.com/macmini
0
csma (3267)
1/21/2005 6:24:54 AM
In article <csma-3D6FB2.23035220012005@news.uswest.net> (Thu, 20 Jan 2005
23:03:52 -0700), Oxford wrote:

> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
>> > of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
>> > between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
>> 
>> I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones - 
>> and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
> 
> Ah, here's a screenshot of the Ubuntu OS/UI... (smirk) Kinda looks like 
> the Apple IIgs OS/UI circa, 1988... Gosh, Linux is in a world of hurt.
> 
> http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=156&slide=36

-- 
"Open sourcing [sic] Solaris is a big deal."
-- Scott McNealy.  CEO, Sun Microsystem.

0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/21/2005 6:42:10 AM
In article <csma-4073C9.23170120012005@news.uswest.net> (Thu, 20 Jan 2005
23:17:01 -0700), Oxtard wrote:

> just curious where this comes from...

You pull it out of your ass, Oxtard.
0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/21/2005 6:42:53 AM
In article <csma-70FE81.23245420012005@news.uswest.net> (Thu, 20 Jan 2005
23:24:54 -0700), Oxford wrote:

> Yes, apple "gives" you iLife with the purchase of the Mini.

"Oxtard", "you're" "as" "stupid" "as" "ever".  "You" "pay" "for"
"iLife" [sic] "if" "you" "pay" "for" "a" "Mini" "Mac".

> If apple included it in the purchase price, the mini would cost $578.

"By" "that" "same" "asinine" "theory", "I" "should" "be" "able" "to" "buy"
"a" "Mini" "Mac" "without" "iLife" [sic] "for "$420".

> [additional Oxtard spamlinks deleted]

-- 
"It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe
 operating system. They don't write the code for it."
-- Steve Ballmer.  http://news.com.com/2008-1082-998297.html.  25 Apr 2003

0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/21/2005 6:49:22 AM
Daniel Tryba wrote:

> A TV tuner card? A SCSI card to hookup legacy scanners? ISDN TA?
> Additional ethernet or video? Who knows what the future might bring, a
> new wireless standard or even just a plain 80211a device?
> 

Yeah, the pre-N wireless routers and cards are hitting the stores. 800 to
1000% wider coverage than the 108-G networks and 600% faster! The true N
standard should be out by the end of the year, if luck holds. But the fact
is, a pci slot can be handy, nobody knows that the next hot computer toy
will be. 
0
no9 (3192)
1/21/2005 6:53:10 AM
TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <slrncv0t0l.21g.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> 
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:26:10 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
>> > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
>> >> That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X
>> >> (though only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
>> >
>> > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
>> >
>> > This ought to be good.
>> 
>> It's really simple: it runs on commodity hardware, not overpriced Apple
>> crap.
> 
> Oh. You didn't mean better, you meant cheaper.
> 
> That's probably true - until you include support costs.

No, he ment more FLEXABLE. I can chose the hardware *I* want to run Linux
on. I can it on IBM Mainframes, Sun Sparcs, DEC Alpa, Apple as well as
comodity software that I can cobble together from different vendors,
getting just what *I* want, or bought as a pre-built system. Can Apple
software match this? No. 
0
no9 (3192)
1/21/2005 7:00:28 AM
Alan Baker wrote:

> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
> 

Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
0
no9 (3192)
1/21/2005 7:01:22 AM
"Hamilcar Barca" <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote in post
20050121014913.919$dD@news.newsreader.com on 1/20/05 11:49 PM:

> In article <csma-70FE81.23245420012005@news.uswest.net> (Thu, 20 Jan 2005
> 23:24:54 -0700), Oxford wrote:
> 
>> Yes, apple "gives" you iLife with the purchase of the Mini.
> 
> "Oxtard", "you're" "as" "stupid" "as" "ever".  "You" "pay" "for"
> "iLife" [sic] "if" "you" "pay" "for" "a" "Mini" "Mac".
> 
>> If apple included it in the purchase price, the mini would cost $578.
> 
> "By" "that" "same" "asinine" "theory", "I" "should" "be" "able" "to" "buy"
> "a" "Mini" "Mac" "without" "iLife" [sic] "for "$420".


An interesting way to look at it.  If we were to remove the cost of all the
software that is on the Mini, what would the cost be?  Let's do so:

    Original cost:      $499
    iLife               $-79
    AppleWorks          $-79
    Quicken             $-69.65
    OS X                $-129
    Nanosaur 2          $-14.95
    Marble Blast Gold   $-14.95

    Total               $112.15

So for all the yahoos who are comparing the Mini to PC's with no software,
the cost of the Mini, without software, is $112.15, but you can not buy it
without its bundled software.

I look forward to seeing the DIY hobby machine for less than $150 that
matches the hardware of the Mini.  :)



-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/21/2005 7:08:32 AM
"Snit" <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in post
BE15F880.1C1AA%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/21/05 12:08 AM:

> "Hamilcar Barca" <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote in post
> 20050121014913.919$dD@news.newsreader.com on 1/20/05 11:49 PM:
> 
>> In article <csma-70FE81.23245420012005@news.uswest.net> (Thu, 20 Jan 2005
>> 23:24:54 -0700), Oxford wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, apple "gives" you iLife with the purchase of the Mini.
>> 
>> "Oxtard", "you're" "as" "stupid" "as" "ever".  "You" "pay" "for"
>> "iLife" [sic] "if" "you" "pay" "for" "a" "Mini" "Mac".
>> 
>>> If apple included it in the purchase price, the mini would cost $578.
>> 
>> "By" "that" "same" "asinine" "theory", "I" "should" "be" "able" "to" "buy"
>> "a" "Mini" "Mac" "without" "iLife" [sic] "for "$420".
> 
> 
> An interesting way to look at it.  If we were to remove the cost of all the
> software that is on the Mini, what would the cost be?  Let's do so:
> 
>   Original cost:      $499
>   iLife               $-79
>   AppleWorks          $-79
>   Quicken             $-69.65
>   OS X                $-129
>   Nanosaur 2          $-14.95
>   Marble Blast Gold   $-14.95
> 
>   Total               $112.15
> 
> So for all the yahoos who are comparing the Mini to PC's with no software,
> the cost of the Mini, without software, is $112.15, but you can not buy it
> without its bundled software.
> 
> I look forward to seeing the DIY hobby machine for less than $150 that
> matches the hardware of the Mini.  :)

Correction: Quicken is $69.95, not $69.65.  Sorry for the typo... but the
final cost of the Mini is still the same: $112.15.

:)

-- 
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

0
SNIT (24281)
1/21/2005 7:15:05 AM
In article <oKOdnWTtyZtKO23cRVn-jg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Daniel Tryba wrote:
> 
> > A TV tuner card? A SCSI card to hookup legacy scanners? ISDN TA?
> > Additional ethernet or video? Who knows what the future might bring, a
> > new wireless standard or even just a plain 80211a device?
> 
> Yeah, the pre-N wireless routers and cards are hitting the stores. 800 to
> 1000% wider coverage than the 108-G networks and 600% faster! The true N
> standard should be out by the end of the year, if luck holds. But the fact
> is, a pci slot can be handy, nobody knows that the next hot computer toy
> will be. 

This wouldn't be a problem for the Mac mini...it's wireless (802.11g) 
card is plugged into a mini-PCI slot.

Upgradeability remains.
0
sehix (4160)
1/21/2005 7:19:26 AM
begin  TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <slrncv0t4g.21g.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> 
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:54:42 GMT, Colin Day wrote:
>> >
>> > TravelinMan wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the
>> >> OS that's the equivalent of OS X.
>> >
>> > And I need these why?
>> 
>> Why, to support his strawman argument, silly!
> 
> Well, no. Because the Mac Mini is targeted at Home users - you know,
> people who do things like digital photography, manage their checkbook,
> write letters, and so on.

So why do you mac-cretins insist to post your crap in a group which is just
the opposite from a "I'm the most dumbest user of all, I use Macs" group?

Wouldn't it be more productive to spam other groups with your idiotic
drivel? By now even you retards should have noticed that the linux users in
this group don't easily buy a underpowered overpriced non-expandable toy
-- 
Linux is not a desktop OS for people whose VCRs are still
flashing "12:00".                         -- Paul Tomblin

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
1/21/2005 7:31:13 AM
begin  Oxford wrote:

> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality
>> > of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme
>> > between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
>> 
>> I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones -
>> and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
> 
> Ah, here's a screenshot of the Ubuntu OS/UI... (smirk) Kinda looks like
> the Apple IIgs OS/UI circa, 1988... Gosh, Linux is in a world of hurt.
> 
> http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=156&slide=36

You mean, you take an install screen as indicator how the finished install
will look later?
Yup, that sounds like the true mac-user Oxford: Incredibly stupid
-- 
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad.    --- Dave Barry

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
1/21/2005 7:39:08 AM
begin  Oxford wrote:

< snip >
 
>> Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?
> 
> Not enough to fill up a mini... 13mb per sec for DV, a couple hundred
> hours on a mini is very manageable. I did it on a 800Mhz G4 several
> years ago, so the mini will breeze through any of the iLife tasks...
> 

So you translate 2GB per hour for MPG-video into "couple hundred hours" for
the 40GB disk?
This explains why you mac-retards can't do math: You simply can't do any
math, not even the simplest one
BTW, if you were right with your "13mb per second", *that* would translate
to 40GB per hour. Filling your toy rather quickly

>> One has to seriously wonder if you idiots actually use any of this
>> software that you claim makes a Mac superior to any other system on the
>> face of the planet.
> 
> YOU were the one that said "iMovie doesn't look to be anything"...
> Meaning you've never touched it... iMovie is the top movie editing
> software made. it's like iTunes is for music, best of breed.
> 

Best of breed for whom? You haven't even seen any "best of breed" apps

-- 
You're not my type.  For that matter, you're not even my species

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
1/21/2005 7:47:39 AM
Oxford wrote:

> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality
>> > of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme
>> > between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
>> 
>> I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones -
>> and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
> 
> Ah, here's a screenshot of the Ubuntu OS/UI... (smirk) Kinda looks like
> the Apple IIgs OS/UI circa, 1988... Gosh, Linux is in a world of hurt.
> 
> http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=156&slide=36

Ubuntu != Linux. 
0
no9 (3192)
1/21/2005 8:24:18 AM
In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
wrote:

> > The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
> 
> Why not? And does it really take a geek to use Linux?

Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
recognise my monitor / video card. I did some trial-and-error with 
various monitor / video card combos until I found a combination that 
locked up my computer. I now have a Linux partition that doesn't know 
which monitor / video card to use. I haven't given up on it (yet), but 
let's say I've got other things to do at the moment.

That, and the disk partitioning thing at the beginning of the 
installation procedure was very geeky. It certainly isn't my mother's 
OS. I won't comment on what it's like to *use* Linux, once it's 
installed (because all it gives me at the moment is a blue-on-black 
screen), but the installation itself was not very user-friendly.

It might not take a geek to use Linux, but it apparently takes one to 
install it.

> Colin Day

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/21/2005 8:35:22 AM
In article <41F066EA.2000202@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
wrote:

> Hey, Linux has (most of?) that. What is OpenAL, though?

It's the audio equivalent of OpenGL:

   http://www.openal.org/

> Colin Day

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/21/2005 8:39:52 AM
In article <olVHd.11601$Vj3.6728@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
> > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
> 
> Add in free Linux and free applications.

Linux is not the equivalent of OS X.

And why don't you list those free apps?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/21/2005 8:40:33 AM
In article <41F062F8.6050707@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
wrote:

> Who said anything about Windows? Why not install Linux?

edwin is a windows shill.

Besides, this is supposed to be a consumer appliance with everything 
already installed.

> Colin Day

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/21/2005 8:43:38 AM
In article <slrncv09ks.13k.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
 General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:

> I looked at http://www.apple.com/ilife/
> and realized I -- like many, many others -- have absolutely no need for
> iLife.

Nor do I. But many do, and if you're going to make a PC equivalent of 
the minimac then you'll have to include a similar suite of apps.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/21/2005 8:44:39 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:23:19 GMT,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <3uk5c2-abh.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT,
>>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
>> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>> 
>> > OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
>> > for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
>> > Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
>> > it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
>> > to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
>> > software.
>> >
>> 
>> Why in heaven's name would I want to put redmondware on it? I'd install
>> Linux, a task which takes me less time than setting up a new preinstalled XP
>> system. 
>
> The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.


Then perhaps you can get the word out among your fellow COLM folks, and
stop the crossposting of Mac stuff, to the Linux newsgroups...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8M4id90bcYOAWPYRAnwXAJ9GU1KhUqleMBc+nyrK+P1Urj+dwACdG2MJ
tY6MUPVoGuF23nimtSgp5A8=
=W44D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You live and learn. Or you don't live long.
        -- Lazarus Long
0
warlock (9522)
1/21/2005 9:40:50 AM
TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> writes:

> I can literally make a Linux distro dance[...]
        ^^^^^^^^^

Are you sure you know what that word means?

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"
                                                     -- Lewis Carroll
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/21/2005 9:48:02 AM
> An interesting way to look at it. If we were to remove the cost of
> all the
> software that is on the Mini, what would the cost be? Let's do so:

> Original cost: $499
> iLife $-79
> AppleWorks $-79
> Quicken $-69.65
> OS X $-129
> Nanosaur 2 $-14.95
> Marble Blast Gold $-14.95

> Total $112.15

> So for all the yahoos who are comparing the Mini to PC's with no
> software,
> the cost of the Mini, without software, is $112.15, but you can not
> buy it
> without its bundled software.

> I look forward to seeing the DIY hobby machine for less than $150 that
> matches the hardware of the Mini. :)

Thats just silly. You wouldnt subtract the retail price of the
software just the OEM price and most of it would cost Apple nothing
at all.

What you all seem to be forgetting is that when us DIY PC builders
buy the individual parts, most of them come bundled with software
like Power DVD etc...

My Corretto mini-pc at $640 came with Windows XP, Power DVD, Norton
internet security, Photoshop, 3 games and Nero burning rom. Now ok
it costs $141 more than the Mini Mac but thats with a Hyperthreaded
3Gig P4c 800MHz FSB, 1024MB DDR400 RAM an 80 GB hard drive and a
slim DVD RW.

Now add a 80Gig HD and 1 Gig of RAM to the Mini Mac and see how much
it costs.

http://www.worldssmallestpc.com/800_serious.htm

* posted via http://mymac.ws
0
joshvee2 (3)
1/21/2005 10:13:08 AM
TheLetterK wrote:
> In article <trman-25A357.20163620012005@news.central.cox.net>,
>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>TravelinMan wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3uk5c2-abh.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT,
>>>>>TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>
>>>>>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
>>>>>>for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
>>>>>>Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for getting 
>>>>>>it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
>>>>>>to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
>>>>>>software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why in heaven's name would I want to put redmondware on it? I'd install
>>>>>Linux, a task which takes me less time than setting up a new preinstalled 
>>>>>XP
>>>>>system. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
>>>
>>>Why not? 
>>
>>Because it's targeted at people who don't want to futz with their 
>>computer. They  just want to use it.
> 
> Which is exactly why I use Linux.
> 
>>>And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
>>>
>>
>>At any reasonable level, yes.
> 
> It's easier to use than Windows is, that's for certain.

Linux (SuSE?) is definitely more difficult to use than Windows XP SP2.

Roy
0
RoyCoorne (27)
1/21/2005 10:25:43 AM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:03:52 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
>> > of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
>> > between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
>> 
>> I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones - 
>> and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
> 
> Ah, here's a screenshot of the Ubuntu OS/UI... (smirk) Kinda looks like 
> the Apple IIgs OS/UI circa, 1988... Gosh, Linux is in a world of hurt.
> 
> http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=156&slide=36

Does it really? First, you are looking at Gnome screen during the install.

Second:

<http://apple2history.org/museum/screenshots/a2gsfinder.html>

<http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/Apple%20IIgs%20System%20v6-0-1/gsosfolders.gif>

Care to tell us, again, how it looks like a GS screen?

-- 
Rick

0
none10 (4038)
1/21/2005 10:41:35 AM

----------
In article <_ZSHd.11559$Vj3.8588@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
<thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Apple will sell plenty of Mac Minis, no doubt about it.    People wanting to
> replace old Macs, or even PC people who want to try the Mac will buy them.
>
> But that doesn't change what's a better value for the money.

It must be very hard for someone such as yourself, someone who has never
used a modern Mac for any reasonable period, to understand what a Mac user
considers "value for the money", one thing I guarantee is that when equating
such a concept to actual hardware a Mac advocate will never hobble
themselves to such a vast degree by even considering hardware that is unable
to run the OS and apps of choice, every alternative that you have proposed
can in no way be considered an alternative, or comparable, and certainly not
a "match" for any Mac! Your offerings belong in a ng other than a Mac one,
sell your second rate ideas to those who are willing to put up with them,
most here have far higher standards than that! and those Mac users that also
use PC's have shown a far higher degree of knowledge than you on both
systems, and guess what Edwin ...............they already know that PC's can
be had cheaply!   LOL
 
0
wally1870 (4724)
1/21/2005 10:44:59 AM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:58:12 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <slrncv0t4g.21g.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> 
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:54:42 GMT, Colin Day wrote:
>> >
>> > TravelinMan wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Name the equivalents of iLife, Quicken, and AppleWorks. Then name the OS 
>> >> that's the equivalent of OS X.
>> >
>> > And I need these why?
>> 
>> Why, to support his strawman argument, silly!
> 
> Well, no. Because the Mac Mini is targeted at Home users - you know, 
> people who do things like digital photography, manage their checkbook, 
> write letters, and so on.

There is no 'suite' containing iLife type apps, but there are separate
apps that perform the same functions. As for the others:
GnuCash (or run Quicken under Wine), and  OpenOffice.

-- 
Rick

0
none10 (4038)
1/21/2005 10:47:11 AM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:51:25 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <slrncv0t0l.21g.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> 
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:26:10 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
>> > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
>> >> That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
>> >> only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
>> >
>> > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
>> >
>> > This ought to be good.
>> 
>> It's really simple: it runs on commodity hardware, not overpriced Apple crap.
> 
> Oh. You didn't mean better, you meant cheaper.
> 
> That's probably true - until you include support costs.

That's true. Apple seems to have higher support costs.

-- 
Rick

0
none10 (4038)
1/21/2005 10:47:57 AM
joshvee wrote:
....
> It's funny how every mac mini comparison / debate turns into an OS
> war.
....

THX for your clarification and for sharing us your experience within 
both 'worlds' - most useful!

As it is, the major difference seems, indeed, to be the OS!
Of course, with choosing Mac OS X one is entering a proprietary world 
of software, hardware, and support - and paying the price.

BTW - Is the Mac mini the loss leader luring WIntel adherents into the 
glittering white world of Mac?


Roy <going to be seduced by The Tiger on the Mac mini>
0
RoyCoorne (27)
1/21/2005 10:53:02 AM

----------
In article <1106247658.222725.10060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Edwin"
<thorne25@juno.com> wrote:


>
> Sandman wrote:
>> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out
> PCs from a
>> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for
> them.
>> >
>> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>> >
>> > ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
>> > ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
>> > FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
>> > DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
>> > GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
>> > AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
>> > LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek
> 8201BL PHY)
>> > Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
>> > Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
>> > 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
>> > Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
>> > 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
>> > 1 x Security Key
>> > 1 x S/PDIF out
>> > 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
>> > 2 x USB 2.0
>> > 1 x Mic-in
>> > 1 x Headphone
>> > Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
>> > 1 x PS /2 Mouse
>> > 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
>> > 1 x S-Video
>> > 1 x TV-Out
>> > 2 x USB 2.0
>> > 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
>> > 1 x DVI-D
>> > 1 x VGA
>> > 1 x Parallel
>> > 1 x Serial
>> > Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
>> > IncludedHDD Security Key
>> >
>> > $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU,
> memory,
>> > hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU
> heatsink
>> > and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
>> >
>> > $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R
> system,
>> > which includes:
>> >
>> > Intel� Celeron� Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
>> >
>> >  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
>> > (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store
> charges)
>> >
>> > 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
>> > (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
>> >
>> > 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
>> > (with several other optical drive options)
>> >
>> > ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
>> >
>> > DOS Format (Linux Ready)
>> > (with three other OS choices)
>> >
>> > 1 Year Warranty
>> > (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . .
>
>> > [+$47.00] )
>>
>> Wow, a cheap PC - No oen saw THAT one coming!
>
> Alan Baker and Joe Ragosta didn't.   They couldn't even find it on
> CappuccinoPC's Web site by themselves.   They needed me to point it out
> to them.
>
>> Did your Mac mini arrive yet Edwin?
>
> Nope.   It doesn't look like I'll be buying one after all, seeing how
> Joe Ragosta took a turn at convincing me of my igorance of Mac OS X
> (much as you had done) and that was my only reason to buy a Mac Mini.

What!...Your only reason for buying a Mac Mini was to be able to *prove*
your ignorance of Mac OS X, but now you don't need one because Joe and
Sandman have proved that for you?
It's true ...A fool and his money is soon parted! you should thank them
Edwin.   LOL
 
0
wally1870 (4724)
1/21/2005 10:53:25 AM
joshvee wrote:
....
> What you all seem to be forgetting is that when us DIY PC builders
> buy the individual parts, most of them come bundled with software
> like Power DVD etc...
> 
> My Corretto mini-pc at $640 came with Windows XP, Power DVD, Norton
> internet security, Photoshop, 3 games and Nero burning rom. Now ok
             - which Photoshop version? -
> it costs $141 more than the Mini Mac but thats with a Hyperthreaded
> 3Gig P4c 800MHz FSB, 1024MB DDR400 RAM an 80 GB hard drive and a
> slim DVD RW.
> 
> Now add a 80Gig HD and 1 Gig of RAM to the Mini Mac and see how much
> it costs.
> 
> http://www.worldssmallestpc.com/800_serious.htm

Unfortunately, the Corretto apparently is not developed further: no 
Athlon 64 version, the reviews on the web site are of 2003, their 
CeBIT announcement refers to 2004, and there is no list of resellers 
or recommended prices...

Whereas the Mac mini tries to follow the iPod on its road of success...


Roy
0
RoyCoorne (27)
1/21/2005 11:03:14 AM

----------
In article <1106249810.998532.78490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Macslut"
<macslut@yahoo.com> wrote:

> For quite some time now I've received free PCs for consulting and
> reviewing, but I've almost always had to buy my own Macintosh.  My Mac
> purchases are usually top of the line (as are my free PCs), but I still
> buy Macs because the ability to use the Mac is worth the price to me,
> even if it is the full price of the Mac versus a free PC.
>
> To use the old car analogy, I could've gotten a Ford Pinto for free,
> but I bought a Mercedes.

 Quite right!, and if some lame brain wishes to show how you could have got
a cheaper Merc they could *only* do it by using another Merc as a
comparison!
0
wally1870 (4724)
1/21/2005 11:13:19 AM
begin  Roy Coorne wrote:

< snip >
 
>>>>And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
>>>>
>>>
>>>At any reasonable level, yes.
>> 
>> It's easier to use than Windows is, that's for certain.
> 
> Linux (SuSE?) is definitely more difficult to use than Windows XP SP2.
> 

Nope. This may be true for someone using it the first time.
After having it used for some time, windows seems more difficult to use than
linux
-- 
Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
a trail of destruction behind it.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
1/21/2005 12:05:15 PM
In article <1106281093.5f627ddfc8a728372c72635067db5674@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-21, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
> > In article <1106251689.4f7f5c41d8116d2eca93b7f4dcc4a277@1usenet>,
> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
> >> > 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 
> >> > PM:
> >> >
> >> >>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
> >> >>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
> >> >>>  sent to you.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
> >> >> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
> >> >
> >> > You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you 
> >> > would
> >> > install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
> >> > similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
> >> 
> >>  ...except to really exploit that software, you will need more storage
> >> than the mini can accomodate. Based on that usage pattern, a $260 bookpc 
> >> would
> >> suffice. 
> >> [deletia]
> >> 
> >>  XPCs are overkill for this exercise.
> >
> > OK, smartass, give us the specs on that $260 bookpc.  Complete with OS
> > and all the apps that you and others claim are the equal of just iLife
> > alone.
> 
> 	Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
> there.

Just what are you talking about?

The Mini will run iLife just fine. Now, if you're going to be doing a 
lot of video editing, I'd suggest a larger external drive. But the 
system will run fine without it.

> 
> 	Although, everything except perhaps iMovie is easily replacable even
> with free/shareware. Even iMovie doesn't look to be anything particularly 
> special.

Of course, since you've never used any of the iLife apps, your position 
is rather questionable.

> 
> 	Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?

Well, I have something like 7,000 songs in 22 GB on my Mac.

> 
> 
> 	One has to seriously wonder if you idiots actually use any of this
> software that you claim makes a Mac superior to any other system on the face
> of the planet.

Obviously, you don't.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 12:43:40 PM
On 2005-01-21, Gary Kercheck <hamms@thebeerrefreshing.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>
>> 	Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
>> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
>> there.
>
> Apple gives you all these wonderful tools to manage your music, pictures 
> and video and you don't want to acknowledge them because you don't get 

	What's the point of fancy management tools if you don't have the 
	room to manage anything.

> infinite HD storage on the mini?  Allrighty.  Add a freakin' firewire 
> drive if 40G or 80G isn't enough.

	80G for multimedia is a drop in the bucket.

	Do any of you bozos actually use this stuff?

>
>> 	Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?
>
> Do you have any clue how large your music collection would have to be to 
> completely fill the mini's optional 80G drive, even allowing for the 
> space OSX and the built in apps take up?

	Then strike video from the list and admit that a book pc with
a base copy of XP or Linux would be more than enough software for the
needs of the novice in question.

	I know people with mp3 collections that large. It's not that
hard really if you've been an active music consumer for a number of
years.

	However, it would be the video that would really get you. You
seem utterly oblivous to that.


-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 12:47:09 PM
On 2005-01-21, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
> 1106281093.5f627ddfc8a728372c72635067db5674@1usenet on 1/20/05 9:18 PM:
>
>> On 2005-01-21, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1106251689.4f7f5c41d8116d2eca93b7f4dcc4a277@1usenet>,
>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
>>>>> 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
>>>>>>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>>>>>>>  sent to you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
>>>>>> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
>>>>> install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
>>>>> similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
>>>> 
>>>>  ...except to really exploit that software, you will need more storage
>>>> than the mini can accomodate. Based on that usage pattern, a $260 bookpc
>>>> would
>>>> suffice. 
>>>> [deletia]
>>>> 
>>>>  XPCs are overkill for this exercise.
>>> 
>>> OK, smartass, give us the specs on that $260 bookpc.  Complete with OS
>>> and all the apps that you and others claim are the equal of just iLife
>>> alone.
>> 
>> Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
>> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
>> there.
>
> Sure it does.  It has plenty for music and images, and even for a small
> amount of video.  For folks doing more video, it is easy to connect an
> external drive - if needed.  The system can easily grow if the person gets
> that need.

	Then show us the citations of Jobs selling the mini as little more than
the hub in a relatively large distributed desktop PC.

>> 
>> Although, everything except perhaps iMovie is easily replacable even
>> with free/shareware. Even iMovie doesn't look to be anything particularly
>> special.
>
> Please, name the titles.
>
> My guess: you won't.  Predictable...

	I don't need to bother. You've not demonstrated why anyone should
take the first assertion seriously: namely that iLife is something remarkable.
You people haven't even done so much as to demonstrate why it should be viewed
useful relative to NOTHING.

[deletia]

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 12:50:00 PM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2005-01-21, Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> 	Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
>> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
>> there.
>
> What an idiot, it has unlimited storage via the firewire port... Have 

	...at which point, the mini becomes a mess.
	
	You could just get the Dell equivalent to begin with.

> you even used firewire? do you even understand you can have 63 HD's 

	I am running it right now. That is why I am highly dubious of you
Ivory tower sorts that claim that it is suitable for the common novice
who is enamored with the ipod and might be expected to be enamored with 
the mini.

> connected to the 1 port? It will run Final Cut if needed... iLife will 
> run fine.  A couple terabytes should be plenty for the mini.
>
>> 	Although, everything except perhaps iMovie is easily replacable even
>> with free/shareware. Even iMovie doesn't look to be anything particularly 
>> special.
>
> You can't find a iTunes class app, nor iDVD, nor GarageBand. iPhoto, 
> sure...
>
>> 	Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?
>
> Not enough to fill up a mini... 13mb per sec for DV, a couple hundred 
> hours on a mini is very manageable. I did it on a 800Mhz G4 several 

        I will leave this for the spectator to sort through.
	
	You can make your own conclusions regarding the such arguments.

> years ago, so the mini will breeze through any of the iLife tasks...
>
>> 	One has to seriously wonder if you idiots actually use any of this
>> software that you claim makes a Mac superior to any other system on the face
>> of the planet.
>
> YOU were the one that said "iMovie doesn't look to be anything"... 
> Meaning you've never touched it... iMovie is the top movie editing 
> software made. it's like iTunes is for music, best of breed.

	Platitudes aren't a sufficient sales pitch.

[deletia]

	Perhaps this is why Apple tanked. They had a similarly arrogant sales
staff.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 12:55:04 PM
On 2005-01-21, Peter K�hlmann <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin  Oxford wrote:
>
>< snip >
>  
>>> Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?
>> 
>> Not enough to fill up a mini... 13mb per sec for DV, a couple hundred
>> hours on a mini is very manageable. I did it on a 800Mhz G4 several
>> years ago, so the mini will breeze through any of the iLife tasks...
>> 
>
> So you translate 2GB per hour for MPG-video into "couple hundred hours" for
> the 40GB disk?
> This explains why you mac-retards can't do math: You simply can't do any
> math, not even the simplest one
> BTW, if you were right with your "13mb per second", *that* would translate
> to 40GB per hour. Filling your toy rather quickly

     This just goes to show that no amount of spiffy software is a replacement
for basic domain information about a problem.

[deletia]

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 1:03:39 PM
On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
>> 
>
> Run it on an IBM Mainframe?

Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?

Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?

Run some custom app on a 64 cpu single image SMP machine with a stock
	version of the OS?

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 1:05:40 PM
On 2005-01-21, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> > The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
>> 
>> Why not? And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
>
> Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
> installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
> X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
> recognise my monitor / video card. I did some trial-and-error with 
> various monitor / video card combos until I found a combination that 
> locked up my computer. I now have a Linux partition that doesn't know 
> which monitor / video card to use. I haven't given up on it (yet), but 
> let's say I've got other things to do at the moment.
>
> That, and the disk partitioning thing at the beginning of the 
> installation procedure was very geeky. It certainly isn't my mother's 
> OS. I won't comment on what it's like to *use* Linux, once it's 
> installed (because all it gives me at the moment is a blue-on-black 
> screen), but the installation itself was not very user-friendly.
>
> It might not take a geek to use Linux, but it apparently takes one to 
> install it.

    You have a system that is not bound to one particular set of hardware
interacting with a system that is. This has nothing to do with Linux being
geeky and everything to do with the supported hardware lists of the two
vendors not being in sync.

    ...that and less effort and debugging expended on a 2nd tier platform.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 1:11:22 PM
In article <1106311800.3bf6ce1b6ba9d16237203cd7ce27c726@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-21, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
> > 1106281093.5f627ddfc8a728372c72635067db5674@1usenet on 1/20/05 9:18 PM:
> >
> >> On 2005-01-21, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <1106251689.4f7f5c41d8116d2eca93b7f4dcc4a277@1usenet>,
> >>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
> >>>>> 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 
> >>>>> PM:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
> >>>>>>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
> >>>>>>>  sent to you.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
> >>>>>> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you 
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
> >>>>> similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
> >>>> 
> >>>>  ...except to really exploit that software, you will need more storage
> >>>> than the mini can accomodate. Based on that usage pattern, a $260 bookpc
> >>>> would
> >>>> suffice. 
> >>>> [deletia]
> >>>> 
> >>>>  XPCs are overkill for this exercise.
> >>> 
> >>> OK, smartass, give us the specs on that $260 bookpc.  Complete with OS
> >>> and all the apps that you and others claim are the equal of just iLife
> >>> alone.
> >> 
> >> Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
> >> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
> >> there.
> >
> > Sure it does.  It has plenty for music and images, and even for a small
> > amount of video.  For folks doing more video, it is easy to connect an
> > external drive - if needed.  The system can easily grow if the person gets
> > that need.
> 
> 	Then show us the citations of Jobs selling the mini as little more than
> the hub in a relatively large distributed desktop PC.

How does adding an external drive turn the Mini into 'a relatively large 
distributed desktop PC'?

> 
> >> 
> >> Although, everything except perhaps iMovie is easily replacable even
> >> with free/shareware. Even iMovie doesn't look to be anything particularly
> >> special.
> >
> > Please, name the titles.
> >
> > My guess: you won't.  Predictable...
> 
> 	I don't need to bother. You've not demonstrated why anyone should
> take the first assertion seriously: namely that iLife is something 
> remarkable.
> You people haven't even done so much as to demonstrate why it should be 
> viewed
> useful relative to NOTHING.

ROTFLMAO. So we're just supposed to take your word for it when:
a. You've never used iLife
b. You can't even name the apps that you say are equivalent.

Nice try.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 1:18:08 PM
In article <1106312104.26caa6ddfdaaeac355acc9cf20b4aba8@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2005-01-21, Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> 	Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
> >> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
> >> there.
> >
> > What an idiot, it has unlimited storage via the firewire port... Have 
> 
> 	...at which point, the mini becomes a mess.

One external drive makes it a mess?

You should see my desk if you want to see a mess.
> 	
> 	You could just get the Dell equivalent to begin with.

And I would be happy to buy the Dell if it ran the OS and software I 
want to run. Sadly, it doesn't.

> 
> > you even used firewire? do you even understand you can have 63 HD's 
> 
> 	I am running it right now. That is why I am highly dubious of you
> Ivory tower sorts that claim that it is suitable for the common novice
> who is enamored with the ipod and might be expected to be enamored with 
> the mini.

ROTFLMAO. With a firewire drive, you plug it in and go.

It's really rather humorous that you think that average computer users 
can't handle that, but ANYONE should be able to install and use Linux, 
compile a kernel, and write their own drivers.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 1:28:03 PM
In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
> >> 
> >
> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
> 
> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?

Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.

> 
> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?

It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.

> 
> Run some custom app on a 64 cpu single image SMP machine with a stock
> 	version of the OS?

It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 1:29:01 PM
In article <1106313082.5d4d7c782441983ac44dc4f64736ecd1@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-21, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
> >> 
> >> Why not? And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> >
> > Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
> > installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
> > X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
> > recognise my monitor / video card. I did some trial-and-error with 
> > various monitor / video card combos until I found a combination that 
> > locked up my computer. I now have a Linux partition that doesn't know 
> > which monitor / video card to use. I haven't given up on it (yet), but 
> > let's say I've got other things to do at the moment.
> >
> > That, and the disk partitioning thing at the beginning of the 
> > installation procedure was very geeky. It certainly isn't my mother's 
> > OS. I won't comment on what it's like to *use* Linux, once it's 
> > installed (because all it gives me at the moment is a blue-on-black 
> > screen), but the installation itself was not very user-friendly.
> >
> > It might not take a geek to use Linux, but it apparently takes one to 
> > install it.
> 
>     You have a system that is not bound to one particular set of hardware
> interacting with a system that is. This has nothing to do with Linux being
> geeky and everything to do with the supported hardware lists of the two
> vendors not being in sync.

It doesn't matter what your excuse it. That (among other things) makes 
Linux harder to use than OS X.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 1:30:47 PM
On 2005-01-21, Wally <wally@wally.world.net> wrote:
>
>
> ----------
> In article <_ZSHd.11559$Vj3.8588@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
><thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple will sell plenty of Mac Minis, no doubt about it.    People wanting to
>> replace old Macs, or even PC people who want to try the Mac will buy them.
>>
>> But that doesn't change what's a better value for the money.
>
> It must be very hard for someone such as yourself, someone who has never
> used a modern Mac for any reasonable period, to understand what a Mac user
> considers "value for the money", one thing I guarantee is that when equating

	Quite right considering:

		Generic parts stamped out from the same chinese factories 
		where everyone else gets their parts.

		Limited expandability.
			No PCI slots
			No Cardbus slots.

		No option for high speed ethernet.
			Handy if a box is castrated to begin with.

		Limited to relatively overpriced and small storage devices.
			Ever work with uncompressed video?

		Less physical memory capacity.

		No faster CPU options.
			Especially handy for handling video.

> such a concept to actual hardware a Mac advocate will never hobble
> themselves to such a vast degree by even considering hardware that is unable
> to run the OS and apps of choice, every alternative that you have proposed

		That's fine for the 10 or 20 people that are apple users.

		The rest of us have a wide array of choices to pick from.

> can in no way be considered an alternative, or comparable, and certainly not
> a "match" for any Mac! Your offerings belong in a ng other than a Mac one,
> sell your second rate ideas to those who are willing to put up with them,
> most here have far higher standards than that! and those Mac users that also
> use PC's have shown a far higher degree of knowledge than you on both
> systems, and guess what Edwin ...............they already know that PC's can
> be had cheaply!   LOL

	This isn't about cheap. It's about the Mac in question being the
equivalent of just about the lowest end piece of crap PC you could get 
your hands on. At least in the old days a Mac represented a superior 
featureset.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 2:08:26 PM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1106311800.3bf6ce1b6ba9d16237203cd7ce27c726@1usenet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-01-21, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
>> > 1106281093.5f627ddfc8a728372c72635067db5674@1usenet on 1/20/05 9:18 PM:
>> >
>> >> On 2005-01-21, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
>> >>> In article <1106251689.4f7f5c41d8116d2eca93b7f4dcc4a277@1usenet>,
>> >>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>>> On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> >>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
>> >>>>> 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 12:15 
>> >>>>> PM:
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>>>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
>> >>>>>>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>> >>>>>>>  sent to you.
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
>> >>>>>> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you 
>> >>>>> would
>> >>>>> install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
>> >>>>> similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>>  ...except to really exploit that software, you will need more storage
>> >>>> than the mini can accomodate. Based on that usage pattern, a $260 bookpc
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> suffice. 
>> >>>> [deletia]
>> >>>> 
>> >>>>  XPCs are overkill for this exercise.
>> >>> 
>> >>> OK, smartass, give us the specs on that $260 bookpc.  Complete with OS
>> >>> and all the apps that you and others claim are the equal of just iLife
>> >>> alone.
>> >> 
>> >> Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
>> >> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
>> >> there.
>> >
>> > Sure it does.  It has plenty for music and images, and even for a small
>> > amount of video.  For folks doing more video, it is easy to connect an
>> > external drive - if needed.  The system can easily grow if the person gets
>> > that need.
>> 
>> 	Then show us the citations of Jobs selling the mini as little more than
>> the hub in a relatively large distributed desktop PC.
>
> How does adding an external drive turn the Mini into 'a relatively large 
> distributed desktop PC'?

	Those extra firewire components take up space. If that space weren't 
considered a premium, you wouldn't be making excuses for a desktop machine
that uses laptop storage components to "save precious space".

[deletia]
>> You people haven't even done so much as to demonstrate why it should be 
>> viewed
>> useful relative to NOTHING.
>
> ROTFLMAO. So we're just supposed to take your word for it when:
> a. You've never used iLife
> b. You can't even name the apps that you say are equivalent.
>
> Nice try.

	Any photo cataloger.
	Any media player.
	Any sequencer.
	Any non-linear video editor.

	Although, I am not the one trying to sell the "superiority of
iLife".

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 2:12:45 PM
On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1106312104.26caa6ddfdaaeac355acc9cf20b4aba8@1usenet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On 2005-01-21, Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
>> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 	Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
>> >> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that it's
>> >> there.
>> >
>> > What an idiot, it has unlimited storage via the firewire port... Have 
>> 
>> 	...at which point, the mini becomes a mess.
>
> One external drive makes it a mess?

	You're forgetting the burner that can make DVD9 disks.

>
> You should see my desk if you want to see a mess.
>> 	
>> 	You could just get the Dell equivalent to begin with.
>
> And I would be happy to buy the Dell if it ran the OS and software I 
> want to run. Sadly, it doesn't.

	You don't even run iLife. Don't even try and pretend you do.

	You don't have the slightest clue what's involved.

>
>> 
>> > you even used firewire? do you even understand you can have 63 HD's 
>> 
>> 	I am running it right now. That is why I am highly dubious of you
>> Ivory tower sorts that claim that it is suitable for the common novice
>> who is enamored with the ipod and might be expected to be enamored with 
>> the mini.
>
> ROTFLMAO. With a firewire drive, you plug it in and go.
>
> It's really rather humorous that you think that average computer users 
> can't handle that, but ANYONE should be able to install and use Linux, 
> compile a kernel, and write their own drivers.

	1996 called, it wants it's post back.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 2:18:13 PM
On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> > Alan Baker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
>> >> 
>> >
>> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
>> 
>> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
>
> Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.

	This is really funny since Dell is more than capable of selling
you a quite respectable RDBMS cluster using hardware on par with the
puny pizzaboxes that Apple tries to sell (or real boxes, if you like).

>
>> 
>> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
>
> It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.

	Linux did that 10 years ago. Although it's not comparable.

>
>> 
>> Run some custom app on a 64 cpu single image SMP machine with a stock
>> 	version of the OS?
>
> It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.

	Showing your total cluelessness again I see. Apparently, basic
arithmetic and video editing aren't the only things you know nothing 
about.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 2:20:53 PM
On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1106313082.5d4d7c782441983ac44dc4f64736ecd1@1usenet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-01-21, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>> > In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
>> > wrote:
[deletia]
>> > Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
>> > installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
>> > X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
[deletia]
>>     You have a system that is not bound to one particular set of hardware
>> interacting with a system that is. This has nothing to do with Linux being
>> geeky and everything to do with the supported hardware lists of the two
>> vendors not being in sync.
>
> It doesn't matter what your excuse it. That (among other things) makes 
> Linux harder to use than OS X.

	...on closed vendor hardware.

	Your argument only works if you attempt to assume that an iMac
is the only platform that Linux can run on. Infact, there are vendor
supported XPC's that Linux can run on.

	Let's try installing MacOS on a Dell and see how far we get.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 2:23:24 PM
In article <1106316506.62fe8dc6c43248dcb17c200cc8152b15@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-21, Wally <wally@wally.world.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > In article <_ZSHd.11559$Vj3.8588@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
> ><thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Apple will sell plenty of Mac Minis, no doubt about it.    People wanting 
> >> to
> >> replace old Macs, or even PC people who want to try the Mac will buy them.
> >>
> >> But that doesn't change what's a better value for the money.
> >
> > It must be very hard for someone such as yourself, someone who has never
> > used a modern Mac for any reasonable period, to understand what a Mac user
> > considers "value for the money", one thing I guarantee is that when 
> > equating
> 
> 	Quite right considering:
> 
> 		Generic parts stamped out from the same chinese factories 
> 		where everyone else gets their parts.

No kidding?

The G4 and G5 are now 'generic parts produced in Chinese factories?
The Mac motherboards are now generic?
OS X is generic?
iLife is generic?
The Mac cases and power supplies are generic?

Amazing.

> 
> 		Limited expandability.
> 			No PCI slots
> 			No Cardbus slots.

Not important for some people. If you want them, you can get them in 
other Mac models. This, of course, has nothing to do with why a Mac user 
would prefer OS X.

> 
> 		No option for high speed ethernet.
> 			Handy if a box is castrated to begin with.

Not on the mini. If you need it, it's available on other models. This, 
of course, has nothing to do with why a Mac user would prefer OS X.

> 
> 		Limited to relatively overpriced and small storage devices.
> 			Ever work with uncompressed video?
> 
> 		Less physical memory capacity.
> 
> 		No faster CPU options.
> 			Especially handy for handling video.

Not important for some people. If you want them, you can get them in 
other Mac models. This, of course, has nothing to do with why a Mac user 
would prefer OS X.

> 
> > such a concept to actual hardware a Mac advocate will never hobble
> > themselves to such a vast degree by even considering hardware that is 
> > unable
> > to run the OS and apps of choice, every alternative that you have proposed
> 
> 		That's fine for the 10 or 20 people that are apple users.

Yep. If you're unwilling to learn about Macs, just throw out lies.

> 
> 		The rest of us have a wide array of choices to pick from.

Fewer choices than I do.

I considered all types of computers before buying my last Mac.

You, OTOH, apparently considered all types EXCEPT Macs.

That means I had more choice.

> 
> > can in no way be considered an alternative, or comparable, and certainly 
> > not
> > a "match" for any Mac! Your offerings belong in a ng other than a Mac one,
> > sell your second rate ideas to those who are willing to put up with them,
> > most here have far higher standards than that! and those Mac users that 
> > also
> > use PC's have shown a far higher degree of knowledge than you on both
> > systems, and guess what Edwin ...............they already know that PC's 
> > can
> > be had cheaply!   LOL
> 
> 	This isn't about cheap. It's about the Mac in question being the
> equivalent of just about the lowest end piece of crap PC you could get 
> your hands on. At least in the old days a Mac represented a superior 
> featureset.

Notice that you've never answered his question. How would you know what 
Mac users value when you refuse to even try one?
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/21/2005 2:24:16 PM
On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <1106316506.62fe8dc6c43248dcb17c200cc8152b15@1usenet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-01-21, Wally <wally@wally.world.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > In article <_ZSHd.11559$Vj3.8588@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>> ><thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
[deletia]
>> 
>> 		Limited expandability.
>> 			No PCI slots
>> 			No Cardbus slots.
>
> Not important for some people. If you want them, you can get them in 
> other Mac models. This, of course, has nothing to do with why a Mac user

	For DRAMATICALLY more money. With a little bit more modularity in 
their design process, they could cover all the bases with minimal effort
like Shuttle does.

	They can do as well as a lowly PC board vendor can't they?
 
	This demonstrates the problem of being held captive by a single
vendor that would become the hated monopoly themselves if only they could.

> would prefer OS X.
>
>> 
>> 		No option for high speed ethernet.
>> 			Handy if a box is castrated to begin with.
>
> Not on the mini. If you need it, it's available on other models. This, 

	For a cost dramatically higher than the marginal cost of the features
in question.
 
> of course, has nothing to do with why a Mac user would prefer OS X.
>
>> 
>> 		Limited to relatively overpriced and small storage devices.
>> 			Ever work with uncompressed video?
>> 
>> 		Less physical memory capacity.
>> 
>> 		No faster CPU options.
>> 			Especially handy for handling video.
>
> Not important for some people. If you want them, you can get them in 
> other Mac models. This, of course, has nothing to do with why a Mac user 

	For 4 times the price. This is suppoesed to be a Mac for the rest
of us that don't need another monitor, keyboard or laptop.

	It's turning out to be the Apple Book PC.

[deletia]
>> > also
>> > use PC's have shown a far higher degree of knowledge than you on both
>> > systems, and guess what Edwin ...............they already know that PC's 
>> > can
>> > be had cheaply!   LOL
>> 
>> 	This isn't about cheap. It's about the Mac in question being the
>> equivalent of just about the lowest end piece of crap PC you could get 
>> your hands on. At least in the old days a Mac represented a superior 
>> featureset.
>
> Notice that you've never answered his question. How would you know what 
> Mac users value when you refuse to even try one?

	You assume too much.	

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 2:32:13 PM
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:08:26 GMT, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>	Quite right considering:

>		Generic parts stamped out from the same chinese factories 
>		where everyone else gets their parts.

>		Limited expandability.
>			No PCI slots
>			No Cardbus slots.

It doesn't even have enough usb connectors to connect a digital camera and
a printer!

Sure, you can use a hub, but just about every other PC on the planet has at
least 4 usb connectors, many have 6 (2 front, 4 rear).

Even gateway on their crap celeron minisystem realized that if one connector
was  needed for keyboard and mouse, then they ought to put three connectors on
the back.
0
TCS
1/21/2005 2:33:41 PM
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:44:39 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> In article <slrncv09ks.13k.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>
>> I looked at http://www.apple.com/ilife/
>> and realized I -- like many, many others -- have absolutely no need for
>> iLife.
>
> Nor do I. But many do, and if you're going to make a PC equivalent of 
> the minimac then you'll have to include a similar suite of apps.

That is an utterly retarded argument.

The equivalent for *most* people won't need an iLife-like product, because
they wouldn't use iLife on the Mac.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 8:35AM  up 21:33, 1 user, load averages: 0.07, 0.02, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/21/2005 2:41:09 PM
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:05:40 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
>>> 
>>
>> Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
>
> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?

As much as I hate to support the Mac lusers, Oracle Database 10g is 
available and supported on OS X.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1748454,00.asp

Funny article:

"Oracle Corp. quietly began shipping Oracle Database 10g and Oracle JDeveloper 
10g for the Mac OS X Server in late December, an Oracle spokesperson 
confirmed. Whether anybody cares is another matter, analysts said."

and

""I haven't run into a single data center that's running a Macintosh server,
" said Charlie Garry, senior program director for database research at Meta 
Group, in Simsbury, Conn."

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 8:40AM  up 21:38, 1 user, load averages: 0.04, 0.01, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/21/2005 2:48:58 PM
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:51:25 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <slrncv0t0l.21g.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:26:10 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
>> > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
>> >> That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
>> >> only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
>> >
>> > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
>> >
>> > This ought to be good.
>> 
>> It's really simple: it runs on commodity hardware, not overpriced Apple crap.
>
> Oh. You didn't mean better, you meant cheaper.
>
> That's probably true - until you include support costs.

What support costs are you inventing here?

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 8:45AM  up 21:43, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
0
generalpf (2660)
1/21/2005 2:51:27 PM
In article <1106317933.eaa7b5f5c006a2449d0e8230a82f6100@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > In article <1106316506.62fe8dc6c43248dcb17c200cc8152b15@1usenet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-01-21, Wally <wally@wally.world.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----------
> >> > In article <_ZSHd.11559$Vj3.8588@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
> >> ><thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> 
> >> 		Limited expandability.
> >> 			No PCI slots
> >> 			No Cardbus slots.
> >
> > Not important for some people. If you want them, you can get them in 
> > other Mac models. This, of course, has nothing to do with why a Mac user
> 
> 	For DRAMATICALLY more money. 

Define "DRAMATICALLY more".


> With a little bit more modularity in 
> their design process, they could cover all the bases with minimal effort
> like Shuttle does.
> 
> 	They can do as well as a lowly PC board vendor can't they?
>  
> 	This demonstrates the problem of being held captive by a single
> vendor that would become the hated monopoly themselves if only they could.

That's one viewpoint... there is another that feels buying a complete 
system created by one vendor isn't such a bad thing. Personally, I don't 
feel like I'm being held captive by a box of circuitry and software 
because they all contain the same logo; if I did, I think I'd stop using 
computers altogether.


> > would prefer OS X.
> >
> >> 
> >> 		No option for high speed ethernet.
> >> 			Handy if a box is castrated to begin with.
> >
> > Not on the mini. If you need it, it's available on other models. This, 
> 
> 	For a cost dramatically higher than the marginal cost of the features
> in question.
>  
> > of course, has nothing to do with why a Mac user would prefer OS X.
> >
> >> 
> >> 		Limited to relatively overpriced and small storage devices.
> >> 			Ever work with uncompressed video?
> >> 
> >> 		Less physical memory capacity.
> >> 
> >> 		No faster CPU options.
> >> 			Especially handy for handling video.
> >
> > Not important for some people. If you want them, you can get them in 
> > other Mac models. This, of course, has nothing to do with why a Mac user 
> 
> 	For 4 times the price. 

$125.00? OK, I can see why you stated "DRAMATICALLY more money" up 
above. This sounds like an excellent deal for a person that doesn't like 
OSX or any of the available Mac software... outperforming the Mini on 
such things as video handling and what-not. Where can this box be 
bought? Who is the manufacturer? My PC using friends would love to get 
their hands on one.


> This is suppoesed to be a Mac for the rest
> of us that don't need another monitor, keyboard or laptop.
> 
> 	It's turning out to be the Apple Book PC.
> 
> [deletia]
> >> > also
> >> > use PC's have shown a far higher degree of knowledge than you on both
> >> > systems, and guess what Edwin ...............they already know that PC's 
> >> > can
> >> > be had cheaply!   LOL
> >> 
> >> 	This isn't about cheap. It's about the Mac in question being the
> >> equivalent of just about the lowest end piece of crap PC you could get 
> >> your hands on. At least in the old days a Mac represented a superior 
> >> featureset.
> >
> > Notice that you've never answered his question. How would you know what 
> > Mac users value when you refuse to even try one?
> 
> 	You assume too much.
0
noone3 (3603)
1/21/2005 3:03:54 PM
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:03:54 -0700, Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>In article <1106317933.eaa7b5f5c006a2449d0e8230a82f6100@1usenet>,
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>> 	For DRAMATICALLY more money. 

>Define "DRAMATICALLY more".

dramatically
     adv 1: in a very impressive manner; "your performance will improve
            dramatically"
     2: in a dramatic manner; "he confessed dramatically" ant: undramatically
     3: with respect to dramatic value; "the play was dramatically
        interesting, but the direction was bad"

more
More More, n.
   1. A greater quantity, amount, or number; that which exceeds
      or surpasses in any way what it is compared with.

            And the children of Israel did so, and gathered,
            some more, some less.                 --Ex. xvi. 17.

   2. That which is in addition; something other and further; an
      additional or greater amount.
0
TCS
1/21/2005 3:22:42 PM
In article 
<slrncv27i2.fmo.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net>,
 TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:03:54 -0700, Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >In article <1106317933.eaa7b5f5c006a2449d0e8230a82f6100@1usenet>,
> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
> >> 	For DRAMATICALLY more money. 
> 
> >Define "DRAMATICALLY more".
> 
> dramatically
>      adv 1: in a very impressive manner; "your performance will improve
>             dramatically"
>      2: in a dramatic manner; "he confessed dramatically" ant: undramatically
>      3: with respect to dramatic value; "the play was dramatically
>         interesting, but the direction was bad"
> 
> more
> More More, n.
>    1. A greater quantity, amount, or number; that which exceeds
>       or surpasses in any way what it is compared with.
> 
>             And the children of Israel did so, and gathered,
>             some more, some less.                 --Ex. xvi. 17.
> 
>    2. That which is in addition; something other and further; an
>       additional or greater amount.

From Logisys... something similar to a Mini in the PC world:

A Mobile PC, P4/4USB, with options 2LAN, PCMCIA, wifi, bluetooth
 - System color silver
 - UPGRADE OPTION none
 - Intel Processor Intel Celeron 2.0GHZ/128kc
 - Built-in Bluetooth none
 - Built-in wireless option none
 - Memory DDR333 200PIN SODIMM 256M
 - Floppy Drive none
 - Hard Drive slim 80GB-4200rpm 2.5"
 - Multimedia Storage Slim CDRW+DVD combo/24x10x24/8(Black)
 - Solid-State flash HDD none
 - VGA Card High performance 3D/2D,Max. 64M Video RAM (Share memory)
 - mobile LCD/touchscreen monito none
 - Monitor(CRT & LCD) NONE
 - Sound System Onboard 6-Channel AC'97 Audio
 - Speakers & Headphone NONE
 - Modem On-Board 56K Modem
 - Network Device Onboard Realtek 10/100 LAN
 - Build-in speaker Built-in 16-bit stereo and Built-in Speaker
 - Roll-Up keyboard none
 - KEYBOARD & Mini Keyboard none
 - Mouse NONE
 - Operating Software MS Windows XP HOME
 - Application Software MS Office SB
 - Application software(1) none
 - AntiVirus sofware Norton Antivirus 2005
 - Assembly Assembly with Testing
 - AC/DC Power Adapter DC Power Board with 120W AC Adapter
 - Accessories NONE
 - USB External Hard drive none
 - Warranty Warranty-One(1) year warranty
 - PCMCIA wireless LAN NONE
 - Pen Drive NONE
 - USB Flash Drive none
 - Mounting Kit NONE
 - Car Adapter NONE
 - Car DC/AC Invertor none
 - Wireless USB Adapter NONE
 - Battery pack none

�Sub-Total: $1,293.00

Where is that $125-150 small form factor PC that I don't have to test an 
assemble myself?
0
noone3 (3603)
1/21/2005 3:47:14 PM
In article <1106317253.f2eb019b762b5a60ddd5255a52bd5d15@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> >> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
> >> 
> >> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
> >
> > Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.
> 
> 	This is really funny since Dell is more than capable of selling
> you a quite respectable RDBMS cluster using hardware on par with the
> puny pizzaboxes that Apple tries to sell (or real boxes, if you like).

That's nice.

What does it have to do with Apple not being interested in the 
Enterprise market yet?

> 
> >
> >> 
> >> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
> >
> > It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
> 
> 	Linux did that 10 years ago. Although it's not comparable.

Why isn't it comparable?

> 
> >
> >> 
> >> Run some custom app on a 64 cpu single image SMP machine with a stock
> >> 	version of the OS?
> >
> > It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
> 
> 	Showing your total cluelessness again I see. Apparently, basic
> arithmetic and video editing aren't the only things you know nothing 
> about.

Why isn't that comment applicable? Be specific.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/21/2005 4:32:13 PM
In article <1106316765.470a8de160f53036d2f606d145284c46@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1106311800.3bf6ce1b6ba9d16237203cd7ce27c726@1usenet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-01-21, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
> >> > 1106281093.5f627ddfc8a728372c72635067db5674@1usenet on 1/20/05 9:18 PM:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2005-01-21, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@spamac.com> wrote:
> >> >>> In article <1106251689.4f7f5c41d8116d2eca93b7f4dcc4a277@1usenet>,
> >> >>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >>> 
> >> >>>> On 2005-01-20, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> >>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in post
> >> >>>>> 1106248501.896187.309550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 1/20/05 
> >> >>>>> 12:15 
> >> >>>>> PM:
> >> >>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>> Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software 
> >> >>>>>>> than
> >> >>>>>>> to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
> >> >>>>>>>  sent to you.
> >> >>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>> The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
> >> >>>>>> have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
> >> >>>>> 
> >> >>>>> You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS 
> >> >>>>> you 
> >> >>>>> would
> >> >>>>> install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added 
> >> >>>>> nothing
> >> >>>>> similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the 
> >> >>>>> Mini.
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>>  ...except to really exploit that software, you will need more 
> >> >>>>  storage
> >> >>>> than the mini can accomodate. Based on that usage pattern, a $260 
> >> >>>> bookpc
> >> >>>> would
> >> >>>> suffice. 
> >> >>>> [deletia]
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>>  XPCs are overkill for this exercise.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> OK, smartass, give us the specs on that $260 bookpc.  Complete with OS
> >> >>> and all the apps that you and others claim are the equal of just iLife
> >> >>> alone.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Like I said, the mini-mac doesn't have the storage to properly
> >> >> accomodate iLife. Therefore it is pointless to even acknowledge that 
> >> >> it's
> >> >> there.
> >> >
> >> > Sure it does.  It has plenty for music and images, and even for a small
> >> > amount of video.  For folks doing more video, it is easy to connect an
> >> > external drive - if needed.  The system can easily grow if the person 
> >> > gets
> >> > that need.
> >> 
> >> 	Then show us the citations of Jobs selling the mini as little more than
> >> the hub in a relatively large distributed desktop PC.
> >
> > How does adding an external drive turn the Mini into 'a relatively large 
> > distributed desktop PC'?
> 
> 	Those extra firewire components take up space. If that space weren't 
> considered a premium, you wouldn't be making excuses for a desktop machine
> that uses laptop storage components to "save precious space".

That's nice, but irrelevant. Now answer the question.

HOw does adding an external drive turn the Mini into 'a relatively large 
distributed desktop PC'?

> 
> [deletia]
> >> You people haven't even done so much as to demonstrate why it should be 
> >> viewed
> >> useful relative to NOTHING.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO. So we're just supposed to take your word for it when:
> > a. You've never used iLife
> > b. You can't even name the apps that you say are equivalent.
> >
> > Nice try.
> 
> 	Any photo cataloger.
> 	Any media player.
> 	Any sequencer.
> 	Any non-linear video editor.

I see. So you admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

Don't worry. We already knew that.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/21/2005 4:34:32 PM
In article <1106317404.3c36c65b098c57739b1018065b2a0b01@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1106313082.5d4d7c782441983ac44dc4f64736ecd1@1usenet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-01-21, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> >> > In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> >> > wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> > Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
> >> > installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
> >> > X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
> [deletia]
> >>     You have a system that is not bound to one particular set of hardware
> >> interacting with a system that is. This has nothing to do with Linux being
> >> geeky and everything to do with the supported hardware lists of the two
> >> vendors not being in sync.
> >
> > It doesn't matter what your excuse it. That (among other things) makes 
> > Linux harder to use than OS X.
> 
> 	...on closed vendor hardware.
> 
> 	Your argument only works if you attempt to assume that an iMac
> is the only platform that Linux can run on. Infact, there are vendor
> supported XPC's that Linux can run on.

That's nice. The point is that there are far too many situations where 
Linux doesn't work properly - even on name brand computers.

For example, I have a PowerBook G4 which is allegedly fully supported by 
Yellow Dog. When I tried to install Linux, it couldn't detect the video 
card (interestingly, the same problem cited above) and installed the 
wrong settings. I had to play around with the settings until i finally 
found one that worked. But then, it wouldn't recognize the modem.

The vendor's claim that something works apparently isn't enough in the 
Linux world.

> 
> 	Let's try installing MacOS on a Dell and see how far we get.

You've explained exactly why I have no desire to run a Dell.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/21/2005 4:37:08 PM
Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> begin  Oxford wrote:
> 
> < snip >
>  
> 
>>>Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?
>>
>>Not enough to fill up a mini... 13mb per sec for DV, a couple hundred
>>hours on a mini is very manageable. I did it on a 800Mhz G4 several
>>years ago, so the mini will breeze through any of the iLife tasks...
>>
> 
> 
> So you translate 2GB per hour for MPG-video into "couple hundred hours" for
> the 40GB disk?
> This explains why you mac-retards can't do math: You simply can't do any
> math, not even the simplest one
> BTW, if you were right with your "13mb per second", *that* would translate
> to 40GB per hour. Filling your toy rather quickly

He was referring to using FireWire disks.

Adam
0
adamruth (97)
1/21/2005 4:57:02 PM
On 2005-01-21, Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
> In article 
><slrncv27i2.fmo.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net>,
>  TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:03:54 -0700, Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >In article <1106317933.eaa7b5f5c006a2449d0e8230a82f6100@1usenet>,
>> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> 
>> >> 	For DRAMATICALLY more money. 
>> 
>> >Define "DRAMATICALLY more".
>> 
>> dramatically
>>      adv 1: in a very impressive manner; "your performance will improve
>>             dramatically"
>>      2: in a dramatic manner; "he confessed dramatically" ant: undramatically
>>      3: with respect to dramatic value; "the play was dramatically
>>         interesting, but the direction was bad"
>> 
>> more
>> More More, n.
>>    1. A greater quantity, amount, or number; that which exceeds
>>       or surpasses in any way what it is compared with.
>> 
>>             And the children of Israel did so, and gathered,
>>             some more, some less.                 --Ex. xvi. 17.
>> 
>>    2. That which is in addition; something other and further; an
>>       additional or greater amount.
>
> From Logisys... something similar to a Mini in the PC world:
>

	Would not be something as advanced as any XPC.

[deletia]
> �Sub-Total: $1,293.00
>
> Where is that $125-150 small form factor PC that I don't have to test an 
> assemble myself?

	$260 at Aberdeen.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 5:00:26 PM
In article <1106326826.7ea54274a2d53afe0768ef1feeeec2c8@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-01-21, Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > In article 
> ><slrncv27i2.fmo.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net>,
> >  TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:03:54 -0700, Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> 
> >> wrote:
> >> >In article <1106317933.eaa7b5f5c006a2449d0e8230a82f6100@1usenet>,
> >> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> 	For DRAMATICALLY more money. 
> >> 
> >> >Define "DRAMATICALLY more".
> >> 
> >> dramatically
> >>      adv 1: in a very impressive manner; "your performance will improve
> >>             dramatically"
> >>      2: in a dramatic manner; "he confessed dramatically" ant: 
> >>      undramatically
> >>      3: with respect to dramatic value; "the play was dramatically
> >>         interesting, but the direction was bad"
> >> 
> >> more
> >> More More, n.
> >>    1. A greater quantity, amount, or number; that which exceeds
> >>       or surpasses in any way what it is compared with.
> >> 
> >>             And the children of Israel did so, and gathered,
> >>             some more, some less.                 --Ex. xvi. 17.
> >> 
> >>    2. That which is in addition; something other and further; an
> >>       additional or greater amount.
> >
> > From Logisys... something similar to a Mini in the PC world:
> >
> 
> 	Would not be something as advanced as any XPC.
> 
> [deletia]
> > �Sub-Total: $1,293.00
> >
> > Where is that $125-150 small form factor PC that I don't have to test an 
> > assemble myself?
> 
> 	$260 at Aberdeen.

I don't see anything this small for that price on their site.  Where is 
it? Can you post the URL? I have a buddy who wants to put a computer 
system into his car and something small like the Mini or the CappucinoPC 
would work great. He's looking hard at the Mini right now but he is a PC 
user and would probably prefer a Winbox of some sort or other.
0
noone3 (3603)
1/21/2005 5:23:17 PM
"Bob S" <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote in message 
news:Bob_S-544D02.12043820012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <Bob_S-504EA5.11491520012005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com>,
> Bob S <Bob_S@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>
>> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs 
>> > from a
>> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>> >
>> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>>
>> <<crappy post snipped>>
>>
>> $470 with no OS and no software.
>>
>> And..have you checked the Cappucino web site?  They don't look too good.
>> Stuff out of stock, all specs subject to change.  Would you buy a PC
>> from them?
>
> And...one more thing.  I think both the Mac group (myself included) and
> the Win group are wasting time with these comparisons.  When you get
> down to $499, the differences are small and only a dollars either way.
>
> Let's *assume* you can eke out a slightly better value for $499.00 in a
> PC.  I think it doesn't matter.  I think all Apple had to do was get in
> the ball park.  The prices are so close that those who were waiting for
> a stripped down Mac will probably go for it.
>
How many people are there who are "waiting for a stripped down Mac" who are 
otherwise using Windows or even linux?  Jobs needs to hire some Harvies or 
such who understand product marketing.  Jobs will sell gobs of minis to 
Apple fans who are too poor to step up to a newer Mac in the traditional 
lines.  That will give a slight boost to sales in the short term, maybe, but 
it's just cutting off one end of the blanket to sew onto the other end.  A 
Windows user will not see any reason to switch and many reasons not to 
switch, primarily the need to re-buy every program that they have come to 
use since the systems are so incompatible.  Anyone with a real need would 
have scratched it long ago at the old price. 


0
billw (3525)
1/21/2005 5:41:10 PM
In article <1106313082.5d4d7c782441983ac44dc4f64736ecd1@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> > It might not take a geek to use Linux, but it apparently takes one to 
> > install it.
> 
>     You have a system that is not bound to one particular set of hardware
> interacting with a system that is.

No. The Mandrake installer did not interact with OS X in any way.

> This has nothing to do with Linux being
> geeky and everything to do with the supported hardware lists of the two
> vendors not being in sync.

>     ...that and less effort and debugging expended on a 2nd tier platform.

Which is another reason why OS X is more user-friendly than other 
OSes. The thought of having to select video cards and monitors when 
installing an OS never occurred to me. I have never had to do that 
before. I assumed installing Linux would more or less like installing 
OS X, only with less eye-candy. I was wrong. (I don't even think you 
have to do that on Windows - but I might be wrong there)

The question now is: Will I be able to set the video card / monitor 
when booting from the install disk? Or will I have to re-install 
Mandrake? Hmm.. I'll find out the next time I decide to give it a go.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/21/2005 6:02:34 PM
In article <1106317404.3c36c65b098c57739b1018065b2a0b01@1usenet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> > It doesn't matter what your excuse it. That (among other things) makes 
> > Linux harder to use than OS X.
> 	...on closed vendor hardware.

Where is the closed hardware in my mac? The HDs? Nope. The PPC itself? 
Nope (otherwise, how could there be a LinuxPPC in the first place?). 
The monitors? Nope.

One might argue that my GF2mx is closed, but it works to some degree 
on other macs with Linux. They just can't get 3d acceleration from it.

> 	Your argument only works if you attempt to assume that an iMac
> is the only platform that Linux can run on. Infact, there are vendor
> supported XPC's that Linux can run on.

> 	Let's try installing MacOS on a Dell and see how far we get.

I didn't install x86 Linux on a mac. I installed PPC Linux on a mac. 
Comparing that with installing the MacOS on a Dell is only silly.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/21/2005 6:06:04 PM
In article <Nowhere-1ECD36.10315621012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> For example, I have a PowerBook G4 which is allegedly fully supported by 
> Yellow Dog. When I tried to install Linux, it couldn't detect the video 
> card (interestingly, the same problem cited above) and installed the 
> wrong settings. I had to play around with the settings until i finally 
> found one that worked. But then, it wouldn't recognize the modem.

Is your video card by any chance nVidia?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
1/21/2005 6:07:38 PM
In article <clund-66EEF8.19073821012005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:

> In article <Nowhere-1ECD36.10315621012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > For example, I have a PowerBook G4 which is allegedly fully supported by 
> > Yellow Dog. When I tried to install Linux, it couldn't detect the video 
> > card (interestingly, the same problem cited above) and installed the 
> > wrong settings. I had to play around with the settings until i finally 
> > found one that worked. But then, it wouldn't recognize the modem.
> 
> Is your video card by any chance nVidia?

Nope. ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 with 32 MB of VRAM.
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/21/2005 6:17:35 PM
In article <trman-5036A3.21525020012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <theletterk-BD778F.22001720012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <trman-5FE7F2.20261020012005@news.central.cox.net>,
> >  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> > >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <10v0fnjr80si04e@news.supernews.com>,
> > > >  John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Liam Slider wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add 
> > > > > >>$79 
> > > > > >>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why the fuck would we do that?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.
> > > > 
> > > > That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
> > > > only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
> > > 
> > > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
> > I've got choice in how I go about performing tasks. I can literally make 
> > a Linux distro dance, whereas OS X is pretty much limited to acting like 
> > Apple wants it to. I can alter the way Linux acts as I need to, 
> 
> Which proves merely that you don't know anything about OS X.
Been using it since release. Indeed, if you consider Nextstep/OpenStep 
to be predecessors (I do), then I've been using this 'strain' of 
operating system since 1993.
> 
> > on-the-fly, at a basic level. You can do the same with the BSDs (Os X 
> > isn't a BSD, just uses a FreeBSD-like userspace layer), but the hardware 
> > support isn't nearly as good. There's really not too many concrete 
> 
> OS X has far better support for the hardware it runs on than most 
> Linuxes.
But Linux handles more hardware. Aside from this, 'better support' is 
very difficult to quantify. If you specifically build a Linux system, 
you can build one with a similar level of hardware support.
> 
> > advantages to using Linux instead of OS X (hence the reason I said 
> > "marginally better than Os X", rather than "Vastly superior to OS X"), 
> > it's mostly a difference in philosophy.
> 
> Except that OS X has a better interface, is more consistent, and far, 
> far easier to use.
'better interface' is very subjective. Linux interfaces can be very 
consistent if you use all-X11, all-GTK, all-QT, etc.

Easier to use is also subjective. I consider my personalized Linux 
desktop to be MUCH easier to use than Os X. It acts exactly how I want 
it to act, OS X does not. Os X may be easier to *learn* but that does 
not mean it is easier to *use*.
> 
> > 
> > Os X is fine if you like Apple's way of doing things. But if you don't, 
> > Linux/*BSD is a better option. Unless you absolutely have to use 
> > commercial applications.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, most people need commercial apps.
I'm not so sure about that. Most of the users I know have no use for any 
commercial application save for one of the legal music download 
services. They choose to use commercial applications because it's 
convenient or they don't know of alternatives.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 6:23:49 PM
In article <alangbaker-4F8B41.19473320012005@news.telus.net>,
 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> In article <theletterk-BD778F.22001720012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <trman-5FE7F2.20261020012005@news.central.cox.net>,
> >  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> > >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <10v0fnjr80si04e@news.supernews.com>,
> > > >  John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Liam Slider wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add 
> > > > > >>$79 
> > > > > >>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why the fuck would we do that?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.
> > > > 
> > > > That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though 
> > > > only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
> > > 
> > > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
> > I've got choice in how I go about performing tasks. I can literally make 
> > a Linux distro dance, whereas OS X is pretty much limited to acting like 
> > Apple wants it to. I can alter the way Linux acts as I need to, 
> > on-the-fly, at a basic level. You can do the same with the BSDs (Os X 
> > isn't a BSD, just uses a FreeBSD-like userspace layer), but the hardware 
> > support isn't nearly as good. There's really not too many concrete 
> > advantages to using Linux instead of OS X (hence the reason I said 
> > "marginally better than Os X", rather than "Vastly superior to OS X"), 
> > it's mostly a difference in philosophy.
> 
> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
That's certainly not true--try something simple like running Ion2 as 
your *default* graphical environment. Having an 'X11 mode' is no 
substitute for using an X windowing server as the default graphical 
environment.
> 
> > 
> > Os X is fine if you like Apple's way of doing things. But if you don't, 
> > Linux/*BSD is a better option. Unless you absolutely have to use 
> > commercial applications.
> > > 
> > > This ought to be good.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 6:26:16 PM
> > 
> > Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
> 
> It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
That is not the same thing.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 6:28:13 PM
> > 
> > >
> > >> 
> > >> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
> > >
> > > It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
> > 
> > 	Linux did that 10 years ago. Although it's not comparable.
> 
> Why isn't it comparable?
Because a 1024-way SMP system isn't the same thing as a cluster? In the 
same way that Mountain Dew isn't a Taco.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 6:30:39 PM
In article <35c3l7F4l0ifnU1@individual.net>,
 Roy Coorne <RoyCoorne@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> TheLetterK wrote:
> > In article <trman-25A357.20163620012005@news.central.cox.net>,
> >  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>TravelinMan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In article <3uk5c2-abh.ln1@grendel.myth>,
> >>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>>>Hash: SHA1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT,
> >>>>>TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79 
> >>>>>>for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software. 
> >>>>>>Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for 
> >>>>>>getting 
> >>>>>>it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going 
> >>>>>>to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> >>>>>>software.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why in heaven's name would I want to put redmondware on it? I'd install
> >>>>>Linux, a task which takes me less time than setting up a new 
> >>>>>preinstalled 
> >>>>>XP
> >>>>>system. 
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
> >>>
> >>>Why not? 
> >>
> >>Because it's targeted at people who don't want to futz with their 
> >>computer. They  just want to use it.
> > 
> > Which is exactly why I use Linux.
> > 
> >>>And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> >>>
> >>
> >>At any reasonable level, yes.
> > 
> > It's easier to use than Windows is, that's for certain.
> 
> Linux (SuSE?) is definitely more difficult to use than Windows XP SP2.
> 
> Roy

A) Easy to learn, and easy to use are two different things.
B) SuSE (or any RPM-based distro ) is hardly the epitome of ease of use.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 6:32:00 PM
In article <csma-3D6FB2.23035220012005@news.uswest.net>,
 Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:

> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
> > > of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
> > > between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
> > 
> > I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones - 
> > and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
> 
> Ah, here's a screenshot of the Ubuntu OS/UI... (smirk) Kinda looks like 
> the Apple IIgs OS/UI circa, 1988... Gosh, Linux is in a world of hurt.
> 
> http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=156&slide=36

Yes, that is what it sets up by default. He didn't say "give me a system 
as pretty as Os X", he said "Give me one as easy to use". And I did.

Of course, your welcome to install a heavyweight DE like KDE and turn on 
all the eye-candy. Or you could install a total lightweight WM like 
Ion2, which has no overlapping windows.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 6:37:06 PM
In article <p_qdnS8GVP2vIW3cRVn-vQ@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> 
> > TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality
> >> > of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme
> >> > between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
> >> 
> >> I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones -
> >> and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
> > 
> > Ah, here's a screenshot of the Ubuntu OS/UI... (smirk) Kinda looks like
> > the Apple IIgs OS/UI circa, 1988... Gosh, Linux is in a world of hurt.
> > 
> > http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=156&slide=36
> 
> Ubuntu != Linux. 

Don't know why you say that. It's about the same as Debian really. Hell, 
it IS the same if you point the sources.list file at a debian 'testing' 
repository and tell it to update.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 6:38:15 PM
In article <BE15C499.1C0C4%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

> "TheLetterK" <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote in post
> theletterk-9C32C1.22112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net on 1/20/05 8:11 PM:
> 
> > In article <trman-C913BC.20292120012005@news.central.cox.net>,
> > TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <theletterk-DD605F.21180620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In article <BE15A3BE.1C046%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>>  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06842.1050001@sc.rr.com on
> >>>> 1/20/05 5:50 PM:
> >>>> 
> >> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Yes, it does. The Mac version of Quicken is very different from the
> >>>> Windows
> >>>> version - generally easier to use but fewer bells, whistles, and missing
> >>>> some pretty cool features that exist on the Windows version.
> >>> I question the value of Quicken on such a system, but it does indeed
> >>> offer expanded value for those that need Quicken. Edwin needs to stop
> >>> trying to claim PC superiority in situations where it clearly is not
> >>> superior.
> >> 
> >> Why in the world would you question the value of Quicken on 'such a
> >> system'? Quicken is exactly the kind of app that Mini users are going to
> >> want.
> > 
> > Can't see why. Most of the people I know who use budget systems don't
> > even know what Quicken is.
> 
> A number of my customers use it - and most of my customers are relative
> novices and / or senior citizens who are hardly techies.  In the last few
> days I have had at least two calls about it (well, one was about MS
> Money...)
I suppose there's a bit of regional difference at work then.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 6:44:14 PM
In article <k4OdnZFKbItfNW3cRVn-oA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> > Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
> > 
> 
> Run it on an IBM Mainframe?

Hardly what was being discussed.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
0
alangbaker (17682)
1/21/2005 6:45:28 PM
In article <trman-293B61.21535420012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.01.21.03.05.57.699645@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:16:36 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
> > 
> > >> And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > At any reasonable level, yes.
> > 
> > 
> > My Grandfather uses it on the desktop...uses it for all his everyday
> > computing. He's very far from a geek, doesn't know his grep from his
> > startx. Doesn't have to.
> 
> As I said:
> 
> If you can get someone else to set up your Linux system
That's only a requirement in fantasy land. Really, installing Linux is 
on par with typing your shoes, or not choking on your own spit during 
the installation.

> and if your hardware happens to be supported
That would be most systems. Specially if you build/buy a system with 
Linux in mind.

> and if you have no intention to add  software or change anything around
Actually, that's the strong point of Linux. I can add software much 
easier than you can on OS X (save through Fink, which is exactly the 
same). Ever used Fink? That's a port of *Debian's* apt package 
management system. Only instead of being grossly limited by running on 
Darwin/PPC, Linux repositories have several thousand packages on them. 
Basically anything your likely to use on Linux, is available on an apt 
repository.
> 
> But if you actually want to be in control of your computer, it requires 
> far more skill than most users have.
Most users don't want the level of control that I do, and Linux works 
just fine for that.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 6:49:20 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <1106316506.62fe8dc6c43248dcb17c200cc8152b15@1usenet>,
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
>> On 2005-01-21, Wally <wally@wally.world.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > In article <_ZSHd.11559$Vj3.8588@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>> ><thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Apple will sell plenty of Mac Minis, no doubt about it.    People wanting 
>> >> to
>> >> replace old Macs, or even PC people who want to try the Mac will buy them.
>> >>
>> >> But that doesn't change what's a better value for the money.
>> >
>> > It must be very hard for someone such as yourself, someone who has never
>> > used a modern Mac for any reasonable period, to understand what a Mac user
>> > considers "value for the money", one thing I guarantee is that when 
>> > equating
>> 
>>       Quite right considering:
>> 
>>               Generic parts stamped out from the same chinese factories 
>>               where everyone else gets their parts.
> 
> No kidding?
> 
> The G4 and G5 are now 'generic parts produced in Chinese factories?
> The Mac motherboards are now generic?
> OS X is generic?
> iLife is generic?
> The Mac cases and power supplies are generic?
> 
> Amazing.
> 


http://www.apple.com/federal/howtobuy/prodcoo.html

[Federal]
***** Country of Origin *****
Apple Product                            Country of Origin
Desktops
Power Mac G5                             USA / China
iMac                                     China
eMac                                     USA / China
Portables
PowerBook G4                             Taiwan
iBook                                    Taiwan
Displays
Apple Cinema Display (20" Flat Panel)    China
Apple Cinema HD Display (23" Flat panel) China
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" Flat panel) South Korea
Servers / Storage
Xserve                                   USA
Xserve RAID                              USA
Wireless Devices
AirPort Base Station                     Taiwan
AirPort Card                             Taiwan
Digital Devices
iPod                                     Taiwan



http://www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/ID-suppliers/Apple.html
....

Apple PowerMac G5  [ Place of Origin:Sumatera Utara ] 

Notebook Apple PowerBook G4 M9422LL A
	Notebook Apple PowerBook G4/M9422LL/A  [ Place of Origin:japan ] 

Apple 40 GB IPod M9268LL A
	Apple 40 GB IPod M9268LL/A  [ Place of Origin:Indonesia ] 

Apple Powerbook G4
	Apple Powerbook G4  [ Place of Origin:Indonesia ] 

Apple iPod 15gb Mp3 Player
	Apple iPod 15gb Mp3 Player  [ Place of Origin:America ] 

Apple Laptops
	Apple Laptops  [ Place of Origin:Indonesia ] 

Apple PowerBook G5
	Apple PowerBook G5  [ Place of Origin:United Kingdom ] 

0
goo4222 (322)
1/21/2005 6:59:31 PM
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:49:20 -0500, TheLetterK wrote:

>> and if you have no intention to add  software or change anything around
> Actually, that's the strong point of Linux. I can add software much 
> easier than you can on OS X (save through Fink, which is exactly the 
> same). Ever used Fink? That's a port of *Debian's* apt package 
> management system. Only instead of being grossly limited by running on 
> Darwin/PPC, Linux repositories have several thousand packages on them. 
> Basically anything your likely to use on Linux, is available on an apt 
> repository.

And apt isn't limited to Debian either, nor is apt the only "apt-like"
tool for Linux, as many distros have similar tools. Plus, many of them,
apt included, have easy to use GUI frontends.

0
liam8 (4986)
1/21/2005 7:04:32 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
> In article <1106326826.7ea54274a2d53afe0768ef1feeeec2c8@1usenet>,
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>       $260 at Aberdeen.
> 
> I don't see anything this small for that price on their site.  Where is 
> it? Can you post the URL? I have a buddy who wants to put a computer 
> system into his car and something small like the Mini or the CappucinoPC 
> would work great. He's looking hard at the Mini right now but he is a PC 
> user and would probably prefer a Winbox of some sort or other.


A Dell PowerEdge 750 1U rackmount can be had for $499.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_750?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

  Processors	
Single Intel® Pentium®  4 processors with Hyper-Threading technology
Bullet	Up to 3.4GHz, 800MHz front side bus and 1MB L2 cache

Single Intel Celeron®  processors
Bullet	2.4 GHz, 400 MHz FSB, 128 KB L2 cache

  Memory	
Bullet	256MB/4GB DDR400 SDRAM - with ECC support
Bullet	4 DIMM sockets on system board

  Operating Systems	
Factory installable:
Bullet	Microsoft® Windows®  Server 2003, Standard Edition or Web Edition
Bullet	Red Hat®  Linux Enterprise v3, Enterprise Server
Bullet	Novell® NetWare®  6.5
Bullet	Novell NetWare 5.1

Validated, but not factory installable:
Bullet	Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, Standard Edition

0
goo4222 (322)
1/21/2005 7:14:09 PM
On 2005-01-21, General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:05:40 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
>>>> 
>>>
>>> Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
>>
>> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
>
> As much as I hate to support the Mac lusers, Oracle Database 10g is 
> available and supported on OS X.

	And tomorrow, we can celebrate it's 1 month birthday.

	This ranks right down with the z/Linux version.

[deletia]

	It makes the mini slightly more useful though...

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 7:52:40 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:37:08 GMT,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> That's nice. The point is that there are far too many situations where 
> Linux doesn't work properly - even on name brand computers.
>
> For example, I have a PowerBook G4 which is allegedly fully supported by 
> Yellow Dog. When I tried to install Linux, it couldn't detect the video 
> card (interestingly, the same problem cited above) and installed the 
> wrong settings. I had to play around with the settings until i finally 
> found one that worked. But then, it wouldn't recognize the modem.
>
> The vendor's claim that something works apparently isn't enough in the 
> Linux world.
>

And again someone talks about using, but means, installing.


>> 
>> 	Let's try installing MacOS on a Dell and see how far we get.
>
> You've explained exactly why I have no desire to run a Dell.


Works great here. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8V4Ld90bcYOAWPYRAoWmAJ9BlxNL1OEsJhQXJ/4YVykCBKAJUgCgi2dg
tc82yh3jpT6rZAiJhf6ioCg=
=zjLK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
	Don't get mad, get Linux
0
warlock (9522)
1/21/2005 7:54:51 PM
On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <1106317404.3c36c65b098c57739b1018065b2a0b01@1usenet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article <1106313082.5d4d7c782441983ac44dc4f64736ecd1@1usenet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2005-01-21, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>> >> > In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
>> >> > wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >> > Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
>> >> > installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
>> >> > X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
>> [deletia]
>> >>     You have a system that is not bound to one particular set of hardware
>> >> interacting with a system that is. This has nothing to do with Linux being
>> >> geeky and everything to do with the supported hardware lists of the two
>> >> vendors not being in sync.
>> >
>> > It doesn't matter what your excuse it. That (among other things) makes 
>> > Linux harder to use than OS X.
>> 
>> 	...on closed vendor hardware.
>> 
>> 	Your argument only works if you attempt to assume that an iMac
>> is the only platform that Linux can run on. Infact, there are vendor
>> supported XPC's that Linux can run on.
>
> That's nice. The point is that there are far too many situations where 
> Linux doesn't work properly - even on name brand computers.

	Boy you cheerleaders are dense. It must be the hydrogen peroxide.

	Vendor supported != "name brand".

>
> For example, I have a PowerBook G4 which is allegedly fully supported by 
> Yellow Dog. When I tried to install Linux, it couldn't detect the video 

	According to apple?

	An nvidia nforce2 is supported by nvidia.

	Again, you are confused.

> card (interestingly, the same problem cited above) and installed the 
> wrong settings. I had to play around with the settings until i finally 
> found one that worked. But then, it wouldn't recognize the modem.
>
> The vendor's claim that something works apparently isn't enough in the 
> Linux world.

	The relevant vendor made no such claims. Cite where apple said 
that it supports Linux on the powerbook G4.

>
>> 
>> 	Let's try installing MacOS on a Dell and see how far we get.
>
> You've explained exactly why I have no desire to run a Dell.

	Pretense.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 7:58:15 PM
LOL a rackmount for a car. LOL. Plus I doubt this server does video
and/or video games worth a damn.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/21/2005 8:02:19 PM
Note that at $499, no floppy or cdrom and that upgrading to 512M RAM is
$169 additional.

So how do you load the OS if you bought the $499 configuration?

And what the hell kind of car are you going to install it into?  And
how much is that inverter going to cost?

Lloyd

0
1/21/2005 8:03:23 PM
On 2005-01-21, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <1106317404.3c36c65b098c57739b1018065b2a0b01@1usenet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> > It doesn't matter what your excuse it. That (among other things) makes 
>> > Linux harder to use than OS X.
>> 	...on closed vendor hardware.
>
> Where is the closed hardware in my mac? The HDs? Nope. The PPC itself? 

	It's all closed. It's all tightly controlled by Apple.

	An Apple is more like a PC laptop.

	A Shuttle XPC can be had with a variety of core components 
including video and motherboard controller.

> Nope (otherwise, how could there be a LinuxPPC in the first place?). 
> The monitors? Nope.

	Lots of effort. Be complained quite a bit about how guarded Apple
was about it's hardware specs.

>
> One might argue that my GF2mx is closed, but it works to some degree 
> on other macs with Linux. They just can't get 3d acceleration from it.

	A GeForce? That's got vendor supplied drivers.

>
>> 	Your argument only works if you attempt to assume that an iMac
>> is the only platform that Linux can run on. Infact, there are vendor
>> supported XPC's that Linux can run on.
>
>> 	Let's try installing MacOS on a Dell and see how far we get.
>
> I didn't install x86 Linux on a mac. I installed PPC Linux on a mac. 
> Comparing that with installing the MacOS on a Dell is only silly.
>

	Not at all. One product is being given all the advantages and the
other is being given all the handicaps.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 8:06:26 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
> LOL a rackmount for a car. LOL. Plus I doubt this server does video
> and/or video games worth a damn.
> 

Video and games where not mentioned in the OP's requirements.

0
goo4222 (322)
1/21/2005 8:26:15 PM
Peter Kohlmann <Peter.Koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> > Not enough to fill up a mini... 13mb per sec for DV, a couple hundred
> > hours on a mini is very manageable. I did it on a 800Mhz G4 several
> > years ago, so the mini will breeze through any of the iLife tasks...
> 
> So you translate 2GB per hour for MPG-video into "couple hundred hours" for
> the 40GB disk?
> This explains why you mac-retards can't do math: You simply can't do any
> math, not even the simplest one
> BTW, if you were right with your "13mb per second", *that* would translate
> to 40GB per hour. Filling your toy rather quickly

buzz... wrong peter, I was using the 13mb per sec of FULL DV, not some 
wimpy mpeg compression scheme. I'm simply saying the Mini will support a 
couple terabytes of storage. You guys have a mental block when it comes 
to understanding firewire. It basically gives you unlimited storage for 
less than 50 cents a gig.  Try and keep up with us...

> >> One has to seriously wonder if you idiots actually use any of this
> >> software that you claim makes a Mac superior to any other system on the
> >> face of the planet.
> > 
> > YOU were the one that said "iMovie doesn't look to be anything"...
> > Meaning you've never touched it... iMovie is the top movie editing
> > software made. it's like iTunes is for music, best of breed.
> 
> Best of breed for whom? You haven't even seen any "best of breed" apps

I use them every day, and since I only use the best, I tend to be an 
expert on these software programs. In this case, so me something that 
out classes iMovie... I'm waiting.............
0
csma (3267)
1/21/2005 8:29:48 PM
In article <pan.2005.01.21.19.04.32.580810@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
 Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:49:20 -0500, TheLetterK wrote:
> 
> >> and if you have no intention to add  software or change anything around
> > Actually, that's the strong point of Linux. I can add software much 
> > easier than you can on OS X (save through Fink, which is exactly the 
> > same). Ever used Fink? That's a port of *Debian's* apt package 
> > management system. Only instead of being grossly limited by running on 
> > Darwin/PPC, Linux repositories have several thousand packages on them. 
> > Basically anything your likely to use on Linux, is available on an apt 
> > repository.
> 
> And apt isn't limited to Debian either
They developed it. They're probably the first to apply such a concept to 
pre-compiled binaries. Before then you only had ports.

> , nor is apt the only "apt-like" tool for Linux,
Most of the apt-like tools either use apt (pointed at a different 
repository), or are based upon the same idea. Unless your talking about 
something like the source-based distros use. Which is more akin to ports 
than it is dpkg/apt. Granted, systems like ports/portage have 
advantages. Namely highly optimized binaries, however installing Gentoo 
takes forever because of this.

> as many distros have similar tools. 
Few have quite the variety that Debian/apt has. Unless it's something 
like Ubuntu which just takes a snapshot of one of the debian archives 
('testing' for Ubuntu) and mirrors it...

>Plus, many of them, apt included, have easy to use GUI frontends.
Yup, Synaptic is an excellent front-end.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 8:30:24 PM
In article <trman-2DBBB0.21541220012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <theletterk-9C32C1.22112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <trman-C913BC.20292120012005@news.central.cox.net>,
> >  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <theletterk-DD605F.21180620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> > >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <BE15A3BE.1C046%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > > >  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 
> > > > > 41F06842.1050001@sc.rr.com 
> > > > > on
> > > > > 1/20/05 5:50 PM:
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, it does. The Mac version of Quicken is very different from the 
> > > > > Windows
> > > > > version - generally easier to use but fewer bells, whistles, and 
> > > > > missing
> > > > > some pretty cool features that exist on the Windows version.
> > > > I question the value of Quicken on such a system, but it does indeed 
> > > > offer expanded value for those that need Quicken. Edwin needs to stop 
> > > > trying to claim PC superiority in situations where it clearly is not 
> > > > superior.
> > > 
> > > Why in the world would you question the value of Quicken on 'such a 
> > > system'? Quicken is exactly the kind of app that Mini users are going to 
> > > want.
> > 
> > Can't see why. Most of the people I know who use budget systems don't 
> > even know what Quicken is.
> 
> How does that make Quicken less useful?
If people don't use it anyway, where is the added value? It's like you 
requiring gold connectors, and me throwing in some copper ones for good 
measure. Does it mean the copper connectors are always useless? No, but 
if you don't need them they are.
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/21/2005 8:32:24 PM
On 21 Jan 2005 12:02:19 -0800, imouttahere@mac.com <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote:
>LOL a rackmount for a car. LOL. Plus I doubt this server does video
>and/or video games worth a damn.

then get a nintendo.  
0
TCS
1/21/2005 8:38:28 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy lloydp <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> Note that at $499, no floppy or cdrom and that upgrading to 512M RAM is
> $169 additional.
> 
> So how do you load the OS if you bought the $499 configuration?
> 

Free Upgrade to 512MB DDR, 400MHz, for the price of 256MB!

CD-ROM, 650MB,24X, Internal [add $40 or $1/month1]
3.5in 1.44MB Floppy Drive [add $10]


> And what the hell kind of car are you going to install it into?  And
> how much is that inverter going to cost?
> 

Already have a 400W inverter.
Maybe the OP does as well.

Personally, I have a laptop for use in my car.
WalMart online has laptops for $548.

0
goo4222 (322)
1/21/2005 8:44:18 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:29:01 -0600,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> > Alan Baker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
>> >> 
>> >
>> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
>> 
>> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
>
> Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.
>
>> 
>> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
>
> It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
>


Do you understand the difference between a cluster, and a multi CPU
machine? 


If you do, why did you make the comment above? it's not relevent to the
issue. 

>> 
>> Run some custom app on a 64 cpu single image SMP machine with a stock
>> 	version of the OS?
>
> It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.


Ah, I understand, it's a stock answer for you, when you face a question
to which you do not have an answer for. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8Ws3d90bcYOAWPYRAiCkAKDL7CyLTbqa4uELRoAtDeFIUVjXgwCgmyDc
X1TK8c+8jpgDrFxkJxQ28PI=
=tqsu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Homo sapiens, isn't
0
warlock (9522)
1/21/2005 8:51:03 PM
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> > What an idiot, it has unlimited storage via the firewire port... Have 
> 
> 	...at which point, the mini becomes a mess.
> 	
> 	You could just get the Dell equivalent to begin with.

You clearly haven't been exposed to fine quality hardware. Attaching a 
couple 400GB drives to the mini is simple and would stack nicely 
together. there is no mess involved.

> > you even used firewire? do you even understand you can have 63 HD's 
> 
> 	I am running it right now. That is why I am highly dubious of you
> Ivory tower sorts that claim that it is suitable for the common novice
> who is enamored with the ipod and might be expected to be enamored with 
> the mini.

it's going to work the same as a big tower, sure it's slower, but the 
functionality of firewire on the mini is the same.

> > You can't find a iTunes class app, nor iDVD, nor GarageBand. iPhoto, 
> > sure...
> >
> >> 	Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?

Yeah, not much... an MP3, about 4MB each, mpeg varies but lets just use  
dvd quality and say it's 4.7GB per 90 minutes... That's hardly large in 
this day and age.

You don't understand the mini, that's all...
0
csma (3267)
1/21/2005 8:51:19 PM
On 21 Jan 2005 12:03:23 -0800, lloydp <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>Note that at $499, no floppy or cdrom and that upgrading to 512M RAM is
>$169 additional.

>So how do you load the OS if you bought the $499 configuration?

>And what the hell kind of car are you going to install it into?  And
>how much is that inverter going to cost?

You can get an inverter easy enough, if you don't mind the system
either being on all the time and running down your battery, or
switched on the ignition and risking hard drive corruption every
time you turn the car off and turn the system off without a proper
shutdown.

You really need a 12V power supply and a computer that'll do
a shutdown when the car is turned off and that won't run the battery
down in the meantime.

The mac-mini in no way qualifies.


0
TCS
1/21/2005 8:54:33 PM
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:1106312104.26caa6ddfdaaeac355acc9cf20b4aba8@1usenet...

> > What an idiot, it has unlimited storage via the firewire port... Have
>
> ...at which point, the mini becomes a mess.

Buy a mobile FW drive from LaCie, no power cord required.  Use a bluetooth
mouse and keyboard.  Not exactly a mess, especially when you consider the
tiny footprint of the mini itself.

> I am running it right now. That is why I am highly dubious of you
> Ivory tower sorts that claim that it is suitable for the common novice
> who is enamored with the ipod and might be expected to be enamored with
> the mini.

You're only argument, and it's a weak one, is that the mini doesn't come
with terabytes of disk storage for $499.  Newsflash: neither do any of the
comparably priced SFF PCs.


0
g_kercheck (34)
1/21/2005 8:54:45 PM
TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> writes:

>> And apt isn't limited to Debian either

> They developed it. They're probably the first to apply such a
> concept to pre-compiled binaries. Before then you only had ports.

What concept?

RPM pre-dates apt, right?  What's so new about apt?

(I'm not saying you're wrong.  I wouldn't know.  As a Slackware user,
I haven't paid much attention to packaging formats much more complex
than .tgz.  Good enough for my grandpappy[1] and good enough for
me.)

Footnotes: 
[1]  A joke about age and not a comment on ease-of-use.

-- 
"The math doesn't care about their mortgages.  It doesn't care about
their political needs.  [...] Today's mathematicians have to hate
mathematics because mathematics doesn't look out for them.  It doesn't
pay attention to their needs." --- JSH analyzes mathematicians
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/21/2005 8:57:37 PM
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:1106312104.26caa6ddfdaaeac355acc9cf20b4aba8@1usenet...

> > What an idiot, it has unlimited storage via the firewire port... Have
>
> ...at which point, the mini becomes a mess.

Buy a mobile FW drive from LaCie, no power cord required.  Use a bluetooth
mouse and keyboard.  Not exactly a mess, especially when you consider the
tiny footprint of the mini itself.

> I am running it right now. That is why I am highly dubious of you
> Ivory tower sorts that claim that it is suitable for the common novice
> who is enamored with the ipod and might be expected to be enamored with
> the mini.

You're only argument, and it's a weak one, is that the mini doesn't come
with terabytes of disk storage for $499.  Newsflash: neither do any of the
comparably priced SFF PCs.



0
g_kercheck (34)
1/21/2005 8:58:01 PM
General Protection Fault wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:44:39 +0100, C Lund wrote:
> > In article <slrncv09ks.13k.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
> >  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I looked at http://www.apple.com/ilife/
> >> and realized I -- like many, many others -- have absolutely no need for
> >> iLife.
> >
> > Nor do I. But many do, and if you're going to make a PC equivalent of
> > the minimac then you'll have to include a similar suite of apps.
> 
> That is an utterly retarded argument.
> 

That's rich coming from a wintroll M$ shill.
The only retard around here is you.
0
cumulus (7752)
1/21/2005 9:01:04 PM
General Protection Fault wrote:
> 
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:05:40 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> > On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
> >
> > Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
> 
> As much as I hate to support the Mac lusers, Oracle Database 10g is
> available and supported on OS X.

Rich coming from a wintendo luser, that pretends to use BSD.
0
cumulus (7752)
1/21/2005 9:02:56 PM
General Protection Fault wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:51:25 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <slrncv0t0l.21g.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
> >  General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:26:10 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
> >> > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> >> >> That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X (though
> >> >> only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
> >> >
> >> > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
> >> >
> >> > This ought to be good.
> >>
> >> It's really simple: it runs on commodity hardware, not overpriced Apple crap.
> >
> > Oh. You didn't mean better, you meant cheaper.
> >
> > That's probably true - until you include support costs.
> 
> What support costs are you inventing here?
> 

Only the delusions in your in pea sized mind, M$ shill.
0
cumulus (7752)
1/21/2005 9:03:36 PM
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:1106316765.470a8de160f53036d2f606d145284c46@1usenet...


> Any sequencer.

GarageBand is much more than a sequencing tool, Jed.  Try again.



0
g_kercheck (34)
1/21/2005 9:15:39 PM
In article <87mzv2lcu6.fsf@phiwumbda.org> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:57:37
+0100), Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> RPM pre-dates apt, right?  What's so new about apt?

RPM is a package format.
rpm is a package utility.

DEB is a package format.
APT is Debian's Advanced Package Tool.

APT is designed to manage dependencies properly and automatically.

The original 'rpm' application required the user to manage these
manually.  The original 'apt' was a front-end for 'dpkg', the Debian
equivalent of 'rpm'.  APT is now available for RPM-based systems.
0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/21/2005 9:17:17 PM
what's the fucking point of putting a PC in a car then? Gotta have my
DVDs & Mame!

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/21/2005 9:23:41 PM
On 2005-01-21, Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> > What an idiot, it has unlimited storage via the firewire port... Have 
>> 
>> 	...at which point, the mini becomes a mess.
>> 	
>> 	You could just get the Dell equivalent to begin with.
>
> You clearly haven't been exposed to fine quality hardware. Attaching a 
> couple 400GB drives to the mini is simple and would stack nicely 
> together. there is no mess involved.

	Not as nice as everything inside an XPC.

	There's nothing "quality" about being forced to use a stack
of external components.

[deletia]
>> >
>> >> 	Do you have any clue how much space mp3 and mpeg2 takes up?
>
> Yeah, not much... an MP3, about 4MB each, mpeg varies but lets just use  
> dvd quality and say it's 4.7GB per 90 minutes... That's hardly large in 
> this day and age.
>
> You don't understand the mini, that's all...

	Certainly not. I understand the aritithmetic involved.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/21/2005 10:01:44 PM
In article <ni68c2-s08.ln1@grendel.myth>,
 Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:29:01 -0600,
>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> >> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
> >> 
> >> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
> >
> > Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.
> >
> >> 
> >> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
> >
> > It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
> >
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between a cluster, and a multi CPU
> machine? 
> 
> 
> If you do, why did you make the comment above? it's not relevent to the
> issue. 

Of course I do.

But I was simply pointing out how silly his argument is. We're talking 
about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to run on a 1024 
cpu single image smp machine relevant?


Or do you need someone to explain to you what a desktop computer is?
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/21/2005 10:05:10 PM
In article <Nowhere-A9BC27.16012821012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> (Fri,
21 Jan 2005 22:05:10 +0000), TravelinMan wrote:

> We're talking about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to
> run on a 1024 cpu single image smp machine relevant?

No, your claim that Apple makes the only computers using the PowerPC 970
("G5") is still false.

> Or do you need someone to explain to you what a desktop computer is?

Why not give up now, TravelinBoi?  Nobody with experience in computers,
software, or operating systems will listen to a brainwashed cult follower
like you, regardless of the quality of the computer, software, or
operating system it advocates.

-- 
"If you really think there's a bug you should report a bug.
 Maybe you're not using [Microsoft products] properly."
-- Bill Gates. Chairman, Microsoft. FOCUS Magazine interview. 10/23/1995

0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/21/2005 10:10:01 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
> what's the fucking point of putting a PC in a car then? Gotta have my
> DVDs & Mame!
> 

Whatever you want to use it for.
But this is where I'd get one:

http://www.xenarcdirect.com/

It's what they specialize in.


0
goo4222 (322)
1/21/2005 10:19:15 PM
In article <20050121170948.468$LG@news.newsreader.com>,
 Hamilcar Barca <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote:

> In article <Nowhere-A9BC27.16012821012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> (Fri,
> 21 Jan 2005 22:05:10 +0000), TravelinMan wrote:
> 
> > We're talking about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to
> > run on a 1024 cpu single image smp machine relevant?
> 
> No, your claim that Apple makes the only computers using the PowerPC 970
> ("G5") is still false.
> 
> > Or do you need someone to explain to you what a desktop computer is?
> 
> Why not give up now, TravelinBoi?  Nobody with experience in computers,
> software, or operating systems will listen to a brainwashed cult follower
> like you, regardless of the quality of the computer, software, or
> operating system it advocates.

I see. So you DON'T understand that Apple isn't competing against 1024 
cpu single image SMP machines?
0
Nowhere (5224)
1/21/2005 10:27:12 PM

Snit wrote:
> "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06530.1070608@sc.rr.com on
> 1/20/05 5:37 PM:
> 
> 
>>>>>Hmmm, it may be possible to build a PC and use freeware software than
>>>>>to have a pre-built computer with a commercial OS and applications
>>>>>sent to you.
>>>>
>>>>The $470 PC I referred you to is an assembled computer, not one you
>>>>have to build.   The barebones kit of the same is $189.
>>>
>>>
>>>You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
>>>install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
>>>similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
>>>
>>
>>If one already has a commercial Linux distro, one just installs it.
>>Most such distros include OpenOffice.Org.
> 
> 
> Did you read what I wrote?  Your comments hardly seem connected.

I have a commercial Linux distro. What, did you believe that Novell/SuSE
is just a bunch of free-love hippies? I already have it, I just install 
it on
another machine. It includes OpenOffice.Org. True, I didn't account for
the installation time.

Or are equating commercial with proprietary?

> 
>>>Is there any surprise that you can get a machine that does so little out of
>>>the box for less than one that does so much (I assume a keyboard, mouse,
>>>monitor, etc. for each).
>>
>>It seems the Pundit-R had beefier hardware, so which machine can do
>>so little?
> 
> 
> I suggest you look up the meaning of the phrase "out of the box".  It is not
> a reference to avoiding the fast food place with the funny round headed
> clown.
> 
> 

You can't pop a CD or DVD into a machine and reboot?

> <SNIP>
>  
> 
>>>Add Windows (even home) and the lowest end office software cappuccino
>>>offers.  When you figure out that you now have a system considerably more
>>>expensive than the Mini, you will have begun to learn something.  I wish you
>>>luck.
>>>
>>
>>I don't recall asking for Windows.
> 
> 
> Ok.  So?
> 
> 

Well, if I don't add Windows, is it still more expensive?

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 11:21:57 PM

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <theletterk-C088C5.21542520012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <trman-6FF899.20253820012005@news.central.cox.net>,
>> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <theletterk-A68833.21223120012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
>>> TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <Nowhere-EFE944.15525520012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>>>> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <slrncv076s.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
>>>>> General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add 
>>>>>>>$79 
>>>>>>>for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application 
>>>>>>>software. 
>>>>>>>Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for 
>>>>>>>getting 
>>>>>>>it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're 
>>>>>>>going 
>>>>>>>to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
>>>>>>>software.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And 
>>>>>>>you're 
>>>>>>>STILL going to suffer from malware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is 
>>>>>>>a 
>>>>>>>better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up 
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because for the target audience, Linux is not a suitable alternative.
>>>>
>>>>IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
>>>>of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
>>>>between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
>>>
>>>I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones - 
>>>and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
>>
>>Granted, Ubuntu uses a purely text-based installer... but it's about as 
>>simple to install as it is possible to get. Basically, if your not 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but as soon as you start with a text based installer, you've lost 
> 95% of the Mac Mini's target audience.
> 
> 
>>trying to dual boot, you just say "install" and tell it what your 
>>planning on doing with the system. Redhat/Fedora and other RPM distros 
>>billed as 'newbie' distros are usually more difficult to work with than 
>>'difficult' distros such as Debian or even Gentoo (which is simple only 
>>because of the excellent documentation, not because it's particularly 
>>easy to figure out). However, Debian and Debian-based systems are the 
>>only legitimate options for 'ease of use' distros (mostly because 
>>source-based distros like Gentoo can take more than a day to install in 
>>some cases, I usually take about 14 hours--on the other hand, you can 
>>install Debian in about 30-45 minutes). Ubuntu is definitely the easiest 
>>of the distros I've run across and I've used all of the remotely common 
>>ones.
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO.
> 
> It takes you 14 hours to install Linux - and you want to pretend that 
> it's as easy to use as OS X?
> 

He said it took him that long to install Gentoo, so most of that time is
waiting for stuff to compile. Not difficult, just time consuming.

> It's amazing how some people can delude themselves.
> 
> 
>>>MAYBE if you get someone experienced to set the whole thing up and they 
>>>install everything you're going to need and if your needs are very 
>>>limited (particularly wrt multimedia). Maybe. But in the real world, 
>>>it's not even close.
>>
>>I don't consider my needs 'very limited', and I use Linux every day. 
>>It's my preferred platform in fact. This is with both Windows and OS X 
> 
> 
> That's because you're not the newbie user I'm talking about.
> 
> 
>>as legitimate options. I do prefer some of the applications on Os X 
>>(NewsWatcher, Quicksilver, Omniweb, to name a few), but I prefer using 
>>Ion as my default Window manager (which I can't do on OS X).
> 
> 
> There are alternative finders on the Mac.

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 11:25:11 PM

Snit wrote:
> "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F06842.1050001@sc.rr.com on
> 1/20/05 5:50 PM:
> 
> 
>>>>>>Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out PCs from
>>>>>>a Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
>>>>>
>>><SNIP>
>>>
>>>>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add $79
>>>>>for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application software.
>>>>
>>>>Add in free Linux and free applications.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not on option on the site.  You can add DOS or a flavor of Windows.
>>
>>You can't buy it without an OS?
> 
> 
> Correct.  The options are:
> 
>     DOS Format (Linux Ready)
>     Microsoft� Windows� XP Home
>     Microsoft� Windows� XP Professional
>     Microsoft� Windows� 2000 Professional
> 
> 
>>>And DOS hardly counts.  :)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Then add shipping cost (not included).
>>>>
>>>>I've been told it's $29.
>>>
>>>Were you told before or after you neglected to include that cost in your
>>>listing?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Then add in your time for getting
>>>>>it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're going
>>>>>to have to spend time on it).
>>>>
>>>>$470 is for an assembled system.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not including software.  Or shipping.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Then add in the obligatory security software.
>>>>
>>>>Linux doesn't need it.
>>>
>>>
>>>The offer no Linux software - so now you are talking adding it yourself.
>>
>>That's OK if one already has a nice distro.
> 
> 
> Well, still not the same as getting a commercial OS with commercial and
> best-of-class applications pre-installed.

Best text editor: GNU emacs (or vi for you vi fans, I don't need another 
flame war).
Best mathematical typesetting: TeX/LaTeX
Programming languages: C/C++, Python, Perl, PHP, Java, . . .
Server software: Apache and others.

What are these best-of-class applications?

> 
> I am not saying that getting a computer and having to add such things is a
> bad thing - only that to compare the two and claim they are the same is
> dishonest.  I have nothing against Linux, other, perhaps, than the
> fragmentation of the market with all the distros and GUIs, etc.  Even that
> is not really a problem for technical Linux users with time to do research.
> Too often, though, people will say distro A has feature A, distro B has
> feature B, distro C has feature C, so Linux is as good as OS X (or whatever)
> which also has feature A, B, and C.
>
>>>>>Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini.
>>>>
>>>>Nope.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are clearly lying.  When you add a version of Windows it goes above the
>>>Mini.  When you add some office software, it goes higher still.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And hugely larger.
>>>>
>>>>It's the size of a book.
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe an infants book... one with squeaky toys and stuff like that in the
>>>pages.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And you're STILL going to suffer from malware.
>>>>
>>>>Not with Linux.
>>>
>>>
>>>You mention Linux as though the computer comes with it.  It does not.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is a
>>>>>better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>Only because you skewed the comparison.  You demand the same things in the
>>>>PC as the Mac has, but you don't demand the Mac have everything the PC does.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not true at all.  I see nothing similar to Quicken.  I see nothing similar
>>>close to the size of the Mini.  I do not believe your system has DVI.
>>>Nothing like Expos�.  Does not include high quality fonts.  Does not include
>>>the ability to save as PDF.  Your system comes with no games (other than the
>>>ones that ship with Windows).
>>
>>Does the Mini include Quicken? I don't use Quicken.
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. The Mac version of Quicken is very different from the Windows
> version - generally easier to use but fewer bells, whistles, and missing
> some pretty cool features that exist on the Windows version.
> 
>>>>What is the cost of adding the following to the Mac Mini:
>>>>
>>>>line level audio in
>>>>Mic in
>>>>S-Video out
>>>>2 PCI slots
>>>>another RAM slot
>>>>533 FSB
>>>>Increase RAM limit to 2 GB
>>>>Add 6 channel audio
>>>>Be able to add RAM without voiding warranty
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes - they each have things the other does not.  Bottom line - for a fully
>>>functioning system, Apple, once again, does well in price comparisons.
>>>
>>>When comparing Apple to *all* other computer manufacturers, Apple still does
>>>not have a configuration to match every one in existence.  And they never
>>>will.  With the Mini, however, they have expanded their offerings very
>>>nicely.  
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Colin Day
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 11:31:48 PM
In article <41F1A5B3.50907@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <theletterk-C088C5.21542520012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>In article <trman-6FF899.20253820012005@news.central.cox.net>,
> >> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <theletterk-A68833.21223120012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <Nowhere-EFE944.15525520012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> >>>> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <slrncv076s.uv.generalpf@braids.ertw.com>,
> >>>>> General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 GMT, TravelinMan wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, add 
> >>>>>>>$79 
> >>>>>>>for OEM WIndows XP Home. Then, add the cost of application 
> >>>>>>>software. 
> >>>>>>>Then add shipping cost (not included). Then add in your time for 
> >>>>>>>getting 
> >>>>>>>it put together and working (not dollars if you wish, but you're 
> >>>>>>>going 
> >>>>>>>to have to spend time on it). Then add in the obligatory security 
> >>>>>>>software.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Oops. It's way more than the Mac Mini. And hugely larger. And 
> >>>>>>>you're 
> >>>>>>>STILL going to suffer from malware.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Seems like you've just managed to show once again that the Mini is 
> >>>>>>>a 
> >>>>>>>better value than anything you can come up with. Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Why not run OSS on it?  Just because you don't want Jobs' dick up 
> >>>>>>your
> >>>>>>tailpipe doesn't mean you want Gates' there instead.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Because for the target audience, Linux is not a suitable alternative.
> >>>>
> >>>>IMO Linux can actually be easier to use. It depends on the personality 
> >>>>of the user in question. The difference in usability isn't that extreme 
> >>>>between OS X and a newbie distro like Ubuntu.
> >>>
> >>>I haven't used that distro, but I've used half a dozen different ones - 
> >>>and none are close to OS X in ease of use. Not even in the same ballpark.
> >>
> >>Granted, Ubuntu uses a purely text-based installer... but it's about as 
> >>simple to install as it is possible to get. Basically, if your not 
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry, but as soon as you start with a text based installer, you've lost 
> > 95% of the Mac Mini's target audience.
> > 
> > 
> >>trying to dual boot, you just say "install" and tell it what your 
> >>planning on doing with the system. Redhat/Fedora and other RPM distros 
> >>billed as 'newbie' distros are usually more difficult to work with than 
> >>'difficult' distros such as Debian or even Gentoo (which is simple only 
> >>because of the excellent documentation, not because it's particularly 
> >>easy to figure out). However, Debian and Debian-based systems are the 
> >>only legitimate options for 'ease of use' distros (mostly because 
> >>source-based distros like Gentoo can take more than a day to install in 
> >>some cases, I usually take about 14 hours--on the other hand, you can 
> >>install Debian in about 30-45 minutes). Ubuntu is definitely the easiest 
> >>of the distros I've run across and I've used all of the remotely common 
> >>ones.
> > 
> > 
> > ROTFLMAO.
> > 
> > It takes you 14 hours to install Linux - and you want to pretend that 
> > it's as easy to use as OS X?
> > 
> 
> He said it took him that long to install Gentoo, so most of that time is
> waiting for stuff to compile. Not difficult, just time consuming.

My comment still stands.

14 hours to get a computer set up is just plain ridiculous.
0
trman (1068)
1/21/2005 11:32:07 PM

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.01.21.03.05.57.699645@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:16:36 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
>>>>
>>>
>>>At any reasonable level, yes.
>>
>>
>>My Grandfather uses it on the desktop...uses it for all his everyday
>>computing. He's very far from a geek, doesn't know his grep from his
>>startx. Doesn't have to.
> 
> 
> As I said:
> 
> If you can get someone else to set up your Linux system, and if your 
> hardware happens to be supported, and if you have no intention to add 
> software or change anything around later, Linux is OK.
> 
> But if you actually want to be in control of your computer, it requires 
> far more skill than most users have.

And how much skill would it require for a user to have that control 
using OSX?

Colin Day


0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 11:35:21 PM

C Lund wrote:
> In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
>>
>>Why not? And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> 
> 
> Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
> installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
> X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
> recognise my monitor / video card. I did some trial-and-error with 
> various monitor / video card combos until I found a combination that 
> locked up my computer. I now have a Linux partition that doesn't know 
> which monitor / video card to use. I haven't given up on it (yet), but 
> let's say I've got other things to do at the moment.

Have you ever installed OSX?

> 
> That, and the disk partitioning thing at the beginning of the 
> installation procedure was very geeky. It certainly isn't my mother's 
> OS. I won't comment on what it's like to *use* Linux, once it's 
> installed (because all it gives me at the moment is a blue-on-black 
> screen), but the installation itself was not very user-friendly.
> 
> It might not take a geek to use Linux, but it apparently takes one to 
> install it.
> 
> 
>>Colin Day
> 
> 

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 11:38:30 PM

TheLetterK wrote:

<snip>

> Quicken: You'd have to use WINE or Crossover Office.
> AppleWorks: OpenOffice or Koffice blows it out of the water.

You don't like GNUcash?

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/21/2005 11:49:24 PM
Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Since some Mac advocates have expressed an inability to pick out
PCs from a
> > Web site of SFF PCs, that match the Mac Mini, I'll do the job for
them.
> >
> > http://www.cappuccinopc.com/pundit-r.asp
> >
> > ProcessorIntel Socket 478 Pentium 4 Northwood / Prescott 3.2GHz+
> > ChipsetATI RS300 / IXP200
> > FSB800 / 533 / 400MHz
> > DIMM2 x DDR 400 / 333 / 266 up to 2GB
> > GraphicsATI Radeon 9100 Integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> > AudioADI AD1888, 6 channel
> > LAN10/100 Mbps Integrated (ATI IXP200 integrated MAC + RealTek
8201BL PHY)
> > Expansion Slot 2 x PCI Slots
> > Drive Bays 1 x 5.25" External Bay
> > 1 x 3.5" Internal Bay
> > Front I/O 1 x PCMCIA
> > 1 x 4-in-1 Card Reader (SM, MC, MMC, SD)
> > 1 x Security Key
> > 1 x S/PDIF out
> > 2 x IEEE 1394 (6pin, 4 pin)
> > 2 x USB 2.0
> > 1 x Mic-in
> > 1 x Headphone
> > Rear I/O 1 x PS/2 Keyboard
> > 1 x PS /2 Mouse
> > 1 x Mic-in / Line-in / Line-out
> > 1 x S-Video
> > 1 x TV-Out
> > 2 x USB 2.0
> > 1 x RJ45 (LAN)
> > 1 x DVI-D
> > 1 x VGA
> > 1 x Parallel
> > 1 x Serial
> > Dimensions91(W) x 357(D) x 275(H) mm
> > IncludedHDD Security Key
> >
> > $189 for a barebones kit (The barebone system does not include CPU,
memory,
> > hard disk and CD drive, It includes the casing, motherboard, CPU
heatsink
> > and blower, AC/DC Power supply, driver disk and manual.)
> >
> > $470 -  $29 cheaper than the base Mac Mini- for a complete Pundit-R
system,
> > which includes:
> >
> > Intel=AE Celeron=AE Processor @ 2.0GHz / 128K Cache
> >
> >  PC3200 DDR400 RAM DIMM 256MB
> > (increasing to 1GB costs $155, not the $425 the Apple Store
charges)
> >
> > 40GB 3.5" Ultra DMA 7200RPM Hard Drive
> > (with options all the way up to 300 GB)
> >
> > 52x24x52x16 CD-ReWritable Drive + DVD Combo
> > (with several other optical drive options)
> >
> > ATI Radeon 9100 integrated graphics w/ DVO support
> >
> > DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> > (with three other OS choices)
> >
> > 1 Year Warranty
> > (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . .

> > [+$47.00] )
>
> Doesn't look bad.

Thank you.

> Of course, it wouldn't look quite so good if you actually added
software
> to it...

Sure it would.

> Pretending that system with out software represents a "MUCH BETTER
> value" than the Mac Mini for the vast majority of consumers at whom
the
> Mac Mini is aimed is utterly specious.

The fact you disagree, or don't agree entirely, does not make my POV
"utterly specious."

0
thorne25 (21019)
1/21/2005 11:55:45 PM
TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <ni68c2-s08.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:29:01 -0600,
>>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> >> > Alan Baker wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
>> >> 
>> >> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
>> >
>> > Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
>> >
>> > It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> Do you understand the difference between a cluster, and a multi CPU
>> machine?
>> 
>> 
>> If you do, why did you make the comment above? it's not relevent to the
>> issue.
> 
> Of course I do.
> 
> But I was simply pointing out how silly his argument is. We're talking
> about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to run on a 1024
> cpu single image smp machine relevant?

Why is it that we are limiting the debate about "good" to just the desktop?
With Linux, a company can have Linux running on the desktop, the high
powered servers and clusters as well ad the big iron IBM mainframes. This
would make it so the IT staff can be moved and reasoned much easier to meet
the needs of the company with little or know training. If there is a big
project on the desktop and little or nothing going on with the servers or
mainframe, the server and mainframe admins can pitch in and help. Since it
is all Linux, they have a good idea of the basics and can take up some of
the basic daily tasks, with no retraining, freeing the desktop staff to
work on the project. 

Think you could get a Mainframe VMS operator to pitch in and help with a MAC
desktop project the same way you could get a Mainframe Linux operator to
pitch in with a Linux desktop project? The overall flexability of the
OVERALL Linux solution puts the MAC on the desktop only ivory tower
solution to same. 

> 
> 
> Or do you need someone to explain to you what a desktop computer is?

No, someone needs to explain to you that the desktop does not exist in a
vacuum independent of the rest of the computer world. 

0
no9 (3192)
1/22/2005 12:12:18 AM
Hamilcar Barca wrote:

> In article <87mzv2lcu6.fsf@phiwumbda.org> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:57:37
> +0100), Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> 
>> RPM pre-dates apt, right?  What's so new about apt?
> 
> RPM is a package format.
> rpm is a package utility.
> 
> DEB is a package format.
> APT is Debian's Advanced Package Tool.
> 
> APT is designed to manage dependencies properly and automatically.
> 
> The original 'rpm' application required the user to manage these
> manually.  The original 'apt' was a front-end for 'dpkg', the Debian
> equivalent of 'rpm'.  APT is now available for RPM-based systems.

urpmi

0
no9 (3192)
1/22/2005 12:14:22 AM
Hamilcar Barca <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> writes:

> In article <87mzv2lcu6.fsf@phiwumbda.org> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:57:37
> +0100), Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> RPM pre-dates apt, right?  What's so new about apt?
>
> RPM is a package format.
> rpm is a package utility.
>
> DEB is a package format.
> APT is Debian's Advanced Package Tool.
>
> APT is designed to manage dependencies properly and automatically.
>
> The original 'rpm' application required the user to manage these
> manually.  The original 'apt' was a front-end for 'dpkg', the Debian
> equivalent of 'rpm'.  APT is now available for RPM-based systems.

Thanks for the clarification.
-- 
Jesse F. Hughes
"Well, you know as soon as you have a new number I will be happy to
add it to the list.  Don't try those childish tit-for-tat games with
me."                          -- Ross Finlayson on Cantor's theorem.
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/22/2005 12:20:33 AM
In article <csma-0D9439.23151720012005@news.uswest.net> (Thu, 20 Jan 2005
23:15:17 -0700), Oxtard wrote:

> What an idiot

Everyone's been telling you that for months, but your idiocy continues.

> You have some reading to do:
> 
> [additional Oxtard spam deleted]
0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/22/2005 12:26:57 AM
In article <kNadnb-5xZ9DB2zcRVn-ow@rcn.net> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:14:22
-0800), Ralph wrote:

> Hamilcar Barca wrote:
> 
>> The original 'rpm' application required the user to manage these
>> manually.  The original 'apt' was a front-end for 'dpkg', the Debian
>> equivalent of 'rpm'.  APT is now available for RPM-based systems.

The material you quoted is correct.

> urpmi

I don't see your point.  Is 'urpmi' and APT-based application?  Or, is it
a non-APT application which handles dependencies?  Something else?

-- 
"The way things are structured today, from a licensing perspective,
 in the Linux world nobody will ever commercialize Linux the way that
 Sun commercialized FreeBSD."
-- Steve Ballmer.  http://news.com.com/2008-1082-998297.html.  25 Apr 2003

0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/22/2005 12:29:46 AM
In article <41F1A814.8060203@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <pan.2005.01.21.03.05.57.699645@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:16:36 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>At any reasonable level, yes.
> >>
> >>
> >>My Grandfather uses it on the desktop...uses it for all his everyday
> >>computing. He's very far from a geek, doesn't know his grep from his
> >>startx. Doesn't have to.
> > 
> > 
> > As I said:
> > 
> > If you can get someone else to set up your Linux system, and if your 
> > hardware happens to be supported, and if you have no intention to add 
> > software or change anything around later, Linux is OK.
> > 
> > But if you actually want to be in control of your computer, it requires 
> > far more skill than most users have.
> 
> And how much skill would it require for a user to have that control 
> using OSX?
> 

What control?

The average user (certainly the ones in the Mini target audience) wants 
to be able to send email, surf the web, do their finances, and maybe 
edit a few pictures WITHOUT OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE.

And that's trivial for even a beginner on OS X.
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 12:59:27 AM
In article <kNadnby5xZ_-B2zcRVn-ow@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> 

> > 
> > But I was simply pointing out how silly his argument is. We're talking
> > about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to run on a 1024
> > cpu single image smp machine relevant?
> 
> Why is it that we are limiting the debate about "good" to just the desktop?

Because this is comp.sys.mac.advocacy. We're talking about Macintosh 
computers, not mainframes.
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 1:00:07 AM
In article <41F1A8D2.60305@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
wrote:

> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>>The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
> >>
> >>Why not? And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> > 
> > 
> > Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
> > installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
> > X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
> > recognise my monitor / video card. I did some trial-and-error with 
> > various monitor / video card combos until I found a combination that 
> > locked up my computer. I now have a Linux partition that doesn't know 
> > which monitor / video card to use. I haven't given up on it (yet), but 
> > let's say I've got other things to do at the moment.
> 
> Have you ever installed OSX?
> 

I have - many times.

In fact, I beta test OS X. I can erase the drive, install the OS, and 
restore all my system preferences so the new system works exactly the 
way I like - all in under an hour.

That's why I'm still laughing about the person who said he took 14 hours 
to install Linux - while in the same breath saying it was easy to use.
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 1:01:29 AM
In article <41F1AB60.6040101@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
wrote:

> TheLetterK wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Quicken: You'd have to use WINE or Crossover Office.
> > AppleWorks: OpenOffice or Koffice blows it out of the water.
> 
> You don't like GNUcash?
I need to be able to keep a straight face when presenting it.
> 
> Colin Day
0
theletterk2 (469)
1/22/2005 1:19:34 AM
TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> writes:

> In article <41F1A8D2.60305@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > C Lund wrote:
> > > In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>>The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
> > >>
> > >>Why not? And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
> > > installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
> > > X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
> > > recognise my monitor / video card. I did some trial-and-error with 
> > > various monitor / video card combos until I found a combination that 
> > > locked up my computer. I now have a Linux partition that doesn't know 
> > > which monitor / video card to use. I haven't given up on it (yet), but 
> > > let's say I've got other things to do at the moment.
> > 
> > Have you ever installed OSX?
> > 
> 
> I have - many times.
> 
> In fact, I beta test OS X. I can erase the drive, install the OS, and 
> restore all my system preferences so the new system works exactly the 
> way I like - all in under an hour.
> 
> That's why I'm still laughing about the person who said he took 14 hours 
> to install Linux - while in the same breath saying it was easy to use.

Possibly you don't understand how a Gentoo install works. I won't argue
that it's easy to use, but the 14 hours consists of one hour of setup,
followed by 13 hours of doing something else while everything compiles.

-SEan
0
foobar5 (331)
1/22/2005 1:19:40 AM
Ralph <no@way.com> writes:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > But I was simply pointing out how silly his argument is. We're talking
> > about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to run on a 1024
> > cpu single image smp machine relevant?
> 
> Why is it that we are limiting the debate about "good" to just the desktop?
> With Linux, a company can have Linux running on the desktop, the high
> powered servers and clusters as well ad the big iron IBM mainframes. This
> would make it so the IT staff can be moved and reasoned much easier to meet
> the needs of the company with little or know training. If there is a big
> project on the desktop and little or nothing going on with the servers or
> mainframe, the server and mainframe admins can pitch in and help. Since it
> is all Linux, they have a good idea of the basics and can take up some of
> the basic daily tasks, with no retraining, freeing the desktop staff to
> work on the project. 

It's funny that you could substitute "Windows" for "Linux" in the 
preceding paragraph, and have a close approximation of MS marketing
fluff.
 
-SEan
0
foobar5 (331)
1/22/2005 1:25:58 AM
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F1A740.4020002@sc.rr.com on
1/21/05 4:31 PM:

>>>> The offer no Linux software - so now you are talking adding it yourself.
>>> 
>>> That's OK if one already has a nice distro.
>> 
>> 
>> Well, still not the same as getting a commercial OS with commercial and
>> best-of-class applications pre-installed.
> 
> Best text editor: GNU emacs (or vi for you vi fans, I don't need another
> flame war).
> Best mathematical typesetting: TeX/LaTeX
> Programming languages: C/C++, Python, Perl, PHP, Java, . . .
> Server software: Apache and others.
> 
> What are these best-of-class applications?

For one group of users your list may be appropriate.  And all of those
programs run under OS X - some even come with it.

I was in reference to the more typical user, where iLife is best of class,
as is Quicken, though surely AppleWorks is *not*.  Mail is very good for
most users, though I do not know if I would call it best of class... iChat
is excellent... etc.


-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 1:27:13 AM
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in post 41F1A4F0.1090507@sc.rr.com on
1/21/05 4:21 PM:

>>>> You neglected to add a commercial OS. You went with a freeware OS you would
>>>> install.  You neglected to add any office software.  You added nothing
>>>> similar to the other software one gets - out of the box - on the Mini.
>>> 
>>> If one already has a commercial Linux distro, one just installs it.
>>> Most such distros include OpenOffice.Org.
>> 
>> Did you read what I wrote?  Your comments hardly seem connected.
> 
> I have a commercial Linux distro. What, did you believe that Novell/SuSE is
> just a bunch of free-love hippies? I already have it, I just install it on
> another machine. It includes OpenOffice.Org. True, I didn't account for the
> installation time.
> 
> Or are equating commercial with proprietary?

The computer in question comes with only MS OS's.
>> 
>>>> Is there any surprise that you can get a machine that does so little out of
>>>> the box for less than one that does so much (I assume a keyboard, mouse,
>>>> monitor, etc. for each).
>>> 
>>> It seems the Pundit-R had beefier hardware, so which machine can do
>>> so little?
>> 
>> 
>> I suggest you look up the meaning of the phrase "out of the box".  It is not
>> a reference to avoiding the fast food place with the funny round headed
>> clown.
> 
> You can't pop a CD or DVD into a machine and reboot?

My suggestion stands.  Have you followed it?
> 
>> <SNIP>
>>  
>> 
>>>> Add Windows (even home) and the lowest end office software cappuccino
>>>> offers.  When you figure out that you now have a system considerably more
>>>> expensive than the Mini, you will have begun to learn something.  I wish
>>>> you
>>>> luck.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't recall asking for Windows.
>> 
>> 
>> Ok.  So?
>> 
>> 
> 
> Well, if I don't add Windows, is it still more expensive?

Well, if I remove the cost of the software from the Mini, it costs about
$120.  

-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 

0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 1:29:55 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> Well, if I don't add Windows, is it still more expensive?
> 
> Well, if I remove the cost of the software from the Mini, it costs about
> $120.  

Were can an Apple machine be bought without OS? I always told myself I
would buy a mac when:
-they don't ship with crappy mouse/keyboard
-I can choose my own OS
0
spam206 (250)
1/22/2005 1:34:35 AM
Hamilcar Barca wrote:

> In article <kNadnb-5xZ9DB2zcRVn-ow@rcn.net> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:14:22
> -0800), Ralph wrote:
> 
>> Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>> 
>>> The original 'rpm' application required the user to manage these
>>> manually.  The original 'apt' was a front-end for 'dpkg', the Debian
>>> equivalent of 'rpm'.  APT is now available for RPM-based systems.
> 
> The material you quoted is correct.
> 
>> urpmi
> 
> I don't see your point.  Is 'urpmi' and APT-based application? 

No. 

> Or, is it 
> a non-APT application which handles dependencies?  

Yes.

> Something else? 

Something else. 

http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/urpmi.php3

I like some of the features like 

--parallel

--auto

> 

0
no9 (3192)
1/22/2005 1:37:40 AM
TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <41F1A5B3.50907@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com>
> wrote:
> 
<SNIP>
>> > 
>> 
>> He said it took him that long to install Gentoo, so most of that time is
>> waiting for stuff to compile. Not difficult, just time consuming.
> 
> My comment still stands.
> 
> 14 hours to get a computer set up is just plain ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is the person that can't see the difference between an
expedient, fast install like that of, oh say, Mandrake and the highly
customizable install of gentoo that allows for compile time options
unavailable any other way. One can CHOOSE to install Linux as fast or
faster than your Apple software or they can customize the install in ways
IMPOSSIBLE on a MAC, taking longer but getting options unavailable to a MAC 
user. Sadly, it is ridiculous that Apple takes this option away from its
users. Sorry you can't see that, perhaps a MAC is best for you. You can
click on the little pictures and not be bothered with having to learn to
read. 
0
no9 (3192)
1/22/2005 1:44:20 AM
In article <41f1adab$0$6203$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl>,
 Daniel Tryba <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> Well, if I don't add Windows, is it still more expensive?
> > 
> > Well, if I remove the cost of the software from the Mini, it costs about
> > $120.  
> 
> Were can an Apple machine be bought without OS? I always told myself I
> would buy a mac when:
> -they don't ship with crappy mouse/keyboard
> -I can choose my own OS

You can. You can add Yellow Dog Linux any time you want.
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 1:45:58 AM
In article <x73bwuz2dx.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com>,
 Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> wrote:

> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> > In article <41F1A8D2.60305@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > C Lund wrote:
> > > > In article <41F06872.80302@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >>>The target audience does not consist of Linux geeks.
> > > >>
> > > >>Why not? And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Well... I installed MandrakePPC on my mac some time ago. The 
> > > > installation procedure was a lot more complicated than installing OS 
> > > > X. Most of it went OK, but then it turns out the installer doesn't 
> > > > recognise my monitor / video card. I did some trial-and-error with 
> > > > various monitor / video card combos until I found a combination that 
> > > > locked up my computer. I now have a Linux partition that doesn't know 
> > > > which monitor / video card to use. I haven't given up on it (yet), but 
> > > > let's say I've got other things to do at the moment.
> > > 
> > > Have you ever installed OSX?
> > > 
> > 
> > I have - many times.
> > 
> > In fact, I beta test OS X. I can erase the drive, install the OS, and 
> > restore all my system preferences so the new system works exactly the 
> > way I like - all in under an hour.
> > 
> > That's why I'm still laughing about the person who said he took 14 hours 
> > to install Linux - while in the same breath saying it was easy to use.
> 
> Possibly you don't understand how a Gentoo install works. I won't argue
> that it's easy to use, but the 14 hours consists of one hour of setup,
> followed by 13 hours of doing something else while everything compiles.

So? That's a silly way to work for something that's supposed to be as 
easy as Mac OS.

I spent about 2 minutes telling it what to do, then about 50 minutes 
doing something else while it installed, then about 3 more minutes to 
get the settings back the way I wanted them.
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 1:47:06 AM
In article <x73bwuz2dx.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com> (Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:19:40
+0000), Sean Burke wrote:

> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> That's why I'm still laughing about the person who said he took 14 hours 
>> to install Linux - while in the same breath saying it was easy to use.
> 
> Possibly you don't understand how a Gentoo install works.

This is TravelinBoi you're talking to.  Certainly it doesn't understand
how Linux works.  It can barely use MacOS, but it doesn't understand that
either.
0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/22/2005 1:49:35 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Well, if I remove the cost of the software from the Mini, it costs about
>> > $120.  
>> 
>> Were can an Apple machine be bought without OS? I always told myself I
>> would buy a mac when:
>> -they don't ship with crappy mouse/keyboard
>> -I can choose my own OS
> 
> You can. You can add Yellow Dog Linux any time you want.

But I don't want Yellow Dog. I already have the OS I would install if I
got a mac ppc, the same that runs all my other machines.

0
spam206 (250)
1/22/2005 1:52:02 AM
TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> writes:

> In article <x73bwuz2dx.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com>,
>  Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> wrote:
> 
> > TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > That's why I'm still laughing about the person who said he took 14 hours 
> > > to install Linux - while in the same breath saying it was easy to use.
> > 
> > Possibly you don't understand how a Gentoo install works. I won't argue
> > that it's easy to use, but the 14 hours consists of one hour of setup,
> > followed by 13 hours of doing something else while everything compiles.
> 
> So? That's a silly way to work for something that's supposed to be as 
> easy as Mac OS.

Yeah, I've done it a few times. Not because it was easy, that's for sure.
 
> I spent about 2 minutes telling it what to do, then about 50 minutes 
> doing something else while it installed, then about 3 more minutes to 
> get the settings back the way I wanted them.

Definitely preferable for most (but not all) purposes.

-SEan

0
foobar5 (331)
1/22/2005 1:54:50 AM
In article <1106351745.515725.179690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 thorne25@juno.com wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <myRHd.19908$by5.1580@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >

<snip>

> > > DOS Format (Linux Ready)
> > > (with three other OS choices)
> > >
> > > 1 Year Warranty
> > > (but you can extend the warranty:   3 Years Extended Warranty . . .
> 
> > > [+$47.00] )
> >
> > Doesn't look bad.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> > Of course, it wouldn't look quite so good if you actually added
> software
> > to it...
> 
> Sure it would.

No, it wouldn't. Computers need software and there is a cost associated 
with acquiring it, whether it is in dollars or time.

> 
> > Pretending that system with out software represents a "MUCH BETTER
> > value" than the Mac Mini for the vast majority of consumers at whom
> the
> > Mac Mini is aimed is utterly specious.
> 
> The fact you disagree, or don't agree entirely, does not make my POV
> "utterly specious."

The reality of the situation is what makes your claim specious, Edwin.

The vast majority normal consumers are *not* going to want to buy 
a computer and then immediately have to go out and download software and 
install it; especially when that software includes the OS.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
0
alangbaker (17682)
1/22/2005 1:58:07 AM
Hamilcar Barca <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote:

> "By" "that" "same" "asinine" "theory", "I" "should" "be" "able" "to" "buy"
> "a" "Mini" "Mac" "without" "iLife" [sic] "for "$420".

yes, you are slowly starting to understand... you can sell the iLife cds 
for $79 on eBay, or wherever, and then get to the $420 price...

Or since you are so interested in the Mini, you can buy it at Target for 
$449, sell your copy of iLife, and have a final cost of $370...

Or since you aren't quite evolved enough for OSX, you could sell those 
10.3 cds for another $50-$75 and get to around $300 for the Mini...

Wow... then you'd have your very first, real computer

:)
0
csma (3267)
1/22/2005 2:11:26 AM
"Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
41f1adab$0$6203$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 6:34 PM:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> Well, if I don't add Windows, is it still more expensive?
>> 
>> Well, if I remove the cost of the software from the Mini, it costs about
>> $120.  
> 
> Were can an Apple machine be bought without OS? I always told myself I
> would buy a mac when:

> -they don't ship with crappy mouse/keyboard

The Mini does not ship with any mouse or keyboard (though you can add one)

> -I can choose my own OS

And you can... though it does ship with OS X.  Not hard to remove and put
Linux over it.

When do you plan on making the purchase?

-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 

0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 2:16:37 AM
"TheLetterK" <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote in post
theletterk-4FBDA2.13441421012005@bignews.bellsouth.net on 1/21/05 11:44 AM:

>>> Can't see why. Most of the people I know who use budget systems don't
>>> even know what Quicken is.
>> 
>> A number of my customers use it - and most of my customers are relative
>> novices and / or senior citizens who are hardly techies.  In the last few
>> days I have had at least two calls about it (well, one was about MS
>> Money...)

> I suppose there's a bit of regional difference at work then.

Perhaps, but from when I worked at Intuit I can safely say it is used widely
across the USA... and in many other places.


-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 

0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 2:17:28 AM
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
1106311800.3bf6ce1b6ba9d16237203cd7ce27c726@1usenet on 1/21/05 5:50 AM:

>> Sure it does.  It has plenty for music and images, and even for a small
>> amount of video.  For folks doing more video, it is easy to connect an
>> external drive - if needed.  The system can easily grow if the person gets
>> that need.
> 
> Then show us the citations of Jobs selling the mini as little more than
> the hub in a relatively large distributed desktop PC.

Jobs, surely, has approval / veto power over the Apple web site.

It is not pushed solely on size there.

    http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mini.jpg

    http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mini2.jpg

Apple's marketing of the Mini is not about size alone.


>>> Although, everything except perhaps iMovie is easily replacable even
>>> with free/shareware. Even iMovie doesn't look to be anything particularly
>>> special.
>> 
>> Please, name the titles.
>> 
>> My guess: you won't.  Predictable...
> 
> I don't need to bother.

No.  You do not need to.  You can choose to predictably dodge the question
and show you have no credibility on this issue.

And you did.

Did doing so bring you joy?

> You've not demonstrated why anyone should take the first assertion seriously:
> namely that iLife is something remarkable. You people haven't even done so
> much as to demonstrate why it should be viewed useful relative to NOTHING.



-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 2:20:01 AM
In article <theletterk-15F258.13261621012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:

> In article <alangbaker-4F8B41.19473320012005@news.telus.net>,
>  Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <theletterk-BD778F.22001720012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <trman-5FE7F2.20261020012005@news.central.cox.net>,
> > >  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <theletterk-00C1AE.21112620012005@bignews.bellsouth.net>,
> > > >  TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <10v0fnjr80si04e@news.supernews.com>,
> > > > >  John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Liam Slider wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:59 +0000, TravelinMan wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >>OK. So you've got a system that's $29 less than the Mini. Now, 
> > > > > > >>add 
> > > > > > >>$79 
> > > > > > >>for OEM WIndows XP Home.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Why the fuck would we do that?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To avoid running one of the worse OSs on the planet : Linux.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's impossible, since it's better than both Windows and OS X 
> > > > > (though 
> > > > > only marginally better than OS X, depending on the situation).
> > > > 
> > > > Why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY why it's better than OS X.
> > > I've got choice in how I go about performing tasks. I can literally make 
> > > a Linux distro dance, whereas OS X is pretty much limited to acting like 
> > > Apple wants it to. I can alter the way Linux acts as I need to, 
> > > on-the-fly, at a basic level. You can do the same with the BSDs (Os X 
> > > isn't a BSD, just uses a FreeBSD-like userspace layer), but the hardware 
> > > support isn't nearly as good. There's really not too many concrete 
> > > advantages to using Linux instead of OS X (hence the reason I said 
> > > "marginally better than Os X", rather than "Vastly superior to OS X"), 
> > > it's mostly a difference in philosophy.
> > 
> > Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
> That's certainly not true--try something simple like running Ion2 as 
> your *default* graphical environment. Having an 'X11 mode' is no 
> substitute for using an X windowing server as the default graphical 
> environment.

You could do it. And you'd do it by doing precisely what you do to 
modify Linux: compiling and installing the software and setting the 
various config files to do what you want.

> > 
> > > 
> > > Os X is fine if you like Apple's way of doing things. But if you don't, 
> > > Linux/*BSD is a better option. Unless you absolutely have to use 
> > > commercial applications.
> > > > 
> > > > This ought to be good.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
0
alangbaker (17682)
1/22/2005 2:26:10 AM
In article <20050121204920.863$aY@news.newsreader.com>,
 Hamilcar Barca <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote:

> In article <x73bwuz2dx.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com> (Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:19:40
> +0000), Sean Burke wrote:
> 
> > TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> writes:
> > 
> >> That's why I'm still laughing about the person who said he took 14 hours 
> >> to install Linux - while in the same breath saying it was easy to use.
> > 
> > Possibly you don't understand how a Gentoo install works.
> 
> This is TravelinBoi you're talking to.  Certainly it doesn't understand
> how Linux works.  It can barely use MacOS, but it doesn't understand that
> either.

I'm just wondering how you can consider that version of Linux to be 
easier than Mac OS X when it takes you one hour to set up an 
installation (vs. about 2 minutes on the Mac) and it takes 14 hours for 
completion (vs about 1 hour on the Mac).
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 2:34:22 AM
In article <7badnRzEx9ppMmzcRVn-2w@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> 
> > In article <41F1A5B3.50907@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> <SNIP>
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> He said it took him that long to install Gentoo, so most of that time is
> >> waiting for stuff to compile. Not difficult, just time consuming.
> > 
> > My comment still stands.
> > 
> > 14 hours to get a computer set up is just plain ridiculous.
> 
> What is ridiculous is the person that can't see the difference between an
> expedient, fast install like that of, oh say, Mandrake and the highly
> customizable install of gentoo that allows for compile time options
> unavailable any other way. One can CHOOSE to install Linux as fast or
> faster than your Apple software or they can customize the install in ways
> IMPOSSIBLE on a MAC, taking longer but getting options unavailable to a MAC 
> user. Sadly, it is ridiculous that Apple takes this option away from its
> users. Sorry you can't see that, perhaps a MAC is best for you. You can
> click on the little pictures and not be bothered with having to learn to
> read. 

Yes, but he claimed that Gentoo was easier than Mac OS X, not Mandrake.
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 2:35:33 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:05:10 GMT,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <ni68c2-s08.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:29:01 -0600,
>>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> >> > Alan Baker wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
>> >> 
>> >> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
>> >
>> > Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
>> >
>> > It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> Do you understand the difference between a cluster, and a multi CPU
>> machine? 
>> 
>> 
>> If you do, why did you make the comment above? it's not relevent to the
>> issue. 
>
> Of course I do.
>
> But I was simply pointing out how silly his argument is. We're talking 
> about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to run on a 1024 
> cpu single image smp machine relevant?
>

The statement made was 

"Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X."

which takes the comparison far beyond the borders of the desktop.

>
> Or do you need someone to explain to you what a desktop computer is?

Feel free, but your understanding of context, will get in the way.

The claim was, that "Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can
do to Mac OS X." which as we have seen, is simply not accurate. Unless
you have really limited understanding of the term "anything" 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8bxmd90bcYOAWPYRArkZAKClwO6TLIfVZ0MxJsOpn/o64FTrNQCfU5Ht
TnzlNJSmsIKhnDUAk7ZE1Vc=
=Mlq7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"If guns cause crime, mine must be defective."  -Ted Nugent
0
warlock (9522)
1/22/2005 2:37:26 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:32:07 -0600,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <41F1A5B3.50907@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> He said it took him that long to install Gentoo, so most of that time is
>> waiting for stuff to compile. Not difficult, just time consuming.
>
> My comment still stands.
>
> 14 hours to get a computer set up is just plain ridiculous.


You are being disingenous. It may take that long, if you choose the long
path (compile everything) or, it's a simple as booting the LiveCD, and a
minute later, you're up and running. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8b2Pd90bcYOAWPYRAqfmAKC6Y+mVcGKYcswI1t6+k6h3lTFJoACfatcK
K/oSZ1ah0Vuv7GSR/V6MCsg=
=K0Wp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Every day, in a new way, I am grateful, that I can chose Linux.
0
warlock (9522)
1/22/2005 2:42:23 AM
Bob S wrote:

> Let's *assume* you can eke out a slightly better value for $499.00 in a 
> PC.  I think it doesn't matter.  I think all Apple had to do was get in 
> the ball park.  The prices are so close that those who were waiting for 
> a stripped down Mac will probably go for it.

Right, and those are the same 10,000,000 who will buy an iPod...and no more.

What you can't show is that, unlike Linux, OSX does not have the power 
to convert a Windows user to something else.

Even the 3 percent of paid Linux sales are *amazing* because they show 
the willingness of people to use something every day that is not Windows.

By the way, those Cappucino machines look quite elegant.

One of them ( or two of them ) might end up being the next PCs in my 
collection!


> 


-- 
incognito...updated almost daily
http://kentpsychedelic.blogspot.com

Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://texeme.com

0
CEO
1/22/2005 2:53:17 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> -I can choose my own OS
> 
> And you can... though it does ship with OS X.  Not hard to remove and put
> Linux over it.

So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something I don't
use?

> When do you plan on making the purchase?

When I can choose my own OS. But then a mini will still cost 25% more
than a Pundit, so I guess it will be a long long time before I buy an
Apple.

0
spam206 (250)
1/22/2005 3:07:56 AM
TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> writes:

> Yes, but he claimed that Gentoo was easier than Mac OS X, not Mandrake.

I recall it was more like "even Gentoo isn't too bad".
Which is true, depending on how you interpret "too".

-SEan
0
foobar5 (331)
1/22/2005 3:08:54 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Daniel Tryba <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote:
> 
> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something I don't
                        ^^^^ without
> use?
0
spam206 (250)
1/22/2005 3:11:10 AM
"Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
41f1c38b$0$155$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 8:07 PM:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> -I can choose my own OS
>> 
>> And you can... though it does ship with OS X.  Not hard to remove and put
>> Linux over it.
> 
> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something I don't
> use?

Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
price?

As long as you are taking the DIY road, I can not see where this gets in the
way.  If you need help removing OS X, I am happy to help.
 
>> When do you plan on making the purchase?
> 
> When I can choose my own OS. But then a mini will still cost 25% more
> than a Pundit, so I guess it will be a long long time before I buy an
> Apple.

If all you wanted to do was troll, you could have just said so from the
beginning.

-- 
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 3:12:01 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
> "Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
> 41f1c38b$0$155$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 8:07 PM:
> 
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>> -I can choose my own OS
>>> 
>>> And you can... though it does ship with OS X.  Not hard to remove and put
>>> Linux over it.
>> 
>> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something I don't
>> use?
> 
> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
> price?
> 
> As long as you are taking the DIY road, I can not see where this gets in the
> way.  If you need help removing OS X, I am happy to help.
> 

I'm all for Apple selling at this price range, and it's ok with me
that they restrict it to their own hardware, but why does it have
to be on a "Mini"?  I'm not interested in a tiny box computer that's
either difficult or impossible to expand.  Why can't they just sell a
stripped-down Mac with OS X in the $400-$500 range and let the customer
upgrade the hardware when he/she feels like it?

0
goo4222 (322)
1/22/2005 3:26:50 AM
"hoo" <goo@poo.invalid> wrote in post 35dvfqF4k6j8mU3@individual.net on
1/21/05 8:26 PM:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> "Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
>> 41f1c38b$0$155$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 8:07 PM:
>> 
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> -I can choose my own OS
>>>> 
>>>> And you can... though it does ship with OS X.  Not hard to remove and put
>>>> Linux over it.
>>> 
>>> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something I don't
>>> use?
>> 
>> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
>> price?
>> 
>> As long as you are taking the DIY road, I can not see where this gets in the
>> way.  If you need help removing OS X, I am happy to help.
>> 
> 
> I'm all for Apple selling at this price range, and it's ok with me
> that they restrict it to their own hardware, but why does it have
> to be on a "Mini"?  I'm not interested in a tiny box computer that's
> either difficult or impossible to expand.  Why can't they just sell a
> stripped-down Mac with OS X in the $400-$500 range and let the customer
> upgrade the hardware when he/she feels like it?

Sounds like you want a PowerMac for the cost of a Mini.  Not likely to
happen any time soon.


-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 3:32:49 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something I don't
>> use?
> 
> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
> price?

Offcourse not, Apple charges 129$ for Panther. Removing the software
should slash the price.

>>> When do you plan on making the purchase?
>> 
>> When I can choose my own OS. But then a mini will still cost 25% more
>> than a Pundit, so I guess it will be a long long time before I buy an
>> Apple.
> 
> If all you wanted to do was troll, you could have just said so from the
> beginning.

It's not my fault that a mini is so expensive overhere, 499EUR (489EUR
in Germany but that would cost me about 10EUR of fuel), thats about
625-650$.

0
spam206 (250)
1/22/2005 3:32:53 AM
In article <x7r7kexire.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com>,
 Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> wrote:

> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Yes, but he claimed that Gentoo was easier than Mac OS X, not Mandrake.
> 
> I recall it was more like "even Gentoo isn't too bad".
> Which is true, depending on how you interpret "too".
> 

Well, let's see:

1 hour configuration time vs about 2 minutes on OSX

14 hours installation time vs 1 hour on OS X 

'not too bad' seems like a pretty poor description.
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 3:35:00 AM
In article <6sq8c2-9l2.ln1@grendel.myth>,
 Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:05:10 GMT,
>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > In article <ni68c2-s08.ln1@grendel.myth>,
> >  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >> 
> >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:29:01 -0600,
> >>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Alan Baker wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
> >> >
> >> > Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.
> >> >
> >> >> 
> >> >> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
> >> >
> >> > It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Do you understand the difference between a cluster, and a multi CPU
> >> machine? 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> If you do, why did you make the comment above? it's not relevent to the
> >> issue. 
> >
> > Of course I do.
> >
> > But I was simply pointing out how silly his argument is. We're talking 
> > about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to run on a 1024 
> > cpu single image smp machine relevant?
> >
> 
> The statement made was 
> 
> "Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X."
> 
> which takes the comparison far beyond the borders of the desktop.
> 

Have it your way.

But, within the scope of this group (desktop computers), the statement 
is true.
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 3:35:49 AM
In article <35dvfqF4k6j8mU3@individual.net>, hoo <goo@poo.invalid> 
wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
> > "Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
> > 41f1c38b$0$155$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 8:07 PM:
> > 
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> -I can choose my own OS
> >>> 
> >>> And you can... though it does ship with OS X.  Not hard to remove and put
> >>> Linux over it.
> >> 
> >> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something I don't
> >> use?
> > 
> > Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
> > price?
> > 
> > As long as you are taking the DIY road, I can not see where this gets in the
> > way.  If you need help removing OS X, I am happy to help.
> > 
> 
> I'm all for Apple selling at this price range, and it's ok with me
> that they restrict it to their own hardware, but why does it have
> to be on a "Mini"?  I'm not interested in a tiny box computer that's
> either difficult or impossible to expand.  Why can't they just sell a
> stripped-down Mac with OS X in the $400-$500 range and let the customer
> upgrade the hardware when he/she feels like it?

What difference does it make? You're as bad as Slade and Edwin. You'll 
make a lot of noise, but you'd never buy it, anyway.
0
trman (1068)
1/22/2005 3:37:03 AM
"Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
41f1c965$0$143$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 8:32 PM:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something I don't
>>> use?
>> 
>> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
>> price?
> 
> Offcourse not, Apple charges 129$ for Panther. Removing the software
> should slash the price.

Unlikely... being that the cost of putting it on the drive is negligible.
It is not at though Apple has to pay royalties to itself.

> 
>>>> When do you plan on making the purchase?
>>> 
>>> When I can choose my own OS. But then a mini will still cost 25% more
>>> than a Pundit, so I guess it will be a long long time before I buy an
>>> Apple.
>> 
>> If all you wanted to do was troll, you could have just said so from the
>> beginning.
> 
> It's not my fault that a mini is so expensive overhere, 499EUR (489EUR
> in Germany but that would cost me about 10EUR of fuel), thats about
> 625-650$.

What does the price of the Mini have to do with your trolling?

-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 

0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 3:42:18 AM
"TravelinMan" <trman@hotmail.com> wrote in post
trman-6605E7.21370321012005@news.central.cox.net on 1/21/05 8:37 PM:

> In article <35dvfqF4k6j8mU3@individual.net>, hoo <goo@poo.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
>>> 41f1c38b$0$155$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 8:07 PM:
>>> 
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> -I can choose my own OS
>>>>> 
>>>>> And you can... though it does ship with OS X.  Not hard to remove and put
>>>>> Linux over it.
>>>> 
>>>> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something I don't
>>>> use?
>>> 
>>> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
>>> price?
>>> 
>>> As long as you are taking the DIY road, I can not see where this gets in the
>>> way.  If you need help removing OS X, I am happy to help.
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm all for Apple selling at this price range, and it's ok with me
>> that they restrict it to their own hardware, but why does it have
>> to be on a "Mini"?  I'm not interested in a tiny box computer that's
>> either difficult or impossible to expand.  Why can't they just sell a
>> stripped-down Mac with OS X in the $400-$500 range and let the customer
>> upgrade the hardware when he/she feels like it?
> 
> What difference does it make? You're as bad as Slade and Edwin. You'll
> make a lot of noise, but you'd never buy it, anyway.

Never *admit* to buying it.

I wonder how many of the Mac hating trolls are actually Mac users who are
just hear trying ... successfully... to get attention?

-- 
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.

0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 3:43:17 AM
"TravelinMan" <trman@hotmail.com> wrote in post
trman-0CA7A2.21345921012005@news.central.cox.net on 1/21/05 8:35 PM:

> In article <x7r7kexire.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com>,
> Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> wrote:
> 
>> TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Yes, but he claimed that Gentoo was easier than Mac OS X, not Mandrake.
>> 
>> I recall it was more like "even Gentoo isn't too bad".
>> Which is true, depending on how you interpret "too".
>> 
> 
> Well, let's see:
> 
> 1 hour configuration time vs about 2 minutes on OSX
> 
> 14 hours installation time vs 1 hour on OS X
> 
> 'not too bad' seems like a pretty poor description.

I four hours installed OS X 10.3 on five systems... and it only took that
long because I did not have enough sets of installer CD's, I was configuring
a server, I was installing software on other machines, and I was helping to
build a technology plan for the school.

-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 

0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 3:45:03 AM
Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
news:BE1719E5.1C5ED%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID: 

> "TravelinMan" <trman@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> trman-6605E7.21370321012005@news.central.cox.net on 1/21/05 8:37
> PM: 
> 
>> In article <35dvfqF4k6j8mU3@individual.net>, hoo
>> <goo@poo.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid>
>>> wrote: 
>>>> "Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
>>>> 41f1c38b$0$155$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 8:07 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid>
>>>>> wrote: 
>>>>>>> -I can choose my own OS
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And you can... though it does ship with OS X.  Not hard to
>>>>>> remove and put Linux over it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something
>>>>> I don't use?
>>>> 
>>>> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for
>>>> the same price?
>>>> 
>>>> As long as you are taking the DIY road, I can not see where
>>>> this gets in the way.  If you need help removing OS X, I am
>>>> happy to help. 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm all for Apple selling at this price range, and it's ok with
>>> me that they restrict it to their own hardware, but why does it
>>> have to be on a "Mini"?  I'm not interested in a tiny box
>>> computer that's either difficult or impossible to expand.  Why
>>> can't they just sell a stripped-down Mac with OS X in the
>>> $400-$500 range and let the customer upgrade the hardware when
>>> he/she feels like it? 
>> 
>> What difference does it make? You're as bad as Slade and Edwin.
>> You'll make a lot of noise, but you'd never buy it, anyway.
> 
> Never *admit* to buying it.
> 
> I wonder how many of the Mac hating trolls are actually Mac users
> who are just hear trying ... successfully... to get attention?

That should be "here trying" - I love beating Jim Jnr to the typo 
spotting :)

Nashty springs to mind. 

-- 
dee
0
emteedee (1110)
1/22/2005 4:01:29 AM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
>>> price?
>> 
>> Offcourse not, Apple charges 129$ for Panther. Removing the software
>> should slash the price.
> 
> Unlikely... being that the cost of putting it on the drive is negligible.
> It is not at though Apple has to pay royalties to itself.

It still an unwanted license the consumer has to pay for.

>>> If all you wanted to do was troll, you could have just said so from the
>>> beginning.
>> 
>> It's not my fault that a mini is so expensive overhere, 499EUR (489EUR
>> in Germany but that would cost me about 10EUR of fuel), thats about
>> 625-650$.
> 
> What does the price of the Mini have to do with your trolling?

Everything. I'm not interested in Apple's OS. Only hardware is left to
consider for purchase. So why should I pay 25% more to get product X
when product Y does exactly the same? That is exactly the reason I never
bought any Mac (even though I had a IIcx and a Performa, still have a
IIci I used to use as an X terminal), they are just to expensive for my
use.

0
spam206 (250)
1/22/2005 4:01:30 AM
"Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
41f1d019$0$154$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 9:01 PM:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
>>>> price?
>>> 
>>> Offcourse not, Apple charges 129$ for Panther. Removing the software
>>> should slash the price.
>> 
>> Unlikely... being that the cost of putting it on the drive is negligible.
>> It is not at though Apple has to pay royalties to itself.
> 
> It still an unwanted license the consumer has to pay for.
> 
>>>> If all you wanted to do was troll, you could have just said so from the
>>>> beginning.
>>> 
>>> It's not my fault that a mini is so expensive overhere, 499EUR (489EUR
>>> in Germany but that would cost me about 10EUR of fuel), thats about
>>> 625-650$.
>> 
>> What does the price of the Mini have to do with your trolling?
> 
> Everything. 

Doubtful.  You would likely be trolling no matter what Apple did, and
nothing Apple has ever done excuses your trolling.

> I'm not interested in Apple's OS. Only hardware is left to
> consider for purchase. So why should I pay 25% more to get product X
> when product Y does exactly the same? That is exactly the reason I never
> bought any Mac (even though I had a IIcx and a Performa, still have a
> IIci I used to use as an X terminal), they are just to expensive for my
> use.

Why do you want a Mac?


-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 4:09:47 AM
"Mike Dee" <emteedee@optushome.com.au> wrote in post
Xns95E6AD1D971EAemteedee@130.133.1.4 on 1/21/05 9:01 PM:

> Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in
> news:BE1719E5.1C5ED%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> 
>> "TravelinMan" <trman@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>> trman-6605E7.21370321012005@news.central.cox.net on 1/21/05 8:37
>> PM: 
>> 
>>> In article <35dvfqF4k6j8mU3@individual.net>, hoo
>>> <goo@poo.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid>
>>>> wrote: 
>>>>> "Daniel Tryba" <spam@tryba.invalid> wrote in post
>>>>> 41f1c38b$0$155$c5fe704e@news6.xs4all.nl on 1/21/05 8:07 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SNIT@cable0ne.net.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote: 
>>>>>>>> -I can choose my own OS
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And you can... though it does ship with OS X.  Not hard to
>>>>>>> remove and put Linux over it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So I can't choose one with OSX, why should I pay for something
>>>>>> I don't use?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for
>>>>> the same price?
>>>>> 
>>>>> As long as you are taking the DIY road, I can not see where
>>>>> this gets in the way.  If you need help removing OS X, I am
>>>>> happy to help.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm all for Apple selling at this price range, and it's ok with
>>>> me that they restrict it to their own hardware, but why does it
>>>> have to be on a "Mini"?  I'm not interested in a tiny box
>>>> computer that's either difficult or impossible to expand.  Why
>>>> can't they just sell a stripped-down Mac with OS X in the
>>>> $400-$500 range and let the customer upgrade the hardware when
>>>> he/she feels like it?
>>> 
>>> What difference does it make? You're as bad as Slade and Edwin.
>>> You'll make a lot of noise, but you'd never buy it, anyway.
>> 
>> Never *admit* to buying it.
>> 
>> I wonder how many of the Mac hating trolls are actually Mac users
>> who are just hear trying ... successfully... to get attention?
> 
> That should be "here trying" -

Thank ewe.

> I love beating Jim Jnr to the typo
> spotting :)
> 
> Nashty springs to mind.



-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)




0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 4:10:18 AM
Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in 
news:BE17203A.1C600%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:

>>> I wonder how many of the Mac hating trolls are actually Mac users
>>> who are just hear trying ... successfully... to get attention?
>> 
>> That should be "here trying" -
> 
> Thank ewe.

Ewer welcome.
 
>> I love beating Jim Jnr to the typo
>> spotting :)
>> 
>> Nashty springs to mind.



-- 
dee
0
emteedee (1110)
1/22/2005 4:17:33 AM
TravelinMan wrote:

> In article <6sq8c2-9l2.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> 
<SNIP>
>> 
> 
> Have it your way.
> 
> But, within the scope of this group (desktop computers), the statement
> is true.

Since when has this group been about the desktop? It is not
comp.os.linux.desktop. advocacy. No, this is a LINUX advocacy group, ALL OF
LINUX, not just the desktop. 

0
no9 (3192)
1/22/2005 4:42:33 AM
ooh it's so expensive. Loser.

0
imouttahere (3635)
1/22/2005 4:44:08 AM
On 2005-01-21, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <ni68c2-s08.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:29:01 -0600,
>>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> >> > Alan Baker wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
>> >> 
>> >> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
>> >
>> > Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
>> >
>> > It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> Do you understand the difference between a cluster, and a multi CPU
>> machine? 
>> 
>> 
>> If you do, why did you make the comment above? it's not relevent to the
>> issue. 
>
> Of course I do.
>
> But I was simply pointing out how silly his argument is. We're talking 
> about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to run on a 1024 

>> >> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.

> cpu single image smp machine relevant?
>
>
> Or do you need someone to explain to you what a desktop computer is?

>> >> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.


-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/22/2005 4:46:08 AM
On 2005-01-22, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <6sq8c2-9l2.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:05:10 GMT,
>>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
>> > In article <ni68c2-s08.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>> >  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> Hash: SHA1
>> >> 
>> >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:29:01 -0600,
>> >>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > In article <1106312740.ea3b123ce1e24cdeddc4c1dc67251cad@1usenet>,
>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2005-01-21, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Alan Baker wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Run it on an IBM Mainframe?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Run fully supported enterprise class RDBMS software?
>> >> >
>> >> > Apple's not interested in that market. Yet.
>> >> >
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Run some custom app on a 1024 cpu single image SMP machine?
>> >> >
>> >> > It works fine on a 2048 CPU cluster.
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Do you understand the difference between a cluster, and a multi CPU
>> >> machine? 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> If you do, why did you make the comment above? it's not relevent to the
>> >> issue. 
>> >
>> > Of course I do.
>> >
>> > But I was simply pointing out how silly his argument is. We're talking 
>> > about a DESKTOP PERSONAL COMPUTER. Why is its ability to run on a 1024 
>> > cpu single image smp machine relevant?
>> >
>> 
>> The statement made was 
>> 
>> "Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X."
>> 
>> which takes the comparison far beyond the borders of the desktop.
>> 
>
> Have it your way.
>
> But, within the scope of this group (desktop computers), the statement 
> is true.

Speak for yourself.

I run high performance, high volume databases.

A 32 cpu machine is pretty mundane in my world.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/22/2005 4:48:04 AM
On 2005-01-21, hoo <goo@poo.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
>> what's the fucking point of putting a PC in a car then? Gotta have my
>> DVDs & Mame!
>> 

	A head unit that can play double layer DVD+R's loaded with 
mp3s would be pretty cool actually.

>
> Whatever you want to use it for.
> But this is where I'd get one:
>
> http://www.xenarcdirect.com/
>
> It's what they specialize in.
>
>


-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/22/2005 4:49:13 AM
On 2005-01-22, TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <41F1A814.8060203@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> TravelinMan wrote:
>> > In article <pan.2005.01.21.03.05.57.699645@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> >>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:16:36 -0600, TravelinMan wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>And does it really take a geek to use Linux?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>At any reasonable level, yes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>My Grandfather uses it on the desktop...uses it for all his everyday
>> >>computing. He's very far from a geek, doesn't know his grep from his
>> >>startx. Doesn't have to.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > As I said:
>> > 
>> > If you can get someone else to set up your Linux system, and if your 
>> > hardware happens to be supported, and if you have no intention to add 
>> > software or change anything around later, Linux is OK.
>> > 
>> > But if you actually want to be in control of your computer, it requires 
>> > far more skill than most users have.
>> 
>> And how much skill would it require for a user to have that control 
>> using OSX?
>> 
>
> What control?
>
> The average user (certainly the ones in the Mini target audience) wants 
> to be able to send email, surf the web, do their finances, and maybe 
> edit a few pictures WITHOUT OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE.
>
> And that's trivial for even a beginner on OS X.

	That's all.

	Then the cheapest box you can throw together running Linux would
be more than adequate. It will even run Quicken if you're too pretentious
for GnuCash.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/22/2005 4:52:01 AM
On 2005-01-22, TheLetterK <theletterk@spymac.com> wrote:
> In article <41F1AB60.6040101@sc.rr.com>, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> TheLetterK wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> > Quicken: You'd have to use WINE or Crossover Office.
>> > AppleWorks: OpenOffice or Koffice blows it out of the water.
>> 
>> You don't like GNUcash?
> I need to be able to keep a straight face when presenting it.

	...which of course gives no one any good reason not to run GNUcash.

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \




                                                     
0
jedi (14753)
1/22/2005 4:53:19 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:35:49 -0600,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <6sq8c2-9l2.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>

>> 
>> The statement made was 
>> 
>> "Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X."
>> 
>> which takes the comparison far beyond the borders of the desktop.
>> 
>
> Have it your way.
>
> But, within the scope of this group (desktop computers), the statement 
> is true.


not even close. For one, OSX doesn't run on non-ppc hardware. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8dxfd90bcYOAWPYRAmSjAJ9nZJwLfd/ccPSf3chxVagsIK7r8gCfdMAX
Bc3wUmclJ2Q0bwq4L+OY8ZM=
=LR9c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Gravity is unforgiving.
0
warlock (9522)
1/22/2005 4:53:51 AM
In article <BE171291.1C5C2%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005
20:12:01 -0700), Snit wrote:

> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
> price?

Apple plans to follow Microsoft's example?
0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/22/2005 5:13:33 AM
In article <csma-DEE1DA.19112621012005@news.uswest.net> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005
19:11:26 -0700), Oxford wrote:

> Hamilcar Barca <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> "By" "that" "same" "asinine" "theory", "I" "should" "be" "able" "to" "buy"
>> "a" "Mini" "Mac" "without" "iLife" [sic] "for "$420".
> 
> yes, you are slowly starting to understand...

I understood all along, Oxtard.  Apple charges for iLife, in contrast to
your lie that it doesn't.

> Wow... then you'd have your very first, real computer

Wow... the Tard strikes again.
0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/22/2005 5:17:18 AM
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:49:13 GMT, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>On 2005-01-21, hoo <goo@poo.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
>>> what's the fucking point of putting a PC in a car then? Gotta have my
>>> DVDs & Mame!
>>> 

>	A head unit that can play double layer DVD+R's loaded with 
>mp3s would be pretty cool actually.

Hell with that.  I'd rather have a car stereo with a 40G hard drive full of
mp3s.  If I'm going to have ten of thousands of songs, I don't want to have
to ever switch disks.

Right now, I'm using a 40G HD walkman connected to the car stereo's aux input 
-- an expanded pjb100.


0
TCS
1/22/2005 5:21:40 AM
"Hamilcar Barca" <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote in post
20050122001318.187$Tn@news.newsreader.com on 1/21/05 10:13 PM:

> In article <BE171291.1C5C2%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005
> 20:12:01 -0700), Snit wrote:
> 
>> Would you be happier if Apple offered a Mini without OS X for the same
>> price?
> 
> Apple plans to follow Microsoft's example?

You mean the X-box?

-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 

0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 5:36:26 AM
"Hamilcar Barca" <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote in post
20050122001703.128$Fg@news.newsreader.com on 1/21/05 10:17 PM:

> In article <csma-DEE1DA.19112621012005@news.uswest.net> (Fri, 21 Jan 2005
> 19:11:26 -0700), Oxford wrote:
> 
>> Hamilcar Barca <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> "By" "that" "same" "asinine" "theory", "I" "should" "be" "able" "to" "buy"
>>> "a" "Mini" "Mac" "without" "iLife" [sic] "for "$420".
>> 
>> yes, you are slowly starting to understand...
> 
> I understood all along, Oxtard.  Apple charges for iLife, in contrast to
> your lie that it doesn't.

So if you want to claim that Apple is charging for the iLife that comes with
the Mini, it should follow that they are charging for the rest of the
software... and therefore the cost of the Mini itself is only about $120.
> 
>> Wow... then you'd have your very first, real computer
> 
> Wow... the Tard strikes again.

-- 
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

0
SNIT (24281)
1/22/2005 5:38:22 AM
In article <vr29c2-ff1.ln1@grendel.myth>,
 Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:35:49 -0600,
>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <6sq8c2-9l2.ln1@grendel.myth>,
> >  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> 
> >> 
> >> The statement made was 
> >> 
> >> "Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X."
> >> 
> >> which takes the comparison far beyond the borders of the desktop.
> >> 
> >
> > Have it your way.
> >
> > But, within the scope of this group (desktop computers), the statement 
> > is true.
> 
> 
> not even close. For one, OSX doesn't run on non-ppc hardware. 

"Do to *a* Linux". Not do *with* Linux.

The same software you can use under linux, you can use under "Mac OS X" 
by and large.

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFB8dxfd90bcYOAWPYRAmSjAJ9nZJwLfd/ccPSf3chxVagsIK7r8gCfdMAX
> Bc3wUmclJ2Q0bwq4L+OY8ZM=
> =LR9c
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
0
alangbaker (17682)
1/22/2005 5:47:32 AM
Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <vr29c2-ff1.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:35:49 -0600,
>>  TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article <6sq8c2-9l2.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>> >  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> The statement made was
>> >> 
>> >> "Pretty much anything you can do to a Linux, you can do to Mac OS X."
>> >> 
>> >> which takes the comparison far beyond the borders of the desktop.
>> >> 
>> >
>> > Have it your way.
>> >
>> > But, within the scope of this group (desktop computers), the statement
>> > is true.
>> 
>> 
>> not even close. For one, OSX doesn't run on non-ppc hardware.
> 
> "Do to *a* Linux". Not do *with* Linux.

Yes, and what *I* want to "do to *a* Linux" is install it on non-ppc
hardware, can OSS do that? 

> 
> The same software you can use under linux, you can use under "Mac OS X"
> by and large.
> 
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
>> 
>> iD8DBQFB8dxfd90bcYOAWPY