<http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/14/openmac-promises-399-headless-mac-b
ut-not-from-apple>

'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple

A company called Psystar has started advertising a $399 computer called
"OpenMac" which claims to be a Leopard compatible Mac built from
standard PC-parts. For $399, you get a tower computer with the
following specs:

- 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 2GB of DDR2 667 memory
- Integrated Intel GMA 950 Graphics
- 20x DVD+/-R Drive
- 4 USB Ports
- 250GB 7200RPM Drive

Many of the components can be upgraded, however. For example, the
graphics card can be updated to a GeForce 8600GT 512MB for $155 more. 

Psystar is marketing this as a cheaper and more expandable alternative
to a true Apple Mac.
When comparing base configurations, the Mac Mini costs 150% of the
price of the OpenMac while offering poorer performance, smaller storage
space, and RAM. Not only that but the Mac Mini doesn't have the option
for an nVidia GeForce 8600 video card like the OpenMac does so playing
games on it is a lost cause.

The company claims that the machine is Leopard compatible with some
"minimal patching" but does offer Leopard pre-installed. This is
reportedly accomplished by using parts that are known to be compatible
with Mac OS X Leopard, as well as the use of an EFI emulator.
With the EFI V8 emulator it is possible to install Leopard's kernel
straight from the DVD that you purchased at the Apple store barring the
addition of a few drivers to ensure that everything boots and runs
smoothly.

Readers should note that these claims have not been independently
verified, so this should not seen as an endorsement of this product.
However, the technology appears to be derived from the osx86project,
which has allowed hobbyists to install Mac OS X on their non-Apple PCs.

The concept is an interesting possibility, and will certainly draw the
attention of Apple. The use of Leopard on non Apple-branded hardware is
a violation of its End User License Agreement (EULA) and is
specifically prohibited.

===

In article <140420080927171678%ajanta@null.void>,
 Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

> A company called Psystar has started advertising a $399 computer called
> "OpenMac" which claims to be a Leopard compatible Mac built from
> standard PC-parts. For $399, you get a tower computer with the
> following specs:

And their Web site is already gone.

-- 
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at 
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On 4/14/08 6:43 PMApr 14, "tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> In article <140420080927171678%ajanta@null.void>,
>  Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
> 
>> A company called Psystar has started advertising a $399 computer called
>> "OpenMac" which claims to be a Leopard compatible Mac built from
>> standard PC-parts. For $399, you get a tower computer with the
>> following specs:
> 
> And their Web site is already gone.

Hmmm.... http://www.psystar.com worked for me, but it was pretty slow.

tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> And their Web site is already gone.

Their website works just fine for me.

In article <140420082154240093%ajanta@null.void>,
 Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

> tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> > And their Web site is already gone.
> 
> Their website works just fine for me.

It was down for a while; they said it was because the site was 
overloaded, but when it came back up, "Openmac" had changed to "Open 
Computer".

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

tacit:
> > And their Web site is already gone.

Ajanta:
> Their website works just fine for me.

OK, but don't leave us hanging here. Have you ordered one of these gems?

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In article <140420080927171678%ajanta@null.void>,
 Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

> <http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/14/openmac-promises-399-headless-mac-b
> ut-not-from-apple>
> 
> 'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple
> 
> A company called Psystar has started advertising a $399 computer called
> "OpenMac" which claims to be a Leopard compatible Mac built from
> standard PC-parts. For $399, you get a tower computer with the
> following specs:
> 
> - 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

I wouldn't exactly call a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo processor "Mac Pro" 
performance. For tasks that scale well across multiple cores, the base 
model Mac Pro is probably upwards of six times as fast as this.

-- 
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way." 
� � � � � � � � � � � � --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In message <znu-D11A43.00374015042008@news.individual.net> 
  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <140420080927171678%ajanta@null.void>,
>  Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

>> <http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/14/openmac-promises-399-headless-mac-b
>> ut-not-from-apple>
>> 
>> 'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple
>> 
>> A company called Psystar has started advertising a $399 computer called
>> "OpenMac" which claims to be a Leopard compatible Mac built from
>> standard PC-parts. For $399, you get a tower computer with the
>> following specs:
>> 
>> - 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

> I wouldn't exactly call a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo processor "Mac Pro" 
> performance. For tasks that scale well across multiple cores, the base 
> model Mac Pro is probably upwards of six times as fast as this.

You would need to price this with 2 quad core Xeon chips to compare it to
a Mac Pro.

Not only does this computer have a pretty crappy non-xeon chip, it's a
2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E4500, so not even up to what is in the current
Macs.

Firewire 400 (800 not available at all) is an addon. the integrated graphics
are much worse than the card included in the MacPro, and it appears to max 
out at 4GB of RAM, or 1/8th the MacPro.

The only Mac this piece of crap compares well to is the mini, which has not
seen a refresh in a long, long time.  But is expected to refresh very soon.

The $1000 machine is better, but still falls far short of MacPro levels.

-- 
I loved you when our love was blessed
    I love you now there's nothing left
    But sorrow and a sense of overtime 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:18:03 -0400, Davoud wrote
(in article <150420080018035004%star@sky.net>):

> tacit:
>>> And their Web site is already gone.
> 
> Ajanta:
>> Their website works just fine for me.
> 
> OK, but don't leave us hanging here. Have you ordered one of these gems?
> 
> Davoud
> 
> 

They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with legalities; 
like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the system. 
I'll not be trusting them with my CC#.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with legalities; 
> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the system. 
> I'll not be trusting them with my CC#.

offering the system itself doesn't violate apple's eula - it's just a
pc.

pre-installing leopard, however, is an eula violation, and from what i
read, they are planning to fight it, which ought to be interesting.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:49:28 -0400, nospam wrote
(in article <150420080649284648%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with legalities; 
>> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the system. 
>> I'll not be trusting them with my CC#.
> 
> offering the system itself doesn't violate apple's eula - it's just a
> pc.
> 
> pre-installing leopard, however, is an eula violation, and from what i
> read, they are planning to fight it, which ought to be interesting.

oh, yeah. The fireworks should be quite impressive.

I just looked at their site. The 'Open Pro' starts at $1k and seems aimed at 
the Mac Pro. The 'Open' starts at $400 and seems aimed at the Mac mini. OS is 
extra; $155 for Leopard, $5 less for your choice of Vista Home Premium, Vista 
Home Premium 64 bit, and XP Pro. Unbuntu is also available, for free.

It seems that they're not just going for Apple, they're also trying to 
irritate Microsoft at the same time, given that Amazon sells Vista Home 
Premium for $200 and XP Pro for $270...

Can you say 'Death Wish'? Knew you could...

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the system. 

How, precisely?

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> OK, but don't leave us hanging here. Have you ordered one of these gems?

No, I don't need a new computer at present, and don't like "tower"
machines or uncertainty about sw updates. 

Moreover,  $399 + $155 (OS) + monitor gets you pretty close to the
refurbished iMac price ($999) which is much closer to my cup of tea.

On Apr 15, 7:34=A0am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <znu-D11A43.00374015042...@news.individual.net>
> =A0 ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <140420080927171678%aja...@null.void>,
> > =A0Ajanta <aja...@null.void> wrote:
> >> <http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/14/openmac-promises-399-headless-mac-=
b
> >> ut-not-from-apple>
>
> >> 'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple
>
> >> A company called Psystar has started advertising a $399 computer called=

> >> "OpenMac" which claims to be a Leopard compatible Mac built from
> >> standard PC-parts. For $399, you get a tower computer with the
> >> following specs:
>
> >> - 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
> > I wouldn't exactly call a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo processor "Mac Pro"
> > performance. For tasks that scale well across multiple cores, the base
> > model Mac Pro is probably upwards of six times as fast as this.
>
> You would need to price this with 2 quad core Xeon chips to compare it to
> a Mac Pro.
>
> Not only does this computer have a pretty crappy non-xeon chip, it's a
> 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E4500, so not even up to what is in the current
> Macs.
>
> Firewire 400 (800 not available at all) is an addon. the integrated graphi=
cs
> are much worse than the card included in the MacPro, and it appears to max=

> out at 4GB of RAM, or 1/8th the MacPro.
>
> The only Mac this piece of crap compares well to is the mini, which has no=
t
> seen a refresh in a long, long time. =A0But is expected to refresh very so=
on.
>
> The $1000 machine is better, but still falls far short of MacPro levels.
>
> --
> I loved you when our love was blessed
> =A0 =A0 I love you now there's nothing left
> =A0 =A0 But sorrow and a sense of overtime

You can get a damn good machine at that site for 1200, more than half
off of the MacPro's and for not much less in performance.  I'm
thinking of picking up one of those $400 jobs to let the kids play
with.  (Prolly bump the vid card up)

In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with legalities; 
> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the system. 

I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty with
this viewpoint. 

Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating that
Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 

Otherwise, I don't think private companies' wishes are laws in this
country.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:37:53 -0400, Ajanta wrote
(in article <150420081037534186%ajanta@null.void>):

> In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with legalities; 
>> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the system. 
> 
> I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty with
> this viewpoint. 
> 
> Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating that
> Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 
> 
> Otherwise, I don't think private companies' wishes are laws in this
> country.

It comes down to what one side's lawyers can establish in court. Apple has an 
extremely good record at stomping all over people who try this kind of thing, 
going back to their nuking of Franklin Computers and on up to their pounding 
of eMachines over the eOne. I doubt, I really doubt, that these guys have 
lawyers who can withstand the self-propelled legal chainsaws which are 
revving up even as I type this...

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <150420081037534186%ajanta@null.void>,
 Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
> > They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with legalities; 
> > like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the system. 
> 
> I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty with
> this viewpoint. 
> 
> Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating that
> Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 
> 
> Otherwise, I don't think private companies' wishes are laws in this
> country.

  Nothin in there says otherwise. EULA is end-user licensing agreement.

On 2008-04-14, Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

> 'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple

The Angry Drunk has a couple of links and some "Additional Thoughts on 
the OpenMac Announcement:

<http://www.theangrydrunk.com/2008/04/15/additional-thoughts-on-the-openmac-announcement/>

It seems that Psystar wants to go to court. I know EULAs are how shall 
we put it - not universally liked. However, the GPL is an EULA and I 
wouldn't like to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <150420080912247376%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
> > like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the system. 
> 
> How, precisely?

You are not allowed to install Leopard on a non-Apple computer:

From the EUlA:

"2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
"A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1)
copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a
time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any
non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License
does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at
a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a
network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time."

source: <http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf>

-- 
Jim Gibson

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
                http://www.usenet.com

In article <150420081105187537%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson
<jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <150420080912247376%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > 
> > > like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the
> > > system. 
> > 
> > How, precisely?
> 
> You are not allowed to install Leopard on a non-Apple computer:

Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing Leopard
would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

In article <150420081037534186%ajanta@null.void>,
 Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

> > They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with 
> > legalities; like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by 
> > offering the system. 
> 
> I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty 
> with this viewpoint. 
> 
> Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating 
> that Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 
> 
> Otherwise, I don't think private companies' wishes are laws in this 
> country.

EULAs are more than just wishes.  When one buys a product, and uses it, 
one is bound by the EULA.  If one does not agree with the EULA, one's 
only recourse is to return the product for a refund.  It is actually 
part of contract law.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

me <dt2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >
> > Not only does this computer have a pretty crappy non-xeon chip, it's a
> > 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E4500, so not even up to what is in the current
> > Macs.
> > ...
> > The $1000 machine is better, but still falls far short of MacPro levels.=

>
> You can get a damn good machine at that site for 1200, more than half
> off of the MacPro's and for not much less in performance.

YMMV on how you define "performance"...knowledgeable consumers have
known now for several years that comparing MHz ratings is highly
inadequate.

Simplistically:

* 100% more CPU cores in the Mac Pro (4 vs 2)
* 100% faster FSB in the Mac Pro (1600MHz vs 800MHz)

Plus other elements, such as Xeon cores vs. Core 2 Duo cores, slight
difference in GHz, unknowns on if they're running SATA-I or -II, etc.
Overall, I think that it would be extremely generous to the 'OpenMac'
to suggest that they might have as much as half the Mac Pro's
horsepower...without actually researching benchmarks, I'd say that its
more likely that they're at around 1/3rd.

Granted, what you might be saying is that you personally don't need
that as much horsepower as the Mac Pro offers (especially in the
default configuration, which has 2 x 4 =3D 8 cores), but that's a
different proposition than claiming that they're not that different.


>=A0I'm thinking of picking up one of those $400 jobs to let the kids play
> with. =A0(Prolly bump the vid card up)

Feel free to do so.   Personally, I think JJ O'Shea said it the right
way, but I'll be a bit stronger:  since they're so obviously willing
to play fast & loose with EULA contract law, there's simply no way
that I'd dare trust them with my Credit Card info.


-hh

In article <150420081223204310%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <150420081105187537%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson
> <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <150420080912247376%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
> > Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the
> > > > system. 
> > > 
> > > How, precisely?
> > 
> > You are not allowed to install Leopard on a non-Apple computer:
> 
> Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing Leopard
> would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...

Yes, that is true, but from their website they offer to sell you a unit
with Leopard for an extra $155, unless of course they just send you the
Leopard DVD and let you install it yourself.

-- 
Jim Gibson

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------     
                http://www.usenet.com

In article <michelle-18F44A.11425715042008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> EULAs are more than just wishes.  When one buys a product, and uses it, 
> one is bound by the EULA.  If one does not agree with the EULA, one's 
> only recourse is to return the product for a refund.  It is actually 
> part of contract law.

it actually depends...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability>

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them
being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have
addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found
some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion,
unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.

In article <150420081241463495%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson
<jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <150420081223204310%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:

<snip>

> > 
> > Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing Leopard
> > would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...
> 
> Yes, that is true, but from their website they offer to sell you a unit
> with Leopard for an extra $155, unless of course they just send you the
> Leopard DVD and let you install it yourself.

The installation would violate the EULA. Selling the computer and
including Leopard in the shipment would not, IMO. But IANAL.

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

> > > Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing Leopard
> > > would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...
> > 
> > Yes, that is true, but from their website they offer to sell you a unit
> > with Leopard for an extra $155, unless of course they just send you the
> > Leopard DVD and let you install it yourself.

Of course most people won't bother with the $155 so their cost will be 
$400.  
 
> The installation would violate the EULA. Selling the computer and
> including Leopard in the shipment would not, IMO. But IANAL.

Good point.  And they should remind people that "including Leopard" 
means another sale to Apple for their well designed OS.

> > > > like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the
> > > > system. 
> > > 
> > > How, precisely?
> > 
> > You are not allowed to install Leopard on a non-Apple computer:
> 
> Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing Leopard
> would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...

They could backtrack a bit:  Sell the computer with a blank hard drive.  
Include a brand new, legit, sealed copy of Leopard in the package.  How 
the end user uses those 2 pieces is anybody's guess.  If they don't 
market it as a Mac, are then then breaking any laws?  They could 
backtrack even further and not sell it with any OS.  After all you can 
get Leopard from any Apple dealer.  (I wonder if they are getting volume 
pricing from Apple?  lol!)  Surely then they are untouchable.  Many in 
the OSX86 community are worried that Apple will now clamp down on what 
has in the past been very lackluster security on their part in terms of 
people's ability to hack OS X for their PC's.  In most cases it doesn't 
not take away from a Mac sale as they would never buy a real Mac anyway, 
and word mouth can be a powerful advertiser.  Plus many OSX86'ers get 
real Macs later after tiring with all the patches and hacks needed to 
keep it going through updates and hardware changes.  If Apple wanted to 
make it hard to hack they could make it LOT harder than they have in the 
past.  Psystar may push them in a direction none of us want them to go 
because if Psystar gets away with it, what's to stop any idiot flogging 
"Macs" on Ebay?  Poorly put together machines drag Apple's name down.

In article <0001HW.C42A46B101CDB3A3F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:37:53 -0400, Ajanta wrote
> (in article <150420081037534186%ajanta@null.void>):
> 
> > In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > 
> >> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with legalities; 
> >> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the 
> >> system. 
> > 
> > I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty with
> > this viewpoint. 
> > 
> > Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating that
> > Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 
> > 
> > Otherwise, I don't think private companies' wishes are laws in this
> > country.
> 
> It comes down to what one side's lawyers can establish in court. Apple has an 
> extremely good record at stomping all over people who try this kind of thing, 
> going back to their nuking of Franklin Computers and on up to their pounding 
> of eMachines over the eOne. 

Can you blame Apple? Clones were a complete disaster the last time Apple 
tried it.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> EULAs are more than just wishes...

Sure, but people tend to drop words like "illegal" too lightly. It is
not *illegal* to change your mind and refuse to do something you agreed
to. If anyone has been damaged, they have to prove it in a court. But
then a damaged party wouldn't need a prior agreement to sue either;
they can do it anyway. :)

In article <noemailhere-78307E.15494315042008@news.mts.net>, The New
guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing Leopard
> > > > would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...
> > > 
> > > Yes, that is true, but from their website they offer to sell you a unit
> > > with Leopard for an extra $155, unless of course they just send you the
> > > Leopard DVD and let you install it yourself.
> 
> Of course most people won't bother with the $155 so their cost will be 
> $400.  

and what operating system will they run?  they'd still need to buy
leopard themselves for $100 or so, bringing the price up to $500. 
otherwise, it's just another pc running windows or linux.

> > > > > Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing 
> > > > > Leopard would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, that is true, but from their website they offer to sell you a unit
> > > > with Leopard for an extra $155, unless of course they just send you the
> > > > Leopard DVD and let you install it yourself.
> > 
> > Of course most people won't bother with the $155 so their cost will be 
> > $400.  
> 
> and what operating system will they run?  
> they'd still need to buy
> leopard themselves for $100 or so, bringing the price up to $500. 
> otherwise, it's just another pc running windows or linux.

They would run OS X.  They would just grab it for free off a torrent 
site.  Think of the type of people we're talking about here.  They've 
already broken the Eula.  Would they really pay $129 or more to be 
legit?  I think not.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:06:25 -0400, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article <jollyroger-B65309.16062515042008@individual.net>):

> In article <0001HW.C42A46B101CDB3A3F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:37:53 -0400, Ajanta wrote
>> (in article <150420081037534186%ajanta@null.void>):
>> 
>>> In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>>> J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with 
>>>> legalities; 
>>>> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the 
>>>> system. 
>>> 
>>> I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty with
>>> this viewpoint. 
>>> 
>>> Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating that
>>> Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 
>>> 
>>> Otherwise, I don't think private companies' wishes are laws in this
>>> country.
>> 
>> It comes down to what one side's lawyers can establish in court. Apple has 
>> an 
>> extremely good record at stomping all over people who try this kind of 
>> thing, 
>> going back to their nuking of Franklin Computers and on up to their 
>> pounding 
>> of eMachines over the eOne. 
> 
> Can you blame Apple? Clones were a complete disaster the last time Apple 
> tried it.
> 
> 

Nope.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <noemailhere-501D9E.16371315042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > > Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing 
> > > > > > Leopard would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, that is true, but from their website they offer to sell you a 
> > > > > unit
> > > > > with Leopard for an extra $155, unless of course they just send you 
> > > > > the
> > > > > Leopard DVD and let you install it yourself.
> > > 
> > > Of course most people won't bother with the $155 so their cost will be 
> > > $400.  
> > 
> > and what operating system will they run?  
> > they'd still need to buy
> > leopard themselves for $100 or so, bringing the price up to $500. 
> > otherwise, it's just another pc running windows or linux.
> 
> They would run OS X.  They would just grab it for free off a torrent 
> site.  Think of the type of people we're talking about here.  They've 
> already broken the Eula.  Would they really pay $129 or more to be 
> legit?  I think not.

Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a 
Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)

> 
> Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a 
> Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)

Depending on your download speed. I downloaded the latest Fedora core DVD 
and rescue CD, about 4GB in 1.5 hours for cable connection.

In article <znnNj.106016$Ft5.90749@newsfe15.lga>,
 lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:

> > 
> > Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a 
> > Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)
> 
> Depending on your download speed. I downloaded the latest Fedora core DVD 
> and rescue CD, about 4GB in 1.5 hours for cable connection.

....and the Mac OS X 10.5 Install DVD weighs in at 7.11 GB.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-44EE24.08564716042008@individual.net>, Jolly
Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <znnNj.106016$Ft5.90749@newsfe15.lga>,
>  lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a 
> > > Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)
> > 
> > Depending on your download speed. I downloaded the latest Fedora core DVD 
> > and rescue CD, about 4GB in 1.5 hours for cable connection.
> 
> ...and the Mac OS X 10.5 Install DVD weighs in at 7.11 GB.

and it took 80 minutes to download from Apple's Developer Website via
my cable connection and almost 3 hrs for my brother on his cable
connection...some cable connections are faster than others, some times
of day are better, etc. making an answer to "how long" somewhat
variable.

-- 
Spenser

J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote in
news:0001HW.C42AF92C01DA09A6F02066D8@newsgroups.comcast.net: 

> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:06:25 -0400, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <jollyroger-B65309.16062515042008@individual.net>):
> 
>> In article <0001HW.C42A46B101CDB3A3F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:37:53 -0400, Ajanta wrote
>>> (in article <150420081037534186%ajanta@null.void>):
>>> 
>>>> In article
>>>> <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>, J.J.
>>>> O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with 
>>>>> legalities; 
>>>>> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering
>>>>> the system. 
>>>> 
>>>> I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty
>>>> with this viewpoint. 
>>>> 
>>>> Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating
>>>> that Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 
>>>> 
>>>> Otherwise, I don't think private companies' wishes are laws in this
>>>> country.
>>> 
>>> It comes down to what one side's lawyers can establish in court.
>>> Apple has an 
>>> extremely good record at stomping all over people who try this kind
>>> of thing, 
>>> going back to their nuking of Franklin Computers and on up to their 
>>> pounding 
>>> of eMachines over the eOne. 
>> 
>> Can you blame Apple? Clones were a complete disaster the last time
>> Apple tried it.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Nope.
> 

If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a decent 
price this probably won't happen. 

As it is, I can buy a truely awesome Mac Pro, for a truely awesome price of 
$2799. Way out of price range for the average joe. 
I can purchase a mini for $599. It is almost completely un-upgradeable.
I could also purchase the iMac. Again that upgrade issue.
To keep pace with the advances in software/hardware technologies, it means 
replacing either the iMac or Mini almost every year.
I can order a blue-ray player for my windows/Linux machine for $130. If I 
want the same capability for my Mac. I have two choices. Wait for Apple to 
decide "maybe" to include it in the next Mini/iMac. Buy an external drive 
to clutter up my desk and run even slower. Not to mention using an already 
limited number of ports. And forget upgrading the video card, sound card or 
more USB/firewire ports. 
I can add a really great video card with dual DVI, 256mb or DDR three to 
the OpenMac (now called open computer). I can add more internal drives. The 
company is promising to have an option to upgrade to a Nvidia 8800 GT soon. 
Even with a few upgrades, the price still stands way below the price of a 
Mac Pro (yes it has fantastic performance) and although it would be more 
exspensive than the mini, the mini's performance is lackluster at best with 
NO serious upgrades available.

I would love to replace my old G4 with an Apple mid-range priced, 
upgradeable computer. But the three options are poor at best. I can 
bankrupt myself for a Mac Pro or buy an minimally upgradeable iMac or Mini.

IF it truely works as stated on their site, the Open Computer is a good 
option for the average Joe.

In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
 lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:

> If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
> decent price this probably won't happen.

I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be profitable, 
they would make it.

> To keep pace with the advances in software/hardware technologies, it 
> means replacing either the iMac or Mini almost every year.

But one doesn't need to keep pace with those technologies.  There's 
rarely a need to have the latest and greatest.  In fact, most Mac owners 
replace their computers less frequently than most PC owners.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-AD448B.07591216042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
>  lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
> > decent price this probably won't happen.
> 
> I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be profitable, 
> they would make it.

Yes. Probably the difficulty is to see just how to size it. How many 
extra bays, how many slots, ...
> 
> > To keep pace with the advances in software/hardware technologies, it 
> > means replacing either the iMac or Mini almost every year.
> 
> But one doesn't need to keep pace with those technologies.  There's 
> rarely a need to have the latest and greatest.  In fact, most Mac owners 
> replace their computers less frequently than most PC owners.

Indeed. A few months ago at home I replaced a G4 mini with a core 2 Duo 
one, which I expect to keep for around 5 years. When I did that, I 
replaced nothing else. I use an external LaCie Mini drive as my system 
disk, and kept that during the swap.

The only problem with this strategy, for me, is that I can't get a 
second screen. Having 5 screens at work on this MacPro is *nice*.

> 
> Indeed. A few months ago at home I replaced a G4 mini with a core 2
> Duo one, which I expect to keep for around 5 years. When I did that, I
> replaced nothing else. I use an external LaCie Mini drive as my system
> disk, and kept that during the swap.
> 
> The only problem with this strategy, for me, is that I can't get a 
> second screen. Having 5 screens at work on this MacPro is *nice*.
> 

Which is exactly the point. I use Adobe Photoshop and Premiere Elements 
alot. I use 2 17" LCD screens with my current Windows/Linux machine. I do a 
lot of home movie editing and minor programming. I would like the large 
capicity of the blue-ray disk (50GB) I also need the dual displays for my 
work. With the iMac and Mini, there isn't a reasonable option. With the 
Windows/Linux PC I could upgrade to an internal SATA Blu-ray burner for 
$359. With the iMac or Mini I would be stuck with a much slower/more 
expensive firewire or USB option.
A Mac Pro doesn't offer a Blu-ray, and equiped with same options as my 
current PC would be $3,299 at the Apple store:

One 2.8 Ghz Quad-core (mine is a 3.2)
4GB Ram
Two 500GB SATA (I have 850GB)
NVIDIA Geforce 8800 GT 512MB
Linksys 1gb LAN onboard
Logitec newwave wireless keyboard and mouse
Windows XP/Ubuntu 7.01

I spent less the $2500. Apple doesn't offer anything in same price with 
close to same options. The Mac Pro does have better FSB. But no Blu-ray 
option and alot less RAM, HD for the bucks.



 

In message <150420081416500977%nospam@nospam.invalid> 
  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <noemailhere-78307E.15494315042008@news.mts.net>, The New
> guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

>> > > > Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing Leopard
>> > > > would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...
>> > > 
>> > > Yes, that is true, but from their website they offer to sell you a unit
>> > > with Leopard for an extra $155, unless of course they just send you the
>> > > Leopard DVD and let you install it yourself.
>> 
>> Of course most people won't bother with the $155 so their cost will be 
>> $400.  

> and what operating system will they run?  they'd still need to buy
> leopard themselves for $100 or so, bringing the price up to $500. 
> otherwise, it's just another pc running windows or linux.

People buying these would be running OSx86 or pirating Leopard.

-- 
It was a fifty-four with a mashed up door and a cheesy little amp with a sign
	on the front said "Fender Champ" and a second-hand guitar it was a
	Stratocaster with a whammy bar 

In message <OldDog-3EE2A8.08010816042008@news.cha.sbcglobal.net> 
  OldCSMAer <OldDog@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a 
> Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)

Let's see, the DVD is about 6 1/2 GB as I recall.

So... at 1.5 MB per second...

A little over an hour.


-- 
There's nothing to do, so you just stay in bed [ah, poor thing] Why live in
	the world when you can live in your head? 

In message <150420081037534186%ajanta@null.void> 
  Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

>> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with legalities; 
>> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering the system. 

> I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty with
> this viewpoint. 

> Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating that
> Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 

To install OS X on a machine it needs to either be a Mac, or you have to hack
the OS to install on a non-Mac.

Hacking the OS to run on a non Mac is a violation of the EULA.


-- 
and I swear it happened just like this: / a sigh, a cry, a hungry kiss, the
	Gates of Love they budged an inch / I can't say much has happened since /
	but CLOSING TIME 

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be profitable, 
> they would make it.

If they thought so, sure, but companies don't necessarily always think
think the right thing. That's why many go bankrupt. Apple itself came
close to that and had to be rescued by the likes of Bill Gates. So, no,
I won't necessarily assume that Apple has the pulse of the market on
every question.

In article <160420081240064295%ajanta@null.void>,
 Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be profitable, 
> > they would make it.
> 
> If they thought so, sure, but companies don't necessarily always think
> think the right thing. That's why many go bankrupt. Apple itself came
> close to that and had to be rescued by the likes of Bill Gates. So, no,
> I won't necessarily assume that Apple has the pulse of the market on
> every question.

Actually, attempting to offer too many models is more of a risk than too 
few.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

lodi <jamesg4...@cox.net> wrote:
> ... With the
> Windows/Linux PC I could upgrade to an internal SATA Blu-ray burner for
> $359. With the iMac or Mini I would be stuck with a much slower/more
> expensive firewire or USB option.

FWIW, what's the bandwith consumption of a generic Blu-Ray burner?
Afterall, Firewire 800 is ~95% the speed of SATA-I, and a 7200rpm
single spindle HD still can't saturate SATA-I, let alone SATA-II.  As
such, I'd be quite surprised if a Blu-Ray burner can fill up the pipe,
probably even for just a Firewire400 pipe.


> A Mac Pro doesn't offer a Blu-ray, and equiped with same options as my
> current PC would be $3,299 at the Apple store:
>
> One 2.8 Ghz Quad-core (mine is a 3.2)
> 4GB Ram
> Two 500GB SATA (I have 850GB)
> NVIDIA Geforce 8800 GT 512MB
> Linksys 1gb LAN onboard
> Logitec newwave wireless keyboard and mouse
> Windows XP/Ubuntu 7.01

Personally, I don't think that its a particularly good value to "de
content" the Mac Pro down to a single Quad core, even if that is a
closer match to what your Windows PC has, since if you're doing video
rendering, you'll really benefit from the extra horsepower.

I'd probably just go with the default Mac DP Quad 2.8GHz and the OEM
RAM & HD, adding in the bumps aftermarket ... figure $150 for +2GB RAM
and $200 for two 500GB HD's.  Through an Employer affiliate program, I
can get the Mac Pro for $2575 (slightly better than their EDU
discount), plus an extra $138 to bump the video to the NVIDIA GeForce
8800 (512MB), so my net cost would be $2575+$138+$150+$200 = $3063
(Full MSRP is $236 higher).

Granted, this is a slightly different features mix, but optimizations
rarely perfectly allign:  in this case, the extra $600-$800 (+20% to
+25%) gains an extra 30% (320GB) of HD storage, a 20% higher FSB
(1600MHz) and a 100% increase in the number of CPU cores to eight (8),
none of which are unwanted when rendering video. It depends on a lot
of factors, but my gut reaction is that this sort of configuration
could very well be money well spent as n overall 'better bang for the
buck'.  Of course, life is full of such trade-offs.


-hh

In article <160420081240064295%ajanta@null.void>,
 Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

> If they thought so, sure, but companies don't necessarily always 
> think think the right thing. That's why many go bankrupt. Apple 
> itself came close to that and had to be rescued by the likes of Bill 
> Gates. So, no, I won't necessarily assume that Apple has the pulse of 
> the market on every question.

Apple was rescued by the likes of Steve Jobs.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <OldDog-3EE2A8.08010816042008@news.cha.sbcglobal.net> 
>   OldCSMAer <OldDog@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a
> > Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)
> 
> Let's see, the DVD is about 6 1/2 GB as I recall.
> 
> So... at 1.5 MB per second...
> 
> A little over an hour.

A broadband connection of 1.5 MB (megabytes) would be pretty darned
good. I'm guessing you are thinking of 1.5 Mb (megabits), which would be
a modest and common broadband speed. One probably can get 1.5 MB, and I
suppose that the kind of hobbyist likely to be doing that kind of thing
might have a connection like that. So maybe that is indeed what you
meant. I've not kept up with the top end of available stuff, as I've
been satisfied enough with what I have (which is quoted at 6 Mb IIRC).

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <michelle-AD448B.07591216042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
>  lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
> > decent price this probably won't happen.
> 
> I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be profitable, 
> they would make it.

Bummer.  I'd buy one.

-- 
Cheers,
Andy.

The Usenet Improvement Project  |  http://improve-usenet.org/
The StupidFilter Project  |  http://stupidfilter.org/main/

In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
 lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:

> J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote in
> news:0001HW.C42AF92C01DA09A6F02066D8@newsgroups.comcast.net: 
> 
> > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:06:25 -0400, Jolly Roger wrote
> > (in article <jollyroger-B65309.16062515042008@individual.net>):
> > 
> >> In article <0001HW.C42A46B101CDB3A3F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> >>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:37:53 -0400, Ajanta wrote
> >>> (in article <150420081037534186%ajanta@null.void>):
> >>> 
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>, J.J.
> >>>> O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with 
> >>>>> legalities; 
> >>>>> like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by offering
> >>>>> the system. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty
> >>>> with this viewpoint. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating
> >>>> that Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Otherwise, I don't think private companies' wishes are laws in this
> >>>> country.
> >>> 
> >>> It comes down to what one side's lawyers can establish in court.
> >>> Apple has an 
> >>> extremely good record at stomping all over people who try this kind
> >>> of thing, 
> >>> going back to their nuking of Franklin Computers and on up to their 
> >>> pounding 
> >>> of eMachines over the eOne. 
> >> 
> >> Can you blame Apple? Clones were a complete disaster the last time
> >> Apple tried it.
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > Nope.
> > 
> 
> If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a decent 
> price this probably won't happen. 
> 
> As it is, I can buy a truely awesome Mac Pro, for a truely awesome price of 
> $2799. Way out of price range for the average joe. 
> I can purchase a mini for $599. It is almost completely un-upgradeable.
> I could also purchase the iMac. Again that upgrade issue.
> To keep pace with the advances in software/hardware technologies, it means 
> replacing either the iMac or Mini almost every year.
> I can order a blue-ray player for my windows/Linux machine for $130. If I 
> want the same capability for my Mac. I have two choices. Wait for Apple to 
> decide "maybe" to include it in the next Mini/iMac. Buy an external drive 
> to clutter up my desk and run even slower. Not to mention using an already 
> limited number of ports. And forget upgrading the video card, sound card or 
> more USB/firewire ports. 
> I can add a really great video card with dual DVI, 256mb or DDR three to 
> the OpenMac (now called open computer). I can add more internal drives. The 
> company is promising to have an option to upgrade to a Nvidia 8800 GT soon. 
> Even with a few upgrades, the price still stands way below the price of a 
> Mac Pro (yes it has fantastic performance) and although it would be more 
> exspensive than the mini, the mini's performance is lackluster at best with 
> NO serious upgrades available.
> 
> I would love to replace my old G4 with an Apple mid-range priced, 
> upgradeable computer. But the three options are poor at best. I can 
> bankrupt myself for a Mac Pro or buy an minimally upgradeable iMac or Mini.
> 
> IF it truely works as stated on their site, the Open Computer is a good 
> option for the average Joe.

And those are precisely the points so many of us make but it falls on 
deaf ears in the Apple arena.  Apple:  Think Indifferent.

In article <michelle-AD448B.07591216042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
>  lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
> > decent price this probably won't happen.
> 
> I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be profitable, 
> they would make it.

Wrong. We're dealing with a company with a supreme ego.  If there was no 
demand, why is that Psystar website so swamped?  There is more than a 
week wait for a machine apparently.  Sounds like the market is quite 
ready.  Apple:  Think Indifferent.
 
> > To keep pace with the advances in software/hardware technologies, it 
> > means replacing either the iMac or Mini almost every year.
> 
> But one doesn't need to keep pace with those technologies.  There's 
> rarely a need to have the latest and greatest.  In fact, most Mac owners 
> replace their computers less frequently than most PC owners.

Because there hardware standards are WAY lower.

In article <slrng0cde8.jfc.g.kreme@cerebus.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <150420081037534186%ajanta@null.void> 
>   Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
> > In article 
> > <0001HW.C42A208201C4C0A8F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>, J.J. 
> > O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
> >> They've demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with 
> >> legalities; like it or not, they're violating Apple's EULA just by 
> >> offering the system. 
> 
> > I am not the greatest legal mind out there, but I have difficulty 
> > with this viewpoint. 
> 
> > Did Congress actually pass a law and the president sign it stating 
> > that Apple's SW should not be installed on another pc? 
> 
> To install OS X on a machine it needs to either be a Mac, or you have 
> to hack the OS to install on a non-Mac.
> 
> Hacking the OS to run on a non Mac is a violation of the EULA.

Like they care.  I love how people wave EULAs around like they actually 
mean something to end users.  Few end users even read the things, and if 
they did and understood it they would understand that they are waiving 
their rights to own the software they just purchased and basically 
agreeing that they have no rights at all in the matter, except those 
extended at the whim of the perpetrator of the EULA..

Q:  When is your property not your property?
A:  When it comes with a EULA.

This is the one place where GNU/Linux and the various free BSDs are 
superior to Windows, OS X, OS/2, BeOS, etc.  Almost all the various 
flavors of GNU/Linux and a fair number of the BSDs use the GPL for their 
EULA, and the GPL explicitly asserts and protects the end user's rights.  
As is often the case, though, the strength is also a weakness as it has 
resulted in hundreds of flavors of GNU/Linux and quite a few flavors of 
BSD, creating a hopeless muddle of half-functioning operating systems.

In article <no-01A866.07374317042008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
 Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:

> In article <michelle-AD448B.07591216042008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
> >  lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
> > > decent price this probably won't happen.
> > 
> > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be profitable, 
> > they would make it.
> 
> Bummer.  I'd buy one.

So would millions of other that realize its brainless to buy an 
all-in-one machine.  If your motherboard or monitor goes you're toast.  
Price out Apple's motherboards and monitors for iMacs!  Quite the 
reality check.  

But by adding an eSata plug with port replication they could sell a 
whole raft of accessories that would transform the Mini.  Couple that 
with a mini PCI-E video option that allows 2560 x 1600 30" monitors or 
multiple monitors of lower resolution and you have some real 
possibilities.  Oh - and allow it to make use of 2 x 2gb 667mhz ram.  
Then you have a little screamer.  You can always upgrade and overclock 
the CPU if you want.  4gb ram, multi TB storage, Raid 0 speed, 3ghz+ CPU 
speed....very useful looking into the future.

In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
 lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:

> If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
> decent price this probably won't happen. 
> 
> As it is, I can buy a truely awesome Mac Pro, for a truely awesome 
> price of $2799. Way out of price range for the average joe. 

Given the sales figures, possibly not.

> I can purchase a mini for $599. It is almost completely 
> un-upgradeable.

It's an appliance.  Your TV, washing machine and refrigerator are not 
upgradeable either.

> I could also purchase the iMac. Again that upgrade issue.

And ditto, except you can more easily upgrade the RAM at least.

> To keep pace with the advances in software/hardware technologies, it 
> means replacing either the iMac or Mini almost every year.

Bullshit, unless you are one of those who has to be at the bleeding 
edge.  My iMac Rev B bought in December 1998 runs 10.3.9 just fine, and 
does everything I need it to do except one thing.  My G4, maybe 5 years 
old and bought used for $150 for my wife's office and then given to me 
to me to be a Web server when they didn't need it any more, ditto.  The 
one thing iMac and G4 don't do is provide portability, since I work in 
8-9 locations per week that's important to me.  My iBook provides that.

My first Mac was bought in 1986 and was used until 1993, when I wanted 
to use the Internet and couldn't easily do so with the 512Ke.  My 
PowerBook 145B solved that problem until 1998, when I bought the 
aforementioned iMac because the 145B was really inadequate for the 
Internet (a better display might have made the 145B acceptable).  The 
iBook was purchased December 2005.  So, technology "forced" me to buy a 
new computer every 6.3 years on average- a far cry from "almost every 
year."

On 2008-04-16, The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> In article <michelle-AD448B.07591216042008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
>>  lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
>> > decent price this probably won't happen.
>> 
>> I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be profitable, 
>> they would make it.
>
> Wrong.

They could profitably produce condoms too but that is not their market.  
They basically cater to people for whom the "it just works" factor is 
important and that market is most easily satisfied if the OS is deployed 
only on a small number of hardware configurations which are specified by 
Apple. Support costs alone are a significant issue.

It is clearly not that they are averse to developing radically different 
hardware platforms because they have done that quite successfully with 
the iPod and iPhone. An upgradable desktop Mac might persuade some 
people to build a Mac rather than a generic x86 box but I really don't 
see it being an issue for most people and it certainly wasn't an issue 
for me. I just think it is way down their list of priorities and has 
some undesirable (for Apple) consequences.

If I could persuade Steve Jobs to do one wild and wacky thing and to 
hell with business sense I would ask him to release Mac OS X under the 
GPL and compete equally as a hardware manufacturer. There would soon be 
Mac OS X forks and distros running on all manner of hardware and Aqua 
would be an alternative to KDE and Gnome on Linux. Then all that would 
remain would be to persuade Bill Gates to release Windows under the GPL 
and let Microsoft concentrate on what it is good at - making mice. Oh 
and then we could all switch to a radically new kernel and an Open 
Source CPU design to run it on (which could just be downloaded by 
streamlined fabrication facilities that don't do architecture).

Ground control to Major Tom....

Ian

-- Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
 lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:

> I can purchase a mini for $599. It is almost completely un-upgradeable.

Yeah!  Except for the hard drive, the optical drive, the RAM, the 
wireless card (bluetooth), and of course the zillions of Firewire and 
USB devices on the market, it's COMPLETELY impossible to upgrade.

OK, you said "almost".  I guess the CPU is probably soldered in...

-- 
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/

In article <noemailhere-6921F2.17141316042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Wrong. We're dealing with a company with a supreme ego.  If there was no 
> demand, why is that Psystar website so swamped?  There is more than a 
> week wait for a machine apparently.  Sounds like the market is quite 
> ready.  Apple:  Think Indifferent.

Err, so Psystar's inability to deliver hardware proves that there's 
demand?  I can't deliver any Mac clones either, I guess that proves I 
have millions of customers.

-- 
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Apple was rescued by the likes of Steve Jobs.

But let's be honest and remember the money Apple needed and Bill Gates
put in.

In article <160420081842558156%ajanta@null.void>,
 Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:

> > Apple was rescued by the likes of Steve Jobs.
> 
> But let's be honest and remember the money Apple needed and Bill 
> Gates put in.

Apple didn't really need the money.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <tph-ADECF8.17311016042008@localhost>,
 Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:

> > I can purchase a mini for $599. It is almost completely 
> > un-upgradeable.
> 
> Yeah!  Except for the hard drive, the optical drive, the RAM, the 
> wireless card (bluetooth), and of course the zillions of Firewire and 
> USB devices on the market, it's COMPLETELY impossible to upgrade.
> 
> OK, you said "almost".  I guess the CPU is probably soldered in...

Actually, it's socketed.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-6921F2.17141316042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
> > profitable, they would make it.
> 
> Wrong. We're dealing with a company with a supreme ego.

We're dealing with a company that finally has a good business sense.

> If there was no demand, why is that Psystar website so swamped?

Curiosity; I looked at that site, but I have no intention of buying from 
them, even if they were legitimate.

> There is more than a week wait for a machine apparently.

Yeah, like forever.

<http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/15/so_exactly_who_or_what
_is_psystar_we_dig_a_little.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/5etxuz>

> > But one doesn't need to keep pace with those technologies.  There's 
> > rarely a need to have the latest and greatest.  In fact, most Mac 
> > owners replace their computers less frequently than most PC owners.
> 
> Because there hardware standards are WAY lower.

You're joking, right?  Please tell me that you're joking.  That is one 
of the most asinine things I have ever read on usenet.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-A6E54E.16560416042008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <160420081842558156%ajanta@null.void>,
>  Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
> 
> > > Apple was rescued by the likes of Steve Jobs.
> > 
> > But let's be honest and remember the money Apple needed and Bill 
> > Gates put in.
> 
> Apple didn't really need the money.

It was part of a legal settlement over "look and feel" IIRC.

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

In article <OldDog-3EE2A8.08010816042008@news.cha.sbcglobal.net>,
 OldCSMAer <OldDog@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-501D9E.16371315042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > > Offering the system doesn't violate that. The act of installing 
> > > > > > > Leopard would, but beyond "just by offering the system"...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, that is true, but from their website they offer to sell you a 
> > > > > > unit
> > > > > > with Leopard for an extra $155, unless of course they just send you 
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Leopard DVD and let you install it yourself.
> > > > 
> > > > Of course most people won't bother with the $155 so their cost will be 
> > > > $400.  
> > > 
> > > and what operating system will they run?  
> > > they'd still need to buy
> > > leopard themselves for $100 or so, bringing the price up to $500. 
> > > otherwise, it's just another pc running windows or linux.
> > 
> > They would run OS X.  They would just grab it for free off a torrent 
> > site.  Think of the type of people we're talking about here.  They've 
> > already broken the Eula.  Would they really pay $129 or more to be 
> > legit?  I think not.
> 
> Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a 
> Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)

Multi-gb files can take many days to download. Frequently they start 
fast then slow to a crawl.  You have to be very patient.  And of course 
if your computer just happens to be on 24/7 that is an asset.  
Transmission is superb - way better than Azureus, Tomato and others I've 
tried.

In article <michelle-0E488B.17013016042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-6921F2.17141316042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
> > > profitable, they would make it.
> > 
> > Wrong. We're dealing with a company with a supreme ego.
> 
> We're dealing with a company that finally has a good business sense.
> 
> > If there was no demand, why is that Psystar website so swamped?
> 
> Curiosity; I looked at that site, but I have no intention of buying from 
> them, even if they were legitimate.
> 
> > There is more than a week wait for a machine apparently.
> 
> Yeah, like forever.
> 
> <http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/15/so_exactly_who_or_what
> _is_psystar_we_dig_a_little.html>
> 
> <http://tinyurl.com/5etxuz>
> 
> > > But one doesn't need to keep pace with those technologies.  There's 
> > > rarely a need to have the latest and greatest.  In fact, most Mac 
> > > owners replace their computers less frequently than most PC owners.
> > 
> > Because there hardware standards are WAY lower.
> 
> You're joking, right?  Please tell me that you're joking.  That is one 
> of the most asinine things I have ever read on usenet.

Well that's because you're more into software than hardware.  No eSata, 
and DDR-3 are 2 huge limiters in Apple's hardware line.  They promote 
10k drives for Raid 0...there are more.  Every model is so crippled with 
Applespeak.  Mini, iMac all suffer from Apple's 2 years old hardware 
technology.

In article <noemailhere-4A394B.19252016042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > But one doesn't need to keep pace with those technologies.  
> > > > There's rarely a need to have the latest and greatest.  In 
> > > > fact, most Mac owners replace their computers less frequently 
> > > > than most PC owners.
> > > 
> > > Because there hardware standards are WAY lower.
> > 
> > You're joking, right?  Please tell me that you're joking.  That is 
> > one of the most asinine things I have ever read on usenet.
> 
> Well that's because you're more into software than hardware. 

Wrong.  The fact is that Mac users have a much higher standard than PC 
users.

> No eSata, and DDR-3 are 2 huge limiters in Apple's hardware line.  
> They promote 10k drives for Raid 0...there are more.  Every model is 
> so crippled with Applespeak.  Mini, iMac all suffer from Apple's 2 
> years old hardware technology.

That's the reason Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC owners 
do?  You make less and less sense every time you put fingers to keyboard.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:01:30 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-0E488B.17013016042008@news.west.cox.net>):

> In article <noemailhere-6921F2.17141316042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
>>> I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
>>> profitable, they would make it.
>> 
>> Wrong. We're dealing with a company with a supreme ego.
> 
> We're dealing with a company that finally has a good business sense.
> 
>> If there was no demand, why is that Psystar website so swamped?
> 
> Curiosity; I looked at that site, but I have no intention of buying from 
> them, even if they were legitimate.
> 
>> There is more than a week wait for a machine apparently.
> 
> Yeah, like forever.
> 
> <http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/15/so_exactly_who_or_what
> _is_psystar_we_dig_a_little.html>
> 
> <http://tinyurl.com/5etxuz>

Oh, my. Another reason to not let them anywhere near my CC#.

> 
>>> But one doesn't need to keep pace with those technologies.  There's 
>>> rarely a need to have the latest and greatest.  In fact, most Mac 
>>> owners replace their computers less frequently than most PC owners.
>> 
>> Because there hardware standards are WAY lower.
> 
> You're joking, right?  Please tell me that you're joking.  That is one 
> of the most asinine things I have ever read on usenet.
> 
> 

oh, there are worse. Just go to talk.origins...

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Apr 16, 1:32=A0pm, Tom Harrington <t...@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net>
wrote:
> In article <noemailhere-6921F2.17141316042...@news.mts.net>,
> =A0The New guy <noemailh...@please.comm> wrote:
>
> > Wrong. We're dealing with a company with a supreme ego. =A0If there was =
no
> > demand, why is that Psystar website so swamped? =A0There is more than a
> > week wait for a machine apparently. =A0Sounds like the market is quite
> > ready. =A0Apple: =A0Think Indifferent.
>
> Err, so Psystar's inability to deliver hardware proves that there's
> demand? =A0I can't deliver any Mac clones either, I guess that proves I
> have millions of customers.
>
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/apple/index.html#d16apr2008
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI

In article <timmcn-27F8AC.17314416042008@news.iphouse.com>, Tim
McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> > I can purchase a mini for $599. It is almost completely 
> > un-upgradeable.
> 
> It's an appliance.  Your TV, washing machine and refrigerator are not 
> upgradeable either.

but they don't go obsolete (well the tv is but that's a one time thing
and adapter boxes will be available).  

buy a new shirt and the old washer works fine.  buy a new food item and
the refrigerator keeps it cold.  the only reason to upgrade are for
convenience features or if they break.

buy new software and it might not even run.  you might need more memory
than it can take or a hardware feature that it lacks and no way to
change it.  

> > To keep pace with the advances in software/hardware technologies, it 
> > means replacing either the iMac or Mini almost every year.
> 
> Bullshit, unless you are one of those who has to be at the bleeding 
> edge.  My iMac Rev B bought in December 1998 runs 10.3.9 just fine, and 
> does everything I need it to do except one thing.  

but that's not keeping pace with the latest technologies.  that imac
doesn't run quartz extreme, core image or core animation, nor can it
run windows at native speeds.  a lot of software requires a g4 or
better so it can't run even five year old applications.  there's no
firewire at all.  it can't even burn a cd other than at 1x speed with
an external burner over usb, which is not at all practical. 

although, replacing a computer every year is a bit much.

In article <michelle-AD448B.07591216042008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
>  lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
> > decent price this probably won't happen.
> 
> I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be profitable, 
> they would make it.

there may be other reasons why they haven't.  

was there a market for an imac that looked like one of steve's acid
trip flashbacks?  no, but they made it (flower power imac).  

there's actually a *huge* demand for it, and i expect that since the
mini hasn't changed in two years, something's afoot.

In article <tph-ADECF8.17311016042008@localhost>, Tom Harrington
<tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
 
> > I can purchase a mini for $599. It is almost completely un-upgradeable.
> 
> Yeah!  Except for the hard drive, the optical drive, the RAM, the 
> wireless card (bluetooth), and of course the zillions of Firewire and 
> USB devices on the market, it's COMPLETELY impossible to upgrade.

it's difficult to open and replacing any of that (other than memory)
requires a lot of disassembly.  also, usb/fw devices are not an
upgrade, they're external devices that are fully supported. 

most people don't think an ipod is upgradable but you can buy bigger
hard drives and higher capacity batteries.

> OK, you said "almost".  I guess the CPU is probably soldered in...

it isn't.

In article <160420081840033690%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
> > profitable, they would make it.
> 
> was there a market for an imac that looked like one of steve's acid
> trip flashbacks?  no, but they made it (flower power imac).  

There is no logical connection between those two statements.

> there's actually a *huge* demand for it, and i expect that since the 
> mini hasn't changed in two years, something's afoot.

When Apple builds it and its sales take off, then I'll believe that 
there is a market for it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-0CCD0E.18553316042008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <160420081840033690%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
> > > profitable, they would make it.
> > 
> > was there a market for an imac that looked like one of steve's acid
> > trip flashbacks?  no, but they made it (flower power imac).  
> 
> There is no logical connection between those two statements.

the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants.  there may be a
market for a minitower or more expandable mini, but if steve thinks
it's stupid (whether it's based on hard data or not), it's not done. 

> > there's actually a *huge* demand for it, and i expect that since the 
> > mini hasn't changed in two years, something's afoot.
> 
> When Apple builds it and its sales take off, then I'll believe that 
> there is a market for it.

so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?

The New guy <noemailh...@please.comm> wrote:
> =A0If there was no demand, why is that Psystar website so swamped?

Perhaps because there's been hits from a half million curious gawkers,
and the Psystar domain is running on an old 386 running Apache/2.2.3
(CentOS) Linux?


-hh

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Tom Harrington <t...@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
> > [attribution lost]:
> > > I can purchase a mini for $599. It is almost completely un-upgradeable=
..
>
> > Yeah! =A0Except for the hard drive, the optical drive, the RAM, the
> > wireless card (bluetooth), and of course the zillions of Firewire and
> > USB devices on the market, it's COMPLETELY impossible to upgrade.
>
> it's difficult to open and replacing any of that (other than memory)
> requires a lot of disassembly. =A0

True, but its no worse than opening up a washing machine, or replacing
the drive belt on a dryer :-)

Overall, the thing that people don't realize about the constant
harping about how Apple "should" build an affordable mini-tower for
them to buy is that there's no money in it for Apple.  The real
underlying motivation for the mini-tower buyer is utterly self-
serving: to get a cheap box that he'll proverbially never have to
replace, because he can instead just forever do incremental upgrades
from cheap aftermarket sources.

The reality is that Apple does marginally play in this market.  Its
just that they've set the price of entry at the PowerMac ... now Mac
Pro ... product line.  Given that the standard Mac Pro is roughly
$1000 cheaper than a comparable Dell, it is a bargain, but only if you
have a need for that level of horsepower - - for something other than
games.

If a new one is too expensive for your blood, then do the same thing
that first-time Porsche buyers end up usually doing:  go buy a used
one.  You can find used G5 PowerMacs for under $1000 today, and they
have 8 RAM slots and with a Sonnet Jive, you can put up to 5 hard
drives inside.  Enjoy.


-hh

In article
<999881aa-e3bd-470c-be24-d517fcbb4602@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> > it's difficult to open and replacing any of that (other than memory)
> > requires a lot of disassembly. �
> 
> True, but its no worse than opening up a washing machine, or replacing
> the drive belt on a dryer :-)

i can easily open a washer with a screwdriver, not a putty knife and
careful gyrations so both sides unsnap. :)

> Overall, the thing that people don't realize about the constant
> harping about how Apple "should" build an affordable mini-tower for
> them to buy is that there's no money in it for Apple.  The real
> underlying motivation for the mini-tower buyer is utterly self-
> serving: to get a cheap box that he'll proverbially never have to
> replace, because he can instead just forever do incremental upgrades
> from cheap aftermarket sources.

the reason is that the mini is too low end.  

personally, i'd like to see a mac mini with a full size hard drive
that's easy to replace (because they do fail) and a decent graphics
chip for software such as aperture.  oh, and esata. 

> If a new one is too expensive for your blood, then do the same thing
> that first-time Porsche buyers end up usually doing:  go buy a used
> one.  You can find used G5 PowerMacs for under $1000 today, and they
> have 8 RAM slots and with a Sonnet Jive, you can put up to 5 hard
> drives inside.  Enjoy.

it's physically *huge*, and it won't run intel native software, such as
vmware.

On 16-Apr-2008, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> If a new one is too expensive for your blood, then do the same thing
> that first-time Porsche buyers end up usually doing:  go buy a used
> one.  You can find used G5 PowerMacs for under $1000 today, and they
> have 8 RAM slots and with a Sonnet Jive, you can put up to 5 hard
> drives inside.  Enjoy.

I bought a demo PowerMac G5 Dual-Core 2.0 GHz (late 2005 model) in October,
2006 at CompUSA for $929.98 which is less than half what it cost when
introduced a year earlier. Even with a three year service policy the total
was less than $1300 meaning it was far less than a comparable new PC, if one
could find a comparable PC.

-- 
I don't know how I got over the hill without getting to the top.

In article 
<d1cecabb-31d0-4918-8788-49acf5c37ed3@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
 Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 1:32�pm, Tom Harrington <t...@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net>
> wrote:
> > In article <noemailhere-6921F2.17141316042...@news.mts.net>,
> > �The New guy <noemailh...@please.comm> wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong. We're dealing with a company with a supreme ego. �If there was no
> > > demand, why is that Psystar website so swamped? �There is more than a
> > > week wait for a machine apparently. �Sounds like the market is quite
> > > ready. �Apple: �Think Indifferent.
> >
> > Err, so Psystar's inability to deliver hardware proves that there's
> > demand? �I can't deliver any Mac clones either, I guess that proves I
> > have millions of customers.
> >
> http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/apple/index.html#d16apr2008

Yeah.  I also saw 
<http://www.macworld.com/article/133036/2008/04/psystar.html>, in which 
it appears that Psystar's address, as given on their web site, has 
already changed three times.  First a house in a residential 
neighborhood, and then to other locations in buildings occupied by other 
companies where people had never heard of Psystar.

Whatever the merits of such a potential computer, I'm starting to doubt 
whether Psystar's actually going to ship anything.

-- 
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/

In article <michelle-A6E54E.16560416042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <160420081842558156%ajanta@null.void>,
>  Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
> 
> > > Apple was rescued by the likes of Steve Jobs.
> > 
> > But let's be honest and remember the money Apple needed and Bill 
> > Gates put in.
> 
> Apple didn't really need the money.

They did really need MS Office to continue to be produced, though.  
That, more than the money, was a serious requirement.

-- 
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/

On 16-Apr-2008, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <999881aa-e3bd-470c-be24-d517fcbb4602@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> > > it's difficult to open and replacing any of that (other than memory)
> > > requires a lot of disassembly. �
> >
> > True, but its no worse than opening up a washing machine, or replacing
> > the drive belt on a dryer :-)
>
> i can easily open a washer with a screwdriver, not a putty knife and
> careful gyrations so both sides unsnap. :)

My washer opens nicely with a putty knife, but a screwdriver scratches the
finish.

However, I didn't buy it based on what it takes to open it up.

I bought it because it has a reputation for seldom (if ever) needing to be
opened up unless one tampers with it.

-- 
I don't know how I got over the hill without getting to the top.

In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <michelle-0CCD0E.18553316042008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <160420081840033690%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> >  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
> > > > profitable, they would make it.
> > > 
> > > was there a market for an imac that looked like one of steve's acid
> > > trip flashbacks?  no, but they made it (flower power imac).  
> > 
> > There is no logical connection between those two statements.
> 
> the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants.  there may be a
> market for a minitower or more expandable mini, but if steve thinks
> it's stupid (whether it's based on hard data or not), it's not done. 
> 
> > > there's actually a *huge* demand for it, and i expect that since the 
> > > mini hasn't changed in two years, something's afoot.
> > 
> > When Apple builds it and its sales take off, then I'll believe that 
> > there is a market for it.
> 
> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?

Countless? Approximately how many?  What would they pay?  What would be 
the specs for the machine?

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

nospam a �crit :

> the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants.  there may be a
> market for a minitower or more expandable mini, but if steve thinks
> it's stupid (whether it's based on hard data or not), it's not done. 

Right! That's why I say one is much better off with a non-Mac PC. There 
are thousands of them out there and, if none fits your needs, you can 
always built your own... at half the price.

In article <fu6gh2$7sk$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
<priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Right! That's why I say one is much better off with a non-Mac PC. There 
> are thousands of them out there and, if none fits your needs, you can 
> always built your own... at half the price.

not with the same specs you can't.

In article <slrng09q5m.kmu.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
Ian Gregory  <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>On 2008-04-14, Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
>
>> 'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple
>
>The Angry Drunk has a couple of links and some "Additional Thoughts on 
>the OpenMac Announcement:
>
><http://www.theangrydrunk.com/2008/04/15/additional-thoughts-on-the-openmac-announcement/>
>
>It seems that Psystar wants to go to court. I know EULAs are how shall 
>we put it - not universally liked. However, the GPL is an EULA and I 
>wouldn't like to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

The GPL is NOT an EULA.  It's a distribution license.  Which is what
Psystar would need to distribute Leopard pre-installed, come to think
of it...
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <michelle-18F44A.11425715042008@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>EULAs are more than just wishes.  When one buys a product, and uses it, 
>one is bound by the EULA.  If one does not agree with the EULA, one's 
>only recourse is to return the product for a refund.  It is actually 
>part of contract law.

It is part of UCITA.  UCITA has passed in two states (Maryland, and
Virginia).  In the rest of the states, things are murky.  (yes, I know
about ProCD.  There are cases which go the other way).

Personally, I'm still a bit confused about how I can walk into
Microcenter, buy a box containing a software DVD, and somehow as a
result be required to enter a contract with a third party (Apple).  I
already own the DVD; I don't need the manufacturer's permission to use
it.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
lodi  <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
>
>If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a decent 
>price this probably won't happen. 

Ah, the trollmac.  This is the Mac which doesn't actually exist, but
is often spec'ed out by trolls.  Trolls claim they'd buy a Mac "but
for" that.  Apple knows there are lying; they wouldn't buy a Mac
anyway.  So Apple does not produce the trollmac.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <noemailhere-AB5E20.17285016042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <no-01A866.07374317042008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
>  Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:
> 
> > In article <michelle-AD448B.07591216042008@news.west.cox.net>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
> > >  lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
> > > > decent price this probably won't happen.
> > > 
> > > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
> > > profitable, they would make it.
> > 
> > Bummer.  I'd buy one.
> 
> So would millions of other that realize its brainless to buy an 
> all-in-one machine.  If your motherboard or monitor goes you're 
> toast.  Price out Apple's motherboards and monitors for iMacs!  Quite 
> the reality check.  
> 
> But by adding an eSata plug with port replication they could sell a 
> whole raft of accessories that would transform the Mini.  Couple that 
> with a mini PCI-E video option that allows 2560 x 1600 30" monitors 
> or multiple monitors of lower resolution and you have some real 
> possibilities.  Oh - and allow it to make use of 2 x 2gb 667mhz ram.  
> Then you have a little screamer.  You can always upgrade and 
> overclock the CPU if you want.  4gb ram, multi TB storage, Raid 0 
> speed, 3ghz+ CPU speed....very useful looking into the future.

None of that is what the Mini is about.  I have no idea why you think it 
should be.

In article <fu6gh2$7sk$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> nospam a �crit :
> 
> > the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants.  there may be 
> > a market for a minitower or more expandable mini, but if steve 
> > thinks it's stupid (whether it's based on hard data or not), it's 
> > not done. 
> 
> Right! That's why I say one is much better off with a non-Mac PC. 
> There are thousands of them out there and, if none fits your needs, 
> you can always built your own... at half the price.

And four times the headaches.  Not a balanced trade-off.  If your 
geekster fantasies were even remotely realistic, GNU/Linux would have a 
market share greater than 1% of the desktop market...

nospam a �crit :
> In article <fu6gh2$7sk$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
> <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> Right! That's why I say one is much better off with a non-Mac PC. There 
>> are thousands of them out there and, if none fits your needs, you can 
>> always built your own... at half the price.
> 
> not with the same specs you can't.

I can do without a leaking G5, an Air that has no ethernet, no DVD 
writer, does have soldered memory, unswappable batteries, little 
autonomy, too large size -- you still need a laptop bag to carry it --, 
still has a damned HD unless you pay a grand more, etc. I'd rather have 
an Asus Eee 9 inch at one fourth the price...

Whatever silly projects come out of Stevie's Reality Distorted mind at 
Reality Distorted prices doesn't interest me. I prefer the sound 
Undistorted Reality of a PC with Linux.

In article <tph-843CD4.21061016042008@localhost>,
 Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:

> > > But let's be honest and remember the money Apple needed and Bill 
> > > Gates put in.
> > 
> > Apple didn't really need the money.
> 
> They did really need MS Office to continue to be produced, though.  

True, and back then MS Office for the Mac was a major revenue source for 
Microsoft.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
> > > > profitable, they would make it.
> > > 
> > > was there a market for an imac that looked like one of steve's 
> > > acid trip flashbacks?  no, but they made it (flower power imac).  
> > 
> > There is no logical connection between those two statements.
> 
> the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants. 

And what it wants are products that make money for the company.

> > When Apple builds it and its sales take off, then I'll believe that 
> > there is a market for it.
> 
> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?

Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fu6jpi$fmj$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
<priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> Right! That's why I say one is much better off with a non-Mac PC. There 
> >> are thousands of them out there and, if none fits your needs, you can 
> >> always built your own... at half the price.
> > 
> > not with the same specs you can't.
> 
> I can do without a leaking G5, 

that was rare.

> an Air that has no ethernet, 

the point of the air is wireless and for people who travel a lot.  i
can count on one hand the number of times i've used ethernet on my
laptop.  99% of the time, i'm wireless.  

> no DVD 
> writer, 

burn it when you get home.  it isn't intended to have every possible
feature. 

> does have soldered memory, 

how often do you change the memory configuration?  most people have 2
gig in their machines, and it's a fair compromise to just solder it in
and keep the machine thin and more reliable.  it's not designed for the
power user who would have 4 gig. 

> unswappable batteries, 

so what?  most people only have one battery and a lot of people
wouldn't care if there were no battery at all since they take their
laptop from home to office to coffeeshop and plug it in wherever they
are.  plus, it's just a few screws and the battery can be swapped.

> little 
> autonomy, too large size -- you still need a laptop bag to carry it --, 

a laptop bag is not required, and that's no different than any other
laptop.  in fact, a laptop bag is needed less because it's so thin. 

> still has a damned HD unless you pay a grand more, etc. 

flash drives are not cheap.  go look at newegg.  

> I'd rather have 
> an Asus Eee 9 inch at one fourth the price...

smaller screen, for one.  it's not the same mix of features. 

> Whatever silly projects come out of Stevie's Reality Distorted mind at 
> Reality Distorted prices doesn't interest me. I prefer the sound 
> Undistorted Reality of a PC with Linux.

that's nice.

In article <michelle-8ADA4B.21431116042008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants. 
> 
> And what it wants are products that make money for the company.

like the apple tv that steve said was 'a hobby' and 'an experiment' ? 

it took apple years to realize there was a market for the mac mini. 
people had been hounding them to make a headless imac for ages.  

> > > When Apple builds it and its sales take off, then I'll believe that 
> > > there is a market for it.
> > 
> > so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
> 
> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.

it's a frequent topic on many forums such as dpreview.  people want a
desktop that doesn't cost $2500 and one that's not as limited as a
mini.  it's that simple.  and no, an imac isn't the answer.

Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:

> Personally, I'm still a bit confused about how I can walk into
> Microcenter, buy a box containing a software DVD, and somehow as a
> result be required to enter a contract with a third party (Apple).  I
> already own the DVD; I don't need the manufacturer's permission to use
> it.

What you fail to understand (well, actually I suspect you understand it
quite well) is that if one has the money, one can buy pretty much
whatever laws you like. Its the American way. Well, ok, it is actually
is a tradition much broader than that, but we do it so well. :-(

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <160420082157485576%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants. 
> > 
> > And what it wants are products that make money for the company.
> 
> like the apple tv that steve said was 'a hobby' and 'an experiment' ? 

They were testing the waters; they have to do that sometimes.  It's a 
lot less expensive an experiment than a mini tower would be.  That made 
it a worthwhile gamble.

> > Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> 
> it's a frequent topic on many forums such as dpreview.  people want a 
> desktop that doesn't cost $2500 and one that's not as limited as a 
> mini.  it's that simple.  and no, an imac isn't the answer.

Frequent topic does not mean countless people.  It's a frequent topic 
here too, but always with the same three or four people saying they want 
it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
> 
> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.

Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/16/woz-on-psystar-openpro-i-like-the-price-so-i-may-get-one

In article <OldDog-3EE2A8.08010816042008@news.cha.sbcglobal.net>,
 OldCSMAer <OldDog@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a 
> Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)

Not long. Overnight, maybe. Just wait. Broadband is fast enough.
-- 
W. Oates

In article <slrng0cde8.jfc.g.kreme@cerebus.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Hacking the OS to run on a non Mac is a violation of the EULA.

Which is not illegal. Stealing the software is illegal, ignoring the 
holy EULA isn't. Sosumi.
-- 
W. Oates

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> True, and back then MS Office for the Mac was a major revenue source for
> Microsoft.

Is that no longer the case?  Judging from the Macs I work with, I'd say
it still is.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <noemailhere-9A1102.19184216042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <OldDog-3EE2A8.08010816042008@news.cha.sbcglobal.net>,
>  OldCSMAer <OldDog@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> > Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a 
> > Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)
> 
> Multi-gb files can take many days to download. Frequently they start 
> fast then slow to a crawl.  You have to be very patient.  And of course 
> if your computer just happens to be on 24/7 that is an asset. 

I have an 'ok' net connection.  I downloaded 10GB in about 10 hours a 
few weeks back.
 
> Transmission is superb - way better than Azureus, Tomato and others I've 
> tried.

So it no longer crashes midway through large transfers losing ALL the 
data it's downloaded in that session?

-- 
Cheers,
Andy.

The Usenet Improvement Project  |  http://improve-usenet.org/
The StupidFilter Project  |  http://stupidfilter.org/main/

In article <fu6jpi$fmj$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> nospam a �crit :
> > In article <fu6gh2$7sk$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam 
> > <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Right! That's why I say one is much better off with a non-Mac PC. 
> >> There are thousands of them out there and, if none fits your 
> >> needs, you can always built your own... at half the price.
> > 
> > not with the same specs you can't.
> 
> I can do without a leaking G5, an Air that has no ethernet, no DVD 
> writer, does have soldered memory, unswappable batteries, little 
> autonomy, too large size -- you still need a laptop bag to carry it 
> --, still has a damned HD unless you pay a grand more, etc. I'd 
> rather have an Asus Eee 9 inch at one fourth the price...
> 
> Whatever silly projects come out of Stevie's Reality Distorted mind 
> at Reality Distorted prices doesn't interest me. I prefer the sound 
> Undistorted Reality of a PC with Linux.

ROTFL!  Of course you overlook the fact that Linus Torvalds and the 
Linux Foundation themselves have no interest in developing or supporting 
desktop Linux, as was obvious at the last Linux Foundation Collaboration 
Summit.  Linux is not intended by its core developer team as a desktop 
OS.  It is intended for servers.

You are trying and failing to generate your own RDF, Priam.  You might 
as well give up because you're just not very good at it.  The only 
possible reason that you keep going is that you like seeing your own 
words on the screen and it feeds your delusions of adequacy.

In article <1ifja9u.kf5qf61sv9butN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > True, and back then MS Office for the Mac was a major revenue 
> > source for Microsoft.
> 
> Is that no longer the case?  Judging from the Macs I work with, I'd 
> say it still is.

So far as I know, it is still the case; however, I was speaking about 
"back then", and not about now.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <vNGNj.90881$5i5.3144@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
> > 
> > Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> 
> Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/16/woz-on-psystar-openpro-i-
> like-the-price-so-i-may-get-one

Do you understand the difference between requesting something and saying 
"it's there, so I may get one"?

I bought a Prius a few years ago, but before the Prius existed, I never 
considered getting a hybrid car.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:03:52 -0400, Tim McNamara wrote
(in article <timmcn-FD8F9F.09035217042008@news.iphouse.com>):

> In article <fu6jpi$fmj$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>  Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> nospam a �crit :
>>> In article <fu6gh2$7sk$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam 
>>> <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Right! That's why I say one is much better off with a non-Mac PC. 
>>>> There are thousands of them out there and, if none fits your 
>>>> needs, you can always built your own... at half the price.
>>> 
>>> not with the same specs you can't.
>> 
>> I can do without a leaking G5, an Air that has no ethernet, no DVD 
>> writer, does have soldered memory, unswappable batteries, little 
>> autonomy, too large size -- you still need a laptop bag to carry it 
>> --, still has a damned HD unless you pay a grand more, etc. I'd 
>> rather have an Asus Eee 9 inch at one fourth the price...
>> 
>> Whatever silly projects come out of Stevie's Reality Distorted mind 
>> at Reality Distorted prices doesn't interest me. I prefer the sound 
>> Undistorted Reality of a PC with Linux.
> 
> ROTFL!  Of course you overlook the fact that Linus Torvalds and the 
> Linux Foundation themselves have no interest in developing or supporting 
> desktop Linux, as was obvious at the last Linux Foundation Collaboration 
> Summit.  Linux is not intended by its core developer team as a desktop 
> OS.  It is intended for servers.

It's been very clear for a very long time that he's simply not interested in 
facts. Period.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Andy a �crit :

> So it no longer crashes midway through large transfers losing ALL the 
> data it's downloaded in that session?

With Linux, I download my files with wget. Syntax:

wget <URL>

If the download is interrupted:

wget -c <URL>

If you don't have wget, you certainly have something similar on the Mac.

Overtly pedantic muppet.

*plonk*



Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <vNGNj.90881$5i5.3144@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>,
>  Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> >> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
>> > 
>> > Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
>> 
>> Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
>> http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/16/woz-on-psystar-openpro-i-
>> like-the-price-so-i-may-get-one
> 
> Do you understand the difference between requesting something and saying 
> "it's there, so I may get one"?
> 
> I bought a Prius a few years ago, but before the Prius existed, I never 
> considered getting a hybrid car.

In message <1ifhu8u.1ipq3vvgtm7enN%nospam@see.signature> 
  Richard <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <OldDog-3EE2A8.08010816042008@news.cha.sbcglobal.net> 
>>   OldCSMAer <OldDog@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> > Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a
>> > Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)
>> 
>> Let's see, the DVD is about 6 1/2 GB as I recall.
>> 
>> So... at 1.5 MB per second...
>> 
>> A little over an hour.

> A broadband connection of 1.5 MB (megabytes) would be pretty darned
> good. I'm guessing you are thinking of 1.5 Mb (megabits),

No. I get 1.5 MegaBYTES on a 17MegaBIT connection.  Ok, I rarely get
speeds that high, in point of fact, unless I add up all the different
speeds at once.  I get about 1 MB/s on Giganews, and can get 1.5MB total
if I am downloading from a few different places (Like when I downloaded
XCode3 because it was easier than finding my Leopard disc) while I was
downloading Skins ep9.


-- 
and I swear it happened just like this: / a sigh, a cry, a hungry kiss, the
	Gates of Love they budged an inch / I can't say much has happened since /
	but CLOSING TIME 

In message <025bf907$0$2997$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> 
  Warren <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrng0cde8.jfc.g.kreme@cerebus.local>,
>  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> Hacking the OS to run on a non Mac is a violation of the EULA.

> Which is not illegal. Stealing the software is illegal, ignoring the 
> holy EULA isn't. Sosumi.

Well, according to the US COngress, it is.  So if you are in the US, you
should be very careful about violating ELUAs.  Besides which, even if you 
don't end up in Jail for it, the mega-Corp will sue you out of existence
anyway, as their critical mass of lawyers can do anything they want to you
since you don't have the resources to fight back.

-- 
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don t know what
	can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. 

In message <160420081240064295%ajanta@null.void> 
  Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
> If they thought so, sure, but companies don't necessarily always think
> think the right thing. That's why many go bankrupt. Apple itself came
> close to that and had to be rescued by the likes of Bill Gates

What the fuck kind of meds are you on?

Bill Gates rescue Apple?  Never happened.


-- 
Hey, baby, I've got just the cure for that penis envy back at m apartment...

In message <160420081842558156%ajanta@null.void> 
  Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>> Apple was rescued by the likes of Steve Jobs.

> But let's be honest and remember the money Apple needed and Bill Gates
> put in.

No. You are wrong.

-- 
It is one thing to be mistaken; it is quite another to be willfully ignorant
        Cecil Adams

Keith Wood a �crit :
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
>> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> 
> Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/16/woz-on-psystar-openpro-i-like-the-price-so-i-may-get-one

"You have a right to run Mac Software on any non-Apple computer, but you 
don't have the right to copy codes that are built into Apple's hardware, 
so you are stuck," he said. Most likely, Apple will add a tweak to a 
Leopard update and it will break compatibility with the OpenPro. After 
all, Apple is under no obligation to ensure compatibility with non-Apple 
hardware."

Woz

It's going to bwe a cat and mouse game with a company that has little 
ressources against Apple's. If you want a good cheap computer, buy a PC, 
install Mandriva Linux. No silly game there.

In article <michelle-122FF5.17393216042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-4A394B.19252016042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > > > But one doesn't need to keep pace with those technologies.  
> > > > > There's rarely a need to have the latest and greatest.  In 
> > > > > fact, most Mac owners replace their computers less frequently 
> > > > > than most PC owners.
> > > > 
> > > > Because there hardware standards are WAY lower.
> > > 
> > > You're joking, right?  Please tell me that you're joking.  That is 
> > > one of the most asinine things I have ever read on usenet.
> > 
> > Well that's because you're more into software than hardware. 
> 
> Wrong.  The fact is that Mac users have a much higher standard than PC 
> users.

If that was then Mac hardware would be used by high end Windows users.  
But that never happens.  Because its not good enough or its ridiculously 
overpriced.  Otherwise Windows users would flock to Apple stores to buy 
Mac Pro's because they would run Windows better.  But it doesn't so they 
don't.  
 
> > No eSata, and DDR-3 are 2 huge limiters in Apple's hardware line.  
> > They promote 10k drives for Raid 0...there are more.  Every model is 
> > so crippled with Applespeak.  Mini, iMac all suffer from Apple's 2 
> > years old hardware technology.
> 
> That's the reason Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC owners 
> do?  You make less and less sense every time you put fingers to keyboard.

eSata and DDR-3 are 2 huge bottlenecks.  Apple hasn't come up to that 
standard yet.  They are a year behind the PC world unfortunately.

In message <michelle-0E488B.17013016042008@news.west.cox.net> 
  Michelle <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> <http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/15/so_exactly_who_or_what
> _is_psystar_we_dig_a_little.html>

> <http://tinyurl.com/5etxuz>

I found this:

<http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P07000077580&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=PSYSTAR&names_filing_type=>

<http://tinyurl.com/3gqqh8>

(snurl is broken :(


-- 
We will fight for Bovine Freedom and hold our large heads high
We will run	free with the Buffalo or die 

In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <michelle-0CCD0E.18553316042008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <160420081840033690%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> >  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
> > > > profitable, they would make it.
> > > 
> > > was there a market for an imac that looked like one of steve's acid
> > > trip flashbacks?  no, but they made it (flower power imac).  
> > 
> > There is no logical connection between those two statements.
> 
> the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants.  there may be a
> market for a minitower or more expandable mini, but if steve thinks
> it's stupid (whether it's based on hard data or not), it's not done. 
> 
> > > there's actually a *huge* demand for it, and i expect that since the 
> > > mini hasn't changed in two years, something's afoot.
> > 
> > When Apple builds it and its sales take off, then I'll believe that 
> > there is a market for it.
> 
> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?

Possibly one problem is that a machine midway between the Mini and the 
Mac Pro is going to hurt sales of the Mac Pro.  Many Mac Pro buyers 
don't need most of its capabilities.  They buy the cheapest incarnation 
of it for about $2200.  But they would have been much better off with a 
machine like the Mini with a few improvements.  Add full size hard 
drives, a couple more slots of ram, user upgradeable video and you have 
a whole different machine.  But it might kill the lower end Mac Pro 
sales.  And if you analyze a Mac Pro they are making a hideous profit on 
the hardware.  The Xeons are the only expensive item in that thing 
anymore though they are much cheaper now than before.  Even FD-Dimms are 
a fraction of what they were a year ago.  Of course does Apple lower the 
price of the Mac Pro?  Not on your life!

In article <160420082036353224%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <fu6gh2$7sk$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
> <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
> > Right! That's why I say one is much better off with a non-Mac PC. There 
> > are thousands of them out there and, if none fits your needs, you can 
> > always built your own... at half the price.
> 
> not with the same specs you can't.

Check out the benchmark sites.  Most of the fastest machines are not 
even Mac Pro's!  And the fastest machines NEVER are.  So non-Mac PC's 
can be extemely fast if the right hardware is used.  Insert 8 gb of 
1066mhz DDR-2 (Mac Pro is @ 667mhz), 4 x 10k Raptors in Raid 0, 
overclock your Core 2 Duo CPU past 4 ghz and you're going to leave a 
typical Mac Pro (which costs WAY more) in the dust.  Oh - of course the 
same video card for a PC costs a fraction of the equivalent for a Mac 
Pro.  Use an Antec P180 or equivalent any hard drive and fan noise is 
way lower than a Mac Pro which has poor noise control.  (Pretty good 
cooling, but lousy noise control.)  Anybody that thinks that Apple has 
competitive pricing needs some remedial math work.

In article <IPidnbH70qNEUZvVnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
> lodi  <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a decent 
> >price this probably won't happen. 
> 
> Ah, the trollmac.  This is the Mac which doesn't actually exist, but
> is often spec'ed out by trolls.  Trolls claim they'd buy a Mac "but
> for" that.  Apple knows there are lying; they wouldn't buy a Mac
> anyway.  So Apple does not produce the trollmac.

That's priceless........the TrollMac.  You should copyright that one! :)

In article <timmcn-977E59.23172516042008@news.iphouse.com>,
 Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-AB5E20.17285016042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <no-01A866.07374317042008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> >  Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <michelle-AD448B.07591216042008@news.west.cox.net>,
> > >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <6ZnNj.58594$097.4687@newsfe21.lga>,
> > > >  lodi <jamesg4mac@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > If Apple offered a mid range upgradeable desktop computer for a 
> > > > > decent price this probably won't happen.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
> > > > profitable, they would make it.
> > > 
> > > Bummer.  I'd buy one.
> > 
> > So would millions of other that realize its brainless to buy an 
> > all-in-one machine.  If your motherboard or monitor goes you're 
> > toast.  Price out Apple's motherboards and monitors for iMacs!  Quite 
> > the reality check.  
> > 
> > But by adding an eSata plug with port replication they could sell a 
> > whole raft of accessories that would transform the Mini.  Couple that 
> > with a mini PCI-E video option that allows 2560 x 1600 30" monitors 
> > or multiple monitors of lower resolution and you have some real 
> > possibilities.  Oh - and allow it to make use of 2 x 2gb 667mhz ram.  
> > Then you have a little screamer.  You can always upgrade and 
> > overclock the CPU if you want.  4gb ram, multi TB storage, Raid 0 
> > speed, 3ghz+ CPU speed....very useful looking into the future.
> 
> None of that is what the Mini is about.  I have no idea why you think it 
> should be.

That's a computer that is a very good tool for today's software needs.  
Right now game playing is pretty limited, hard drive space (unless you 
use slow USB/Firewire connections) is VERY limited, hard drive speed is 
non-existent at present 5400 rpm speeds, ram isn't bad at 2 or 3gb but 
soon we'll need more, HD really isn't a reality for most of us if 
running anything else with the slightest need resources....I could go 
on.  With a few small changes they would have a much more useful 
computer.  HD support is probably one of the most obvious.  If you've 
seen a HD movie/TV broadcast you will immediately see the huge 
differences in quality.  See that on a 30" and wow!

In article <slrng0eur5.jfc.g.kreme@cerebus.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <michelle-0E488B.17013016042008@news.west.cox.net> 
>   Michelle <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > <http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/15/so_exactly_who_or_what
> > _is_psystar_we_dig_a_little.html>
> 
> > <http://tinyurl.com/5etxuz>
> 
> I found this:
> 
> <http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P070000
> 77580&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&name
> s_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=PSYSTAR&names_fi
> ling_type=>
> 
> <http://tinyurl.com/3gqqh8>

Ah, so even though they keep changing their street address on their web 
site to point to industrial areas, their records with the state still 
show their location being in a residential neighborhood.  Maybe they're 
building the computers in the basement.

-- 
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/

In article <michelle-992AFC.22374416042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <160420082157485576%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants. 
> > > 
> > > And what it wants are products that make money for the company.
> > 
> > like the apple tv that steve said was 'a hobby' and 'an experiment' ? 
> 
> They were testing the waters; they have to do that sometimes.  It's a 
> lot less expensive an experiment than a mini tower would be.  That made 
> it a worthwhile gamble.

Probably the Mini's development helped Apple TV as well.  They probably 
shared a lot of the same designs.  When Apple TV is true HD (isn't it 
now?) that will help tremendously.  Its only a matter of time.  Then it 
will appeal to the TV crowd.  Its a pretty smart move on Apple's part.  
Its a huge market that Apple hasn't gotten a piece of yet.  And a 
lucrative one.  TV buyers are a lot easier to please than computer 
buyers.
 
> > > Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> > 
> > it's a frequent topic on many forums such as dpreview.  people want a 
> > desktop that doesn't cost $2500 and one that's not as limited as a 
> > mini.  it's that simple.  and no, an imac isn't the answer.
> 
> Frequent topic does not mean countless people.  It's a frequent topic 
> here too, but always with the same three or four people saying they want 
> it.

I see it all over the net.  Whenever you have people that care how much 
they spend, know the hardware market to a reasonable extent, and have 
more than the most simple of hardware requirements, you're going to hear 
people pining for a midway machine.

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1ifhu8u.1ipq3vvgtm7enN%nospam@see.signature> 
>   Richard <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> In message <OldDog-3EE2A8.08010816042008@news.cha.sbcglobal.net> 
> >>   OldCSMAer <OldDog@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >> > Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a
> >> > Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)
> >> 
> >> Let's see, the DVD is about 6 1/2 GB as I recall.
> >> 
> >> So... at 1.5 MB per second...
> >> 
> >> A little over an hour.
> 
> > A broadband connection of 1.5 MB (megabytes) would be pretty darned
> > good. I'm guessing you are thinking of 1.5 Mb (megabits),
> 
> No. I get 1.5 MegaBYTES on a 17MegaBIT connection.

Then you have a pretty darned good connection. Most of us don't have one
that good. (See, for example, the other reports of download speed in
this subthread). Just for kicks, I remeasured mine after doing the above
post. It measures decently close to the advertised 6 megaBITs for
doanload (and only about 500kb for upload; I could buy higher speed, but
I don't see the benefit/cost for my personal use).

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <vNGNj.90881$5i5.3144@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> >  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
> > 
> > Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> 
> Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/16/woz-on-psystar-openpro-i-
> like-the-price-so-i-may-get-one

That's priceless!  Ya gotta love the loyalty.  Long live the Woz!

In article <no-C55919.23223317042008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
 Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-9A1102.19184216042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <OldDog-3EE2A8.08010816042008@news.cha.sbcglobal.net>,
> >  OldCSMAer <OldDog@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Just curious.  How long does it take to download a file as big as a 
> > > Leopard Install .dmg?  (Assuming you have cable?)
> > 
> > Multi-gb files can take many days to download. Frequently they start 
> > fast then slow to a crawl.  You have to be very patient.  And of course 
> > if your computer just happens to be on 24/7 that is an asset. 
> 
> I have an 'ok' net connection.  I downloaded 10GB in about 10 hours a 
> few weeks back.
>  
> > Transmission is superb - way better than Azureus, Tomato and others I've 
> > tried.
> 
> So it no longer crashes midway through large transfers losing ALL the 
> data it's downloaded in that session?

No.  It just resumes.  Torrents are a marvelous way of getting books  as 
well (ebooks).  People seldom think of torrents for anything more than 
movies and music.  Also audiobooks for your iPod - learn while you 
commute!  Also DVD tutorials can be a real help as well.  They cost so 
much that 99% of the population wouldn't think of buying one.  But they 
are there for your perusal.  Not to mention very high resolution photos 
to test your monitor.

nospam a �crit :
> In article <fu6jpi$fmj$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
> <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> Right! That's why I say one is much better off with a non-Mac PC. There 
>>>> are thousands of them out there and, if none fits your needs, you can 
>>>> always built your own... at half the price.
>>> not with the same specs you can't.
>> I can do without a leaking G5, 
> 
> that was rare.

Why was? There are new ones leaking every day. My oh, so cheap PC is now 
close to 7 years old. None of those furnaces will ever get there.

>> an Air that has no ethernet, 
> 
> the point of the air is *wireless*

(...)

>> unswappable batteries, 
> 
> so what?  most people only have one battery and a lot of people
> wouldn't care if there were no battery at all since they take their
> laptop from home to office to coffeeshop and *plug it in* wherever they
> are.

So, it's wired wireless? Makes lots of Jobby sense!

 > plus, it's just a few screws and the battery can be swapped.

I'm sure it's very easy. After all, why put a latch where a screw does 
the job. Mac users are known to tote their toolkit around. That's what 
you pay $2,000 for! What fun!

>> little 
>> autonomy, too large size -- you still need a laptop bag to carry it --, 
> 
> a laptop bag is not required, and that's no different than any other
> laptop.  in fact, a laptop bag is needed less because it's so thin. 

Of course, you don't need a bag! The HD is sunk three inches deep inside 
the computer, so it doesn't fear shocks. You just don't need a bag!

>> still has a damned HD unless you pay a grand more, etc. 
> 
> flash drives are not cheap.  go look at newegg.  

If you want a computer to bring around, you need very little space. 16G, 
even 8G, is more than enough. When you come home, you move your data to 
your desktop. Does 8G cost $1000?

>> I'd rather have 
>> an Asus Eee 9 inch at one fourth the price...
> 
> smaller screen, for one.  it's not the same mix of features. 

Take a ruler, look: 9 inches diagonal is not too bad. You can't get a 
book sized computer with a 24" monitor.

In article <slrng0eur5.jfc.g.kreme@cerebus.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> We will fight for Bovine Freedom and hold our large heads high
> We will run	free with the Buffalo or die 

One of my favorite songs.
<http://www.3dweb.no/galleri/stuestolbm/bilder/anim1.swf>

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-03485F.11280017042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > Wrong.  The fact is that Mac users have a much higher standard than 
> > PC users.
> 
> If that was then Mac hardware would be used by high end Windows 
> users. 

That does not follow at all.

> > That's the reason Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC 
> > owners do?  You make less and less sense every time you put fingers 
> > to keyboard.
> 
> eSata and DDR-3 are 2 huge bottlenecks.  Apple hasn't come up to that 
> standard yet.  They are a year behind the PC world unfortunately.

You are a master of non sequitur.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <iKKNj.51350$h65.29080@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> Overtly pedantic muppet.
> 
> *plonk*

Typical anti-Mac bigot; runs from the truth when he can't handle it.  
Actually, typical bigot, period.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-1828CD.10253617042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-03485F.11280017042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > Wrong.  The fact is that Mac users have a much higher standard than 
> > > PC users.
> > 
> > If that was true then Mac hardware would be used by high end Windows 
> > users. 
> 
> That does not follow at all.

Windows users can choose any hardware they want.  If Macs were more 
advanced and were good value for money, Windows users would flock to 
Apple stores and purchase them.  But that doesn't happen.  Because they 
are not good value.  And because current Macs lack so many recent 
technological improvements, they are lagging behind sadly.  The fact 
that expensive Xeons are almost never used in PC's means they are not 
good value for high end home users.  Same with FB-Dimms.  Its just an 
excuse to gouge.  Put some components in the box that people are 
unfamiliar with, shroud them with a little mystery, and overcharge on 
the package.  Its a good marketing strategy and has served them well.  
But it doesn't garnish much respect from people that have even the most 
cursory grasp of hardware value.  

> > > That's the reason Mac owners keep their computers longer than PC 
> > > owners do?  You make less and less sense every time you put fingers 
> > > to keyboard.
> > 
> > eSata and DDR-3 are 2 huge bottlenecks.  Apple hasn't come up to that 
> > standard yet.  They are a year behind the PC world unfortunately.
> 
> You are a master of non sequitur.

You think DDR-3 and eSata are not useful?  You think there is an 
advantage to using ram running at less than half of current available 
speeds (1600 mhz)?  Be specific.

nospam a �crit :
> In article <michelle-8ADA4B.21431116042008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>>> the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants. 
>> And what it wants are products that make money for the company.
> 
> like the apple tv that steve said was 'a hobby' and 'an experiment' ? 

The problem Jobby was faced with is how he could possibly get a TV 
through his reality distortion field. Already Macers understood they 
better not buy their monitors form Apple. (That's one of the reason why 
it has been incorporated in the iMac.

Rest assured that it doesn't somehow bring money in, it will soon be 
discarded. But it seems it had to be put on the market to see if there 
wasn't any way it could be distorted.

> it took apple years to realize there was a market for the mac mini. 
> people had been hounding them to make a headless imac for ages.  

"The market" never wanted a Mini. It has always wanted what you're 
asking for here: a genuine PC at a decent price.

>>>> When Apple builds it and its sales take off, then I'll believe that 
>>>> there is a market for it.
>>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
>> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> 
> it's a frequent topic on many forums such as dpreview.  people want a
> desktop that doesn't cost $2500 and one that's not as limited as a
> mini.  it's that simple.  and no, an imac isn't the answer.

And they'll never get it. Here's why.

Before it goes to the market, an Apple product has to go through the 
reality distortion field to be ooooh so tiny, ooooh so slim, ooooh so 
cute, but otherwise completely ridiculous. It must be absolutely 
impossible to compare price with anything on the market.

The Mini is a laptop without a monitor. No PC manufacturer in his right 
mind would manufacture a laptop without a monitor. Apple does. It 
doesn't compare.

No PC manufacturer in his right mind would manufacture a laptop without 
a DVD writer, unswappable batteries, no ethernet, etc. Apple does. And 
it's so cute and it's so tiiiiiiny, etc. You bang it once on the wall, 
and it's done, but that's another matter. It doesn't compare. Apple asks 
$2000 for the ridiculous thingy.

What's an iMac? It's a computer behind a monitor. Not too many PC 
manufacturers offer this, I believe. Can you name any? Why don't they? 
Because, for most people, computers are a mystery. If anything breaks, 
monitor or computer, they send it back to the store.

But if the computer breaks, maybe they can use the monitor with an older 
computer that was put away. If the monitor breaks, they can grab one 
used for $100. But, if your iMac breaks, you've got to send the whole 
sheebang to the store, and that's including your personal data... for, 
possibly, a monitor problem. Sensible people who need a computer to 
work, not to brag, really don't need this. So PC manufacturers don't 
offer this stupidity. Apple does and it doesn't compare with anything on 
the market. So they can set the price.

In order to keep prices down, PC manufacturers need volume. Not too many 
people need a computer with the specs of the Mac Pro. If you want this 
type of computer, you ask a shop to assemble it or you DIY.

Apple does it for you. They put it all together, adding some features 
you might never need. Now, look at the beast, man! It's so powerful! 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! And it doesn't compare much with 
anything on the market, and you'll have to pay twice the price. But 
you'll be able to tell your friends "I own a Mac Pro", ta dam! instead 
of "I had some clone put together." Of course, the Mac will set you back 
twice the price, but, hey, you've got friends who will come see the beast.

What you're asking is for Apple to offer a product that compares with 
PCs on the market. Then, you can compare price. And when people do that, 
they buy a Viewsonic monitor instead of an Apple monitor at twice the price.

So what's your solution? Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKn6h2x5IcY

In article <noemailhere-EBAEBD.12422117042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <michelle-1828CD.10253617042008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-03485F.11280017042008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Wrong.  The fact is that Mac users have a much higher standard than 
> > > > PC users.
> > > 
> > > If that was true then Mac hardware would be used by high end Windows 
> > > users. 
> > 
> > That does not follow at all.

 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Windows users can choose any hardware they want.  If Macs were more 
> advanced and were good value for money, Windows users would flock to 
> Apple stores and purchase them.  But that doesn't happen.  

You should check your facts before making statements like this. The fact 
is that more and more first time Macintosh users are former Windows 
users. A healthy percentage of Mac sales falls into this category.

The New guy a �crit :
> In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In article <michelle-0CCD0E.18553316042008@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
>> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <160420081840033690%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>>>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that if Apple thought that such a machine would be 
>>>>> profitable, they would make it.
>>>> was there a market for an imac that looked like one of steve's acid
>>>> trip flashbacks?  no, but they made it (flower power imac).  
>>> There is no logical connection between those two statements.
>> the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants.  there may be a
>> market for a minitower or more expandable mini, but if steve thinks
>> it's stupid (whether it's based on hard data or not), it's not done. 
>>
>>>> there's actually a *huge* demand for it, and i expect that since the 
>>>> mini hasn't changed in two years, something's afoot.
>>> When Apple builds it and its sales take off, then I'll believe that 
>>> there is a market for it.
>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
> 
> Possibly one problem is that a machine midway between the Mini and the 
> Mac Pro is going to hurt sales of the Mac Pro.  Many Mac Pro buyers 
> don't need most of its capabilities.  They buy the cheapest incarnation 
> of it for about $2200.  But they would have been much better off with a 
> machine like the Mini with a few improvements.  Add full size hard 
> drives, a couple more slots of ram, user upgradeable video and you have 
> a whole different machine.

What you have is a plain genuine PC selling for arounf $700, $100 more 
than the Mini.

What are chances you get such a computer from Stevie? I repeat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKn6h2x5IcY


   But it might kill the lower end Mac Pro
> sales.  And if you analyze a Mac Pro they are making a hideous profit on 
> the hardware.  The Xeons are the only expensive item in that thing 
> anymore though they are much cheaper now than before.  Even FD-Dimms are 
> a fraction of what they were a year ago.  Of course does Apple lower the 
> price of the Mac Pro?  Not on your life!

In article <slrng0eu6j.jfc.g.kreme@cerebus.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <025bf907$0$2997$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> 
>   Warren <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrng0cde8.jfc.g.kreme@cerebus.local>,
> >  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> Hacking the OS to run on a non Mac is a violation of the EULA.
> 
> > Which is not illegal. Stealing the software is illegal, ignoring the 
> > holy EULA isn't. Sosumi.
> 
> Well, according to the US COngress, it is.  So if you are in the US, you
> should be very careful about violating ELUAs.  Besides which, even if you 
> don't end up in Jail for it, the mega-Corp will sue you out of existence
> anyway, as their critical mass of lawyers can do anything they want to you
> since you don't have the resources to fight back.

Can you cite a case of a EULA being taken through the US courts to a
judgement?

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

In article <025bf907$0$2997$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates  <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <slrng0cde8.jfc.g.kreme@cerebus.local>,
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> Hacking the OS to run on a non Mac is a violation of the EULA.
>
>Which is not illegal. Stealing the software is illegal, ignoring the 
>holy EULA isn't. Sosumi.

Hacking the OS to run on a non-Mac may be covered under the horrendous
DMCA.  I'm not sure where hacking the non-Mac to appear to be a Mac
falls in; I suspect that would make for entertaining litigation,
though.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1ifja9u.kf5qf61sv9butN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
>  mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > > True, and back then MS Office for the Mac was a major revenue 
> > > source for Microsoft.
> > 
> > Is that no longer the case?  Judging from the Macs I work with, I'd
> > say it still is.
> 
> So far as I know, it is still the case; however, I was speaking about
> "back then", and not about now.

Oh, I see.  Usually when people say what something was like "back then"
they really mean "back then, as opposed to now."

-- 
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude

In article <1ifjrlh.1tbriww10afu42N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > > > True, and back then MS Office for the Mac was a major revenue 
> > > > source for Microsoft.
> > > 
> > > Is that no longer the case?  Judging from the Macs I work with, 
> > > I'd say it still is.
> > 
> > So far as I know, it is still the case; however, I was speaking 
> > about "back then", and not about now.
> 
> Oh, I see.  Usually when people say what something was like "back 
> then" they really mean "back then, as opposed to now."

Keep context in mind.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-EBAEBD.12422117042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > That's the reason Mac owners keep their computers longer than 
> > > > PC owners do?  You make less and less sense every time you put 
> > > > fingers to keyboard.
> > > 
> > > eSata and DDR-3 are 2 huge bottlenecks.  Apple hasn't come up to 
> > > that standard yet.  They are a year behind the PC world 
> > > unfortunately.
> > 
> > You are a master of non sequitur.
> 
> You think DDR-3 and eSata are not useful?

There is nothing in what I wrote that would lead anyone who can read 
with comprehension to reach that conclusion.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article 
<everyday-73FB5C.11142117042008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 Gerry <everyday@sunrise.net> wrote:

> You should check your facts before making statements like this. The 
> fact is that more and more first time Macintosh users are former 
> Windows users. A healthy percentage of Mac sales falls into this 
> category.

About 50% of Mac sales are to first-time Macintosh buyers.  I don't know 
how that breaks down between first-time computer buyers and switchers, 
though.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <fu815o$d3n$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > so what?  most people only have one battery and a lot of people 
> > wouldn't care if there were no battery at all since they take their 
> > laptop from home to office to coffeeshop and *plug it in* wherever 
> > they are.
> 
> So, it's wired wireless? Makes lots of Jobby sense!

Learn the difference between plugging in a computer to a power source, 
and wireless connectivity.

>  > plus, it's just a few screws and the battery can be swapped.
> 
> I'm sure it's very easy. After all, why put a latch where a screw 
> does the job. Mac users are known to tote their toolkit around. 
> That's what you pay $2,000 for! What fun!

You miss the point that you don't need to change the battery in a 
MacBook Air very often.  It's not like that piece of shit that you use.

> If you want a computer to bring around, you need very little space. 16G, 
> even 8G, is more than enough. When you come home, you move your data to 
> your desktop. Does 8G cost $1000?

You can load all your apps and documents in only 8 gigs?  No wonder you 
don't need a good computer; you don't do much of anything with it.

> Take a ruler, look: 9 inches diagonal is not too bad.

You anti-Mac bigots derided the original Macintosh because it had only a 
9" monitor, now you sing the praises of a 9" monitor.  Your hypocrisy 
shows no bounds.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <michelle-28FEF6.12300317042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <fu815o$d3n$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
>  Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
> > > so what?  most people only have one battery and a lot of people 
> > > wouldn't care if there were no battery at all since they take their 
> > > laptop from home to office to coffeeshop and *plug it in* wherever 
> > > they are.
> > 
> > So, it's wired wireless? Makes lots of Jobby sense!
> 
> Learn the difference between plugging in a computer to a power source, 
> and wireless connectivity.
> 
> >  > plus, it's just a few screws and the battery can be swapped.
> > 
> > I'm sure it's very easy. After all, why put a latch where a screw 
> > does the job. Mac users are known to tote their toolkit around. 
> > That's what you pay $2,000 for! What fun!
> 
> You miss the point that you don't need to change the battery in a 
> MacBook Air very often.  It's not like that piece of shit that you use.
> 
> > If you want a computer to bring around, you need very little space. 16G, 
> > even 8G, is more than enough. When you come home, you move your data to 
> > your desktop. Does 8G cost $1000?
> 
> You can load all your apps and documents in only 8 gigs?  No wonder you 
> don't need a good computer; you don't do much of anything with it.
> 
> > Take a ruler, look: 9 inches diagonal is not too bad.
> 
> You anti-Mac bigots derided the original Macintosh because it had only a 
> 9" monitor, now you sing the praises of a 9" monitor.  Your hypocrisy 
> shows no bounds.

Nice one Michelle. :-)  Of course, he *is* a thickie.

Tim Streater a �crit :

> Nice one Michelle. :-)  Of course, he *is* a thickie.

Yeah. I almost regret I plunked her. Maybe I could have learned what 
difference it makes whether you're locked by an ethernet wire or a power 
cord, or how much lighter and smaller the original Mac was compared to 
an Asus Eee.

If the Bitch Steiner is not thick, I'd rather be.

In article <fu815o$d3n$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
<priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> unswappable batteries, 
> > 
> > so what?  most people only have one battery and a lot of people
> > wouldn't care if there were no battery at all since they take their
> > laptop from home to office to coffeeshop and *plug it in* wherever they
> > are.
> 
> So, it's wired wireless? Makes lots of Jobby sense!

there's no such thing as wireless power yet.  it's a limitation even
your laptop would have.

>  > plus, it's just a few screws and the battery can be swapped.
> 
> I'm sure it's very easy. After all, why put a latch where a screw does 
> the job. Mac users are known to tote their toolkit around. That's what 
> you pay $2,000 for! What fun!

why bother, when 90% of laptop owners currently only have one battery? 
you seem to think changing batteries is a requirement (it isn't), when
the vast majority of users do not need to.  

<http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=571>

> >> little 
> >> autonomy, too large size -- you still need a laptop bag to carry it --, 
> > 
> > a laptop bag is not required, and that's no different than any other
> > laptop.  in fact, a laptop bag is needed less because it's so thin. 
> 
> Of course, you don't need a bag! The HD is sunk three inches deep inside 
> the computer, so it doesn't fear shocks. You just don't need a bag!

since it's less than an inch thick, how can it be 'sunk three inches
deep inside' ?  plus, if it's not spinning (which it would be in a
bag), it's actually fairly resistant to shock. 
 
> > flash drives are not cheap.  go look at newegg.  
> 
> If you want a computer to bring around, you need very little space. 16G, 
> even 8G, is more than enough. When you come home, you move your data to 
> your desktop. Does 8G cost $1000?

8 gig is more than enough??  what year is this?  i think the laptop i
bought a decade ago had an 8 gig drive.  it's also an option; if you
think it's too expensive, buy the hard drive version. 

> >> I'd rather have 
> >> an Asus Eee 9 inch at one fourth the price...
> > 
> > smaller screen, for one.  it's not the same mix of features. 
> 
> Take a ruler, look: 9 inches diagonal is not too bad. You can't get a 
> book sized computer with a 24" monitor.

'not too bad' - nothing like faint praise. 

now take a look at the macbook air screen.  it's pretty good.

and guess what -- 13" screens do cost more than 9" screens.

In article <noemailhere-EBAEBD.12422117042008@news.mts.net>, The New
guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Windows users can choose any hardware they want.  If Macs were more 
> advanced and were good value for money, Windows users would flock to 
> Apple stores and purchase them.  But that doesn't happen.  

actually it is happening.  something like half of mac buyers are
ex-windows users.

In article <fu8bbi$iap$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Tim Streater a �crit :
> 
> > Nice one Michelle. :-)  Of course, he *is* a thickie.
> 
> Yeah. I almost regret I plunked her. Maybe I could have learned what 
> difference it makes whether you're locked by an ethernet wire or a power 
> cord, or how much lighter and smaller the original Mac was compared to 
> an Asus Eee.
> 
> If the Bitch Steiner is not thick, I'd rather be.

No, it's *you* that's the thickie.

In article <fu82jc$r9q$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
<priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> The problem Jobby was faced with is how he could possibly get a TV 
> through his reality distortion field. Already Macers understood they 
> better not buy their monitors form Apple. (That's one of the reason why 
> it has been incorporated in the iMac.

that's absurd.  it's all in one because it's easier to set up and use. 
not everyone upgrades (in fact very few do).

> Rest assured that it doesn't somehow bring money in, it will soon be 
> discarded. 

that's kinda what companies do.  build products to make money.

> "The market" never wanted a Mini. It has always wanted what you're 
> asking for here: a genuine PC at a decent price.

except they've sold fairly well, so the market did want it.

> The Mini is a laptop without a monitor. No PC manufacturer in his right 
> mind would manufacture a laptop without a monitor. Apple does. It 
> doesn't compare.

there's a pc that's quite similar to the mini, almost looks the same
even.  unfortunately, i forget who makes it.  

> No PC manufacturer in his right mind would manufacture a laptop without 
> a DVD writer, unswappable batteries, no ethernet, etc. Apple does. And 
> it's so cute and it's so tiiiiiiny, etc. You bang it once on the wall, 
> and it's done, but that's another matter. It doesn't compare. Apple asks 
> $2000 for the ridiculous thingy.

get over it.  not everyone needs a dvd writer, especially in a laptop. 
for someone who travels and wants to check email and do work, they
don't need a burner or an optical drive at all.  

and most laptop users have only one battery, and they don't need to
swap.  airplanes have power outlets on them, so there's no need for
multiple batteries there either.

> What's an iMac? It's a computer behind a monitor. Not too many PC 
> manufacturers offer this, I believe. Can you name any? 

gateway one.
<http://www.gateway.com/programs/one/index.php>
vaio lt
<http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catal
ogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665291466>

> Why don't they? 
> Because, for most people, computers are a mystery. If anything breaks, 
> monitor or computer, they send it back to the store.

you're finally getting it.  that's why they make an all in one.  most
people don't want to deal with separate parts or building their own
system.

> But if the computer breaks, maybe they can use the monitor with an older 
> computer that was put away. If the monitor breaks, they can grab one 
> used for $100. 

if you're happy with using an older computer or hunting down a used
monitor, rather than getting the computer fixed (likely for free, under
warranty), then have at it.

> But, if your iMac breaks, you've got to send the whole 
> sheebang to the store, and that's including your personal data... 

encrypt it.  guess what -- that capability is built into os x (and has
been for a very long time). 

> for, 
> possibly, a monitor problem. Sensible people who need a computer to 
> work, not to brag, really don't need this. So PC manufacturers don't 
> offer this stupidity. Apple does and it doesn't compare with anything on 
> the market. So they can set the price.

it's actually competitive.  go price out a gateway one.

> In order to keep prices down, PC manufacturers need volume. Not too many 
> people need a computer with the specs of the Mac Pro. If you want this 
> type of computer, you ask a shop to assemble it or you DIY.

very few people ask a shop to build a computer.  they walk into a store
and walk out with a computer.

nospam a �crit :
> In article <fu815o$d3n$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
> <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> unswappable batteries, 
>>> so what?  most people only have one battery and a lot of people
>>> wouldn't care if there were no battery at all since they take their
>>> laptop from home to office to coffeeshop and *plug it in* wherever they
>>> are.
>> So, it's wired wireless? Makes lots of Jobby sense!
> 
> there's no such thing as wireless power yet.  it's a limitation even
> your laptop would have.

Guess what? Some laptops have a second set of batteries that you can 
change without bringing along your toolkit!

>>  > plus, it's just a few screws and the battery can be swapped.
>>
>> I'm sure it's very easy. After all, why put a latch where a screw does 
>> the job. Mac users are known to tote their toolkit around. That's what 
>> you pay $2,000 for! What fun!
> 
> why bother, when 90% of laptop owners currently only have one battery? 
> you seem to think changing batteries is a requirement (it isn't), when
> the vast majority of users do not need to.  

As a matter of fact, I don't see why a laptop requires a battery. You 
just plug it into the wall and praise WiFi and Bluetooth.

>>>> little 
>>>> autonomy, too large size -- you still need a laptop bag to carry it --, 
>>> a laptop bag is not required, and that's no different than any other
>>> laptop.  in fact, a laptop bag is needed less because it's so thin. 
>> Of course, you don't need a bag! The HD is sunk three inches deep inside 
>> the computer, so it doesn't fear shocks. You just don't need a bag!
> 
> since it's less than an inch thick, how can it be 'sunk three inches
> deep inside' ?

Very good question. You're getting to it! I see you're not as thick as I!

> plus, if it's not spinning (which it would be in a
> bag), it's actually fairly resistant to shock. 

Fairly, as you say.

>>> flash drives are not cheap.  go look at newegg.  
>> If you want a computer to bring around, you need very little space. 16G, 
>> even 8G, is more than enough. When you come home, you move your data to 
>> your desktop. Does 8G cost $1000?
> 
> 8 gig is more than enough??  what year is this?  i think the laptop i
> bought a decade ago had an 8 gig drive.  it's also an option; if you
> think it's too expensive, buy the hard drive version. 

The Asus may come with 8G memory. Linux takes 2G. That's 6 left for 
data. I suppose you don't want to store feature films on an UMPC??? Oh, 
you do? Then, you may buy a 16 SSD card for around $120.

>>>> I'd rather have 
>>>> an Asus Eee 9 inch at one fourth the price...
>>> smaller screen, for one.  it's not the same mix of features. 
>> Take a ruler, look: 9 inches diagonal is not too bad. You can't get a 
>> book sized computer with a 24" monitor.
> 
> 'not too bad' - nothing like faint praise. 
> 
> now take a look at the macbook air screen.  it's pretty good.
> 
> and guess what -- 13" screens do cost more than 9" screens.

Yes, it costs $1600 more. But, of course, money is no concern to Mac 
users. I wonder why they care so much about th eOpenMac...

On 2008-04-17, Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> In article <slrng09q5m.kmu.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
> Ian Gregory  <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>It seems that Psystar wants to go to court. I know EULAs are how shall 
>>we put it - not universally liked. However, the GPL is an EULA and I 
>>wouldn't like to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater.
>
> The GPL is NOT an EULA.

You are right of course. If EULAs were ruled to be unenforcable it 
wouldn't necessarily affect the enforcability of the GPL. They both 
limit what you can do with code but use sufficiently different legal 
mechanisms that an attack on one is not neccessarily an attack on both 
(though the guy I quoted obviously feared that it would be).

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <fu8dda$9k8$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
<priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > there's no such thing as wireless power yet.  it's a limitation even
> > your laptop would have.
> 
> Guess what? Some laptops have a second set of batteries that you can 
> change without bringing along your toolkit!

guess what?  most users don't need a second battery.  they'd much
prefer less weight.

> As a matter of fact, I don't see why a laptop requires a battery. You 
> just plug it into the wall and praise WiFi and Bluetooth.

fine by me.  i'm always near a power outlet, and almost always have it
plugged in for power, even on an airplane.  

> > since it's less than an inch thick, how can it be 'sunk three inches
> > deep inside' ?
> 
> Very good question. You're getting to it! I see you're not as thick as I!

very true.  i'm not as thick as you.  probably the first correct thing
you've said yet. 

> The Asus may come with 8G memory. Linux takes 2G. That's 6 left for 
> data. I suppose you don't want to store feature films on an UMPC??? Oh, 
> you do? Then, you may buy a 16 SSD card for around $120.

so just linux and data?  no applications?  exactly what do you plan to
do with this thing?  and 6 gig is nothing.  i can fill that in an
afternoon of shooting photos. 

> > and guess what -- 13" screens do cost more than 9" screens.
> 
> Yes, it costs $1600 more. But, of course, money is no concern to Mac 
> users. I wonder why they care so much about th eOpenMac...

the macbook air also offers a lot more.  if you don't think it's worth
it, buy something else.  that's why there are choices.

In article <fu8bbi$iap$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> If the Bitch Steiner is not thick, I'd rather be.

Better to be a bitch than to be a motherfucking asshole like you.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 2008-04-17, Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> If you don't have wget, you certainly have something similar on the Mac.

Mac OS X ships with curl instead of wget - they have their own strengths 
and weaknesses:

<http://daniel.haxx.se/docs/curl-vs-wget.html>

If we want wget then (assuming MacPorts) "sudo port install wget" will 
get it for us.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

nospam a �crit :
> In article <fu82jc$r9q$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
> <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> The problem Jobby was faced with is how he could possibly get a TV 
>> through his reality distortion field. Already Macers understood they 
>> better not buy their monitors form Apple. (That's one of the reason why 
>> it has been incorporated in the iMac.
> 
> that's absurd.  it's all in one because it's easier to set up and use.

Well... I plug my monitor in my computer and in an electrical outlet... 
and it works. Of course, as everybody says here, I'm a genius!

> not everyone upgrades (in fact very few do).

My present computer is a Celeron 800 clone that I built almost 7 years 
ago with some parts of my old 486. I did have to change my old Samsung 
CRT two years ago. It might come to you as a surprise, but you don't 
have to change your monitor if you upgrade your computer, and you don't 
have to throw away your computer because replacing the monitor will cost 
you twice what the computer is worth, as will happen to iMac users in a 
few years.

So, if you just add those brackets, your assertion is right:

"not every [Mac user] upgrades (in fact very few do)"

The Apple philosophy is "Learn to pay a high price, then throw away."

>> Rest assured that it doesn't somehow bring money in, it will soon be 
>> discarded. 
> 
> that's kinda what companies do.  build products to make money.

Exactly. So don't pretend that Stevie is having Apple fund his 
"experiments".

>> "The market" never wanted a Mini. It has always wanted what you're 
>> asking for here: a genuine PC at a decent price.
> 
> except they've sold fairly well, so the market did want it.

Because it was the only Mac in the lower price range. That's it, that's all.

>> The Mini is a laptop without a monitor. No PC manufacturer in his right 
>> mind would manufacture a laptop without a monitor. Apple does. It 
>> doesn't compare.
> 
> there's a pc that's quite similar to the mini, almost looks the same
> even.  unfortunately, i forget who makes it.  

So do I :) HP makes a smaller computer, but it's bigger than an iMac. 
It's pretty much what you hope Apple would produce, for something around 
$700.

>> No PC manufacturer in his right mind would manufacture a laptop without 
>> a DVD writer, unswappable batteries, no ethernet, etc. Apple does. And 
>> it's so cute and it's so tiiiiiiny, etc. You bang it once on the wall, 
>> and it's done, but that's another matter. It doesn't compare. Apple asks 
>> $2000 for the ridiculous thingy.
> 
> get over it.  not everyone needs a dvd writer, especially in a laptop. 
> for someone who travels and wants to check email

what is needed is an Asus Eee. 9" monitor. ~ $500.

>> What's an iMac? It's a computer behind a monitor. Not too many PC 
>> manufacturers offer this, I believe. Can you name any? 
> 
> gateway one.
> <http://www.gateway.com/programs/one/index.php>

I checked this one and, though the lower model's features are a bit 
better than the lower priced iMac, it's also $100 more expensive. Nobody 
buys this stuff. I suppose it was a desperate attempt by Gateway to join 
the iMac bandwagon before they were bought by Acer. It does look good, 
though.

>> Why don't they? 
>> Because, for most people, computers are a mystery. If anything breaks, 
>> monitor or computer, they send it back to the store.
> 
> you're finally getting it.  that's why they make an all in one.  most
> people don't want to deal with separate parts or building their own
> system.

I'd rather not send my data around America to get my monitor fixed.

>> But if the computer breaks, maybe they can use the monitor with an older 
>> computer that was put away. If the monitor breaks, they can grab one 
>> used for $100. 
> 
> if you're happy with using an older computer or hunting down a used
> monitor,  rather than getting the computer fixed (likely for free, under
> warranty), then have at it.

Likely for free, and in a few hours, you should add. But I know a Mac 
user who had to bring this Mac back and forth to the store for 2 months 
before it really worked.

I've never been without a computer for more than 5 hours, even less 
since I fix it myself, and really not often, since 1989. I never had to 
buy a replacement for a monitor being fixed. My suggestion was for if 
worst came to worst.

>> But, if your iMac breaks, you've got to send the whole 
>> sheebang to the store, and that's including your personal data... 
> 
> encrypt it.  guess what -- that capability is built into os x (and has
> been for a very long time). 

You Mac users have all kind of workarounds to deal with Mac problems. I 
can also encrypt my data, but would rather not just to have a frickin' 
computer fixed.

>> In order to keep prices down, PC manufacturers need volume. Not too many 
>> people need a computer with the specs of the Mac Pro. If you want this 
>> type of computer, you ask a shop to assemble it or you DIY.
> 
> very few people ask a shop to build a computer.  

That's what I was doing before I built my own.

> they walk into a store
> and walk out with a computer.

Yes, but not with PC equivalents of the Mac Pro. These, you get custom 
built for half the price of a Mac Pro. It's usually parts + 70$ time.

In article <fu8gsf$e5r$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
<priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> I'd rather not send my data around America to get my monitor fixed.

then don't.  

> Likely for free, and in a few hours, you should add. But I know a Mac 
> user who had to bring this Mac back and forth to the store for 2 months 
> before it really worked.

yea and?  there are horror stories for any product.  

> >> But, if your iMac breaks, you've got to send the whole 
> >> sheebang to the store, and that's including your personal data... 
> > 
> > encrypt it.  guess what -- that capability is built into os x (and has
> > been for a very long time). 
> 
> You Mac users have all kind of workarounds to deal with Mac problems. I 
> can also encrypt my data, but would rather not just to have a frickin' 
> computer fixed.

so you tear open a computer to remove the hard drive just to send it in
to get it fixed?  that's wonderful, but most people don't do that.  and
what if it is the hard drive itself that has failed?  

encrypting is easy, and it even protects against if the computer is
stolen.

nospam a �crit :

>> Likely for free, and in a few hours, you should add. But I know a Mac 
>> user who had to bring this Mac back and forth to the store for 2 months 
>> before it really worked.
> 
> yea and?  there are horror stories for any product.  

Let's put it this way. Whereas Mac users here pretend that so-called 
"commodity PCs" are cheap and don't last, just the contrary is true. 
Apple has always favored features over sound design. That's why they had 
more than their fair share of horror stories.

>>>> But, if your iMac breaks, you've got to send the whole 
>>>> sheebang to the store, and that's including your personal data... 
>>> encrypt it.  guess what -- that capability is built into os x (and has
>>> been for a very long time). 
>> You Mac users have all kind of workarounds to deal with Mac problems. I 
>> can also encrypt my data, but would rather not just to have a frickin' 
>> computer fixed.
> 
> so you tear open a computer to remove the hard drive just to send it in
> to get it fixed?  that's wonderful, but most people don't do that.  and
> what if it is the hard drive itself that has failed?  

I used to put the computer to the store and bring it back on the same 
day. Today, I'd bring whatever part is failing to the store and I'd say: 
�Give me another one�. So far, it happened only for my old Samsung 
monitor. I didn't bring it back to the store when I bought my Viewsonic :)

In article <slrng0eu8c.jfc.g.kreme@cerebus.local>,
 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <160420081240064295%ajanta@null.void> 
>   Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
> > If they thought so, sure, but companies don't necessarily always 
> > think think the right thing. That's why many go bankrupt. Apple 
> > itself came close to that and had to be rescued by the likes of 
> > Bill Gates
> 
> What the fuck kind of meds are you on?
> 
> Bill Gates rescue Apple?  Never happened.

August 1997.  Infusion of $150 million cash from Microsoft to Apple, 
basically due to Steve Jobs calling Gates and asking.  Why did Gates do 
it?  Apple is the only thing standing between Microsoft and having the 
federal courts restructure Microsoft a la the Bell Telephone company.  
It's important to Microsoft to have another company that appears to be a 
competitor in its consumer marketplace.  Gates's actions had multiple 
benefits for Microsoft (including making some troublesome litigation go 
away) and benefits for Apple, which was at risk of a hostile takeover 
due to years of falling stock price and lack of investor confidence.  
Apple's stock doubled in value shortly after Microsoft's investment.

Maybe you weren't around in those bad old days, when Jobs got ousted out 
of his own company in favor of Scully and them Amelio and then returned 
as the iCEO and recreated iApple as an iPhoenix rising out of its own 
iAshes.  This was pretty widely discussed in 1997.

In article <fu82jc$r9q$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> nospam a �crit :
> > In article <michelle-8ADA4B.21431116042008@news.west.cox.net>, 
> > Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> >>> the point is that apple builds what it (steve) wants. 
> >> And what it wants are products that make money for the company.
> > 
> > like the apple tv that steve said was 'a hobby' and 'an experiment' 
> > ? 
> 
> The problem Jobby was faced with is how he could possibly get a TV 
> through his reality distortion field. Already Macers understood they 
> better not buy their monitors form Apple. (That's one of the reason 
> why it has been incorporated in the iMac.

LOL!  You are so full of shit your eyes must be brown.

> Rest assured that it doesn't somehow bring money in, it will soon be 
> discarded. But it seems it had to be put on the market to see if 
> there wasn't any way it could be distorted.

You really have no clue how a market economy works, do you?  Products 
that aren't profitable are discontinued.  That's part of how it works.  
You know, "we lose money on each unit but we make up for it with volume" 
is a joke, right?

> > it took apple years to realize there was a market for the mac mini. 
> > people had been hounding them to make a headless imac for ages.  
> 
> "The market" never wanted a Mini. It has always wanted what you're 
> asking for here: a genuine PC at a decent price.

Which of course is why no one at all bought the Mini, why no one at all 
bought the iMac...  for the most part, what the public wants is laptops.  
Laptops are the growing sector of the computer market while desktop 
sales are shrinking.  It's only geeks, hobbyists and power users that 
want desktop computers.

> >>>> When Apple builds it and its sales take off, then I'll believe 
> >>>> that there is a market for it.
> >>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means 
> >>> nothing?
> >> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> > 
> > it's a frequent topic on many forums such as dpreview.  people want 
> > a desktop that doesn't cost $2500 and one that's not as limited as 
> > a mini.  it's that simple.  and no, an imac isn't the answer.
> 
> And they'll never get it. Here's why.
> 
> Before it goes to the market, an Apple product has to go through the 
> reality distortion field to be ooooh so tiny, ooooh so slim, ooooh so 
> cute, but otherwise completely ridiculous. It must be absolutely 
> impossible to compare price with anything on the market.
> 
> The Mini is a laptop without a monitor. No PC manufacturer in his 
> right mind would manufacture a laptop without a monitor. Apple does. 
> It doesn't compare.

Dude, there are medications to help you with this set of delusions you 
have.  I have seen dozens of Mini-clone PCs in offices all over the 
place.

> No PC manufacturer in his right mind would manufacture a laptop 
> without a DVD writer, unswappable batteries, no ethernet, etc. Apple 
> does. And it's so cute and it's so tiiiiiiny, etc. You bang it once 
> on the wall, and it's done, but that's another matter. It doesn't 
> compare. Apple asks $2000 for the ridiculous thingy.

So you've bought yours already, haven't you?

> What's an iMac? It's a computer behind a monitor. Not too many PC 
> manufacturers offer this, I believe. Can you name any? Why don't 
> they? Because, for most people, computers are a mystery. If anything 
> breaks, monitor or computer, they send it back to the store.

Again, utter bollocks.  I've seen these too, albeit in clunky looking 
cases that are nowhere near as elegant as a mac.  And of course they are 
stuck with the inferiority of Windoze or "Linux."

> In order to keep prices down, PC manufacturers need volume. Not too 
> many people need a computer with the specs of the Mac Pro. If you 
> want this type of computer, you ask a shop to assemble it or you DIY.

Or you buy a Mac Pro.  D'oh!  So simple and so utterly beyond your grasp!

> Apple does it for you. They put it all together, adding some features 
> you might never need. Now, look at the beast, man! It's so powerful! 
> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! And it doesn't compare much 
> with anything on the market, and you'll have to pay twice the price. 
> But you'll be able to tell your friends "I own a Mac Pro", ta dam! 
> instead of "I had some clone put together." Of course, the Mac will 
> set you back twice the price, but, hey, you've got friends who will 
> come see the beast.
> 
> What you're asking is for Apple to offer a product that compares with 
> PCs on the market. Then, you can compare price. And when people do 
> that, they buy a Viewsonic monitor instead of an Apple monitor at 
> twice the price.

Nah, what I am asking for is for the PC industry to build a computer 
that compares with a Mac.  *Then* I'll consider it.

In article <no-C55919.23223317042008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
 Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:

> So it no longer crashes midway through large transfers losing ALL the 
> data it's downloaded in that session?

Azureus has never done that to me, and it downloads maxed-out, so I'm 
happy with it. Encryption, Peer Guardian, all the good stuff.
-- 
W. Oates

In article <fu8bbi$iap$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Tim Streater a �crit :
> 
> > Nice one Michelle. :-)  Of course, he *is* a thickie.
> 
> Yeah. I almost regret I plunked her. Maybe I could have learned what 
> difference it makes whether you're locked by an ethernet wire or a 
> power cord, or how much lighter and smaller the original Mac was 
> compared to an Asus Eee.
> 
> If the Bitch Steiner is not thick, I'd rather be.

Again with the babbling.  You're not even trying to make sense, are you?

In article <iKKNj.51350$h65.29080@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> Overtly pedantic muppet.
> 
> *plonk*

Ooh, a sensitive type. Please, plink me also. Plink plonk planck.
-- 
W. Oates

In article <noemailhere-EBAEBD.12422117042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Windows users can choose any hardware they want.  

Well, no, they can't.  Have you ever actually used Windows or tried to 
install it on a computer?  If you had, you'd know how wrong you are.

> If Macs were more advanced and were good value for money, Windows 
> users would flock to Apple stores and purchase them.  

And they do.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/11/13/mac.up.win.down.in.japan/

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/20/1829236

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/10/05/news/18871.shtml

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/05/11/07/over_1_million_windows_to_m
ac_converts_so_far_in_2005.html

> But that doesn't happen.

You were saying?

In article <170420081324401451%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> there's no such thing as wireless power yet.  it's a limitation even
> your laptop would have.

Mark Conrad's working on that.
-- 
W. Oates

In article <fu85o2$qst$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> What you have is a plain genuine PC selling for arounf $700, $100 
> more than the Mini.

That's like my offering you a plain genuine Yugo for $100 less than a 
BMW.

In article <timmcn-94F9B0.18124017042008@news.iphouse.com>, Tim
McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> > Bill Gates rescue Apple?  Never happened.
> 
> August 1997.  Infusion of $150 million cash from Microsoft to Apple, 
> basically due to Steve Jobs calling Gates and asking.  Why did Gates do 
> it?  Apple is the only thing standing between Microsoft and having the 
> federal courts restructure Microsoft a la the Bell Telephone company.  
> It's important to Microsoft to have another company that appears to be a 
> competitor in its consumer marketplace.  Gates's actions had multiple 
> benefits for Microsoft (including making some troublesome litigation go 
> away) and benefits for Apple, which was at risk of a hostile takeover 
> due to years of falling stock price and lack of investor confidence.  
> Apple's stock doubled in value shortly after Microsoft's investment.

not quite.  it was an out of court settlement for patent infringements
between apple and microsoft.  apple was not in any danger of going out
of business nor were there any hostile takeover attempts.

> Maybe you weren't around in those bad old days, when Jobs got ousted out 
> of his own company in favor of Scully and them Amelio and then returned 
> as the iCEO and recreated iApple as an iPhoenix rising out of its own 
> iAshes.  This was pretty widely discussed in 1997.

you skipped a few ceos.

In article <025fb81e$0$10232$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ooh, a sensitive type. Please, plink me also. Plink plonk planck.

That should be Planck, Planck, Planck; be constant.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <170420081632277434%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <timmcn-94F9B0.18124017042008@news.iphouse.com>, Tim
> McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Bill Gates rescue Apple?  Never happened.
> > 
> > August 1997.  Infusion of $150 million cash from Microsoft to Apple, 
> > basically due to Steve Jobs calling Gates and asking.  Why did Gates do 
> > it?  Apple is the only thing standing between Microsoft and having the 
> > federal courts restructure Microsoft a la the Bell Telephone company.  
> > It's important to Microsoft to have another company that appears to be a 
> > competitor in its consumer marketplace.  Gates's actions had multiple 
> > benefits for Microsoft (including making some troublesome litigation go 
> > away) and benefits for Apple, which was at risk of a hostile takeover 
> > due to years of falling stock price and lack of investor confidence.  
> > Apple's stock doubled in value shortly after Microsoft's investment.
> 
> not quite.  it was an out of court settlement for patent infringements
> between apple and microsoft.  apple was not in any danger of going out
> of business nor were there any hostile takeover attempts.

It also involved a bunch of cross-licensing.

> 
> > Maybe you weren't around in those bad old days, when Jobs got ousted out 
> > of his own company in favor of Scully and them Amelio and then returned 
> > as the iCEO and recreated iApple as an iPhoenix rising out of its own 
> > iAshes.  This was pretty widely discussed in 1997.
> 
> you skipped a few ceos.

-- 
Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

In article <michelle-928002.16494017042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <025fb81e$0$10232$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Ooh, a sensitive type. Please, plink me also. Plink plonk planck.
> 
> That should be Planck, Planck, Planck; be constant.

Well, you take your superposition, I'll take mine. I'm on the verge of 
collapse, though. The size of my constant, I guess.
-- 
W. Oates

Ian Gregory a �crit :
> On 2008-04-17, Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> If you don't have wget, you certainly have something similar on the Mac.
> 
> Mac OS X ships with curl instead of wget - they have their own strengths 
> and weaknesses:
> 
> <http://daniel.haxx.se/docs/curl-vs-wget.html>
> 
> If we want wget then (assuming MacPorts) "sudo port install wget" will 
> get it for us.

In my experience, there's not much that can be said against wget. Of 
course, development is dead but it's cause every bug has been corrected 
and all features you can think of are available. Recursive downloads are 
a plus. I used to use them more when bandwidth was limited and I 
preferred to have a whole site on my computer. The fact that it's 
command line only doesn't bother me.

But I'm sure curl does the job too. It's also available for Linux.

In article <AJKdnc_Dav8UVpvVnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article <slrng09q5m.kmu.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
> Ian Gregory  <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:
> >On 2008-04-14, Ajanta <ajanta@null.void> wrote:
> >
> >> 'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple
> >
> >The Angry Drunk has a couple of links and some "Additional Thoughts on 
> >the OpenMac Announcement:
> >
> ><http://www.theangrydrunk.com/2008/04/15/additional-thoughts-on-the-openmac-a
> >nnouncement/>
> >
> >It seems that Psystar wants to go to court. I know EULAs are how shall 
> >we put it - not universally liked. However, the GPL is an EULA and I 
> >wouldn't like to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater.
> 
> The GPL is NOT an EULA.  It's a distribution license.  Which is what
> Psystar would need to distribute Leopard pre-installed, come to think
> of it...

Not to distribute it pre-installed, but to even install it in the first 
place. The argument goes as follows:

Copyright law covers copying software, not using it. However, installing 
Leopard requires it to be copied to the hard drive. The only thing that 
gives you explicit permission to copy the software, even just to install 
it, is the EULA. Thus, if Psystar doesn't agree to the EULA, it may be 
that they're violating copyright law by installing the software.

If someone advanced this argument on me with respect an end user, I'd 
reject it; I'd say the user doesn't necessarily have to accept the EULA 
to have the right to install the software, because non-commercial 
copying for personal use is protected by fair use provisions. But 
Psystar's copying isn't non-commercial, nor is it for personal use.

-- 
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way." 
� � � � � � � � � � � � --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <fu8lbi$571$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> nospam a �crit :
> 
> >> Likely for free, and in a few hours, you should add. But I know a Mac 
> >> user who had to bring this Mac back and forth to the store for 2 months 
> >> before it really worked.
> > 
> > yea and?  there are horror stories for any product.  
> 
> Let's put it this way. Whereas Mac users here pretend that so-called 
> "commodity PCs" are cheap and don't last, just the contrary is true. 
> Apple has always favored features over sound design. That's why they had 
> more than their fair share of horror stories.

Actual surveys put Mac reliability higher than PC reliability.

The reason Apple seems to have "more than their fair share of horror 
stories" is primarily because Apple has so few models, and tends to be 
much more consistent about what parts go in them.

If there's some specific flaw with Apple's current iMac design, that's 
going to impact 20% of recent Mac buyers, and you're certainly going to 
hear about that. On the other hand, if there's some issue with Dell XPS 
420 towers containing some specific networking chipset, odds are you'll 
never hear about it, because the XPS 420 is just one of over a dozen 
models Dell sells, and one of thousands of models sold generally into 
the PC market, and companies like Dell tend to change what components 
they're using practically on a daily basis, so the bad networking 
hardware probably made it into only a small percentage of XPS 420s.

This doesn't mean there aren't more total problems in the PC world, it 
just means that any *specific* problem isn't common enough that anyone 
pays attention. That isn't actually a good thing for consumers, of 
course. There have been cases where Apple has corrected problems even on 
machines out of warranty. This happens because when many people have the 
same problem, it puts pressure on a company to admit fault and remedy 
the wrong. When many people have *different* problems, they get to 
suffer in silence.

-- 
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way." 
� � � � � � � � � � � � --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <znu-527950.21434717042008@news.individual.net>, ZnU
<znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> There have been cases where Apple has corrected problems even on 
> machines out of warranty. 

yep.  i know more than a few people who had their problematic machines
replaced with new ones.  and i mean they sent in say, an ibook, then
got a phone call 'you can have the ibook repaired but it will be a few
weeks until we get parts, or we can just send you out a new macbook
instead. which do you prefer?'

In article <michelle-928002.16494017042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <025fb81e$0$10232$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Ooh, a sensitive type. Please, plink me also. Plink plonk planck.
> 
> That should be Planck, Planck, Planck; be constant.

I wish I was thick as a Planck.

In article <fu8lbi$571$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> nospam a �crit :
> 
> >> Likely for free, and in a few hours, you should add. But I know a 
> >> Mac user who had to bring this Mac back and forth to the store for 
> >> 2 months before it really worked.
> > 
> > yea and?  there are horror stories for any product.  
> 
> Let's put it this way. Whereas Mac users here pretend that so-called 
> "commodity PCs" are cheap and don't last, just the contrary is true. 
> Apple has always favored features over sound design. That's why they 
> had more than their fair share of horror stories.

Like viruses!

nospam a �crit :
> In article <znu-527950.21434717042008@news.individual.net>, ZnU
> <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> There have been cases where Apple has corrected problems even on 
>> machines out of warranty. 
> 
> yep.  i know more than a few people who had their problematic machines
> replaced with new ones.  and i mean they sent in say, an ibook, then
> got a phone call 'you can have the ibook repaired but it will be a few
> weeks until we get parts, or we can just send you out a new macbook
> instead. which do you prefer?'

Yup! And if the guy says he wants his computer fixed, Apple says "Ok, 
what about 2 new MacBook." That's how things work at Apple. Everybody 
knows that. It's a given!

In article <fu93ub$tbl$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Priam
<priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >> There have been cases where Apple has corrected problems even on 
> >> machines out of warranty. 
> > 
> > yep.  i know more than a few people who had their problematic machines
> > replaced with new ones.  and i mean they sent in say, an ibook, then
> > got a phone call 'you can have the ibook repaired but it will be a few
> > weeks until we get parts, or we can just send you out a new macbook
> > instead. which do you prefer?'
> 
> Yup! And if the guy says he wants his computer fixed, Apple says "Ok, 
> what about 2 new MacBook." That's how things work at Apple. Everybody 
> knows that. It's a given!

if he wants it fixed, it gets fixed.  most people are probably going to
take the free upgrade.  

unfortunately for you, no such benefit is available with home built
computers.

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >
> > Overall, the thing that people don't realize about the constant
> > harping about how Apple "should" build an affordable mini-tower for
> > them to buy is that there's no money in it for Apple. =A0The real
> > underlying motivation for the mini-tower buyer is utterly self-
> > serving: to get a cheap box that he'll proverbially never have to
> > replace, because he can instead just forever do incremental upgrades
> > from cheap aftermarket sources.
>
> the reason is that the mini is too low end. =A0

Since the mini's horsepower is essentially identical to a laptop, I
think that that's part of the same equation of the desires of the
"tinkering upgrader":  he wants to get something for nothing, and then
spend next-to-nothing to upgrade it up the wazoo.

FWIW, the fallacy of the tinkering upgrader is that he really ends up
spending more, because it always costs more when you buy intermediary
incremental steps...it is just like buying consumer camera lenses
before finally getting the "L" glass.


> > If a new one is too expensive for your blood, then do the same thing
> > that first-time Porsche buyers end up usually doing: =A0go buy a used
> > one. =A0You can find used G5 PowerMacs for under $1000 today, and they
> > have 8 RAM slots and with a Sonnet Jive, you can put up to 5 hard
> > drives inside. =A0Enjoy.
>
> it's physically *huge*, and it won't run intel native software, such as
> vmware.

And I'd like a used Porsche Cayman for under $20K, but because they've
only been out for ~2 years, they're nowhere near that cheap yet. Guess
I'll either have to decide to spend more of my milk money, or simply
wait.

More seriously, while the PowerMac G5 case is pretty large, the
problem is that once we start down the path of having empty space
inside for upgrading, there will be some people complaining that its
too big, while at the same time others will complain that there's not
"enough" expansion room.   Afterall, do recall the firestorm of
complaints from a decade ago when the 6-slot Mac IIfx was discontinued
and the "Compact" Mac II series replacements of the day didn't have as
many expansion slots.

There's no way for a manufacturer to avoid someone complaining,
because even if they choose to offer several products to cover the
gambit, then you'll hear complaints that they're too expensive (a
reality of manufacturing when sales get fragmented and inventories
increase), the product line is too cluttered, and too confusing to the
consumer.  Simply put, its quite hard to strike the perfect balance.


-hh

 The New guy <noemailh...@please.comm> wrote:
>
> You think DDR-3 and eSata are not useful? =A0You think there is an
> advantage to using ram running at less than half of current available
> speeds (1600 mhz)? =A0Be specific.


The Mac Pro runs at 1600MHz FSB and if four (4) internal HD's isn't
enough, then you can add a PCI card for eSATA.   If you think that its
too pricey for you, Dell's equivalent is ~$1000 more (but only runs at
1333MHz FSB).

No, the real problem is that the generic home consumer buyer doesn't
generally need or buy this class of horsepower.

And insofar as "Slow" Firewire, Firewire800 is pragmatically the same
performance as SATA-I, which has more bandwidth than any standard
7200rpm single spindle hard drive can deliver.

For future capability growth, FW1600 is now in the chip foundry and
FW3200 is being ratified, IIRC.  Granted, it won't stop eSATA from
being a competitor, but if we're going to go poking sticks in peoples'
eyes, the eSATA plug interface leaves quite a bit to be desired.


-hh

In article <fu8tkj$61k$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> In my experience, there's not much that can be said against wget. Of 
> course, development is dead but it's cause every bug has been corrected 
> and all features you can think of are available. Recursive downloads are 
> a plus. I used to use them more when bandwidth was limited and I 
> preferred to have a whole site on my computer. The fact that it's 
> command line only doesn't bother me.

You don't need fink or like that; wget compiles happily with the 
standard gnu-ish tools supplied with OS X.
-- 
W. Oates

In article
<a97fe185-e754-42c5-83cf-4d948660ba53@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> For future capability growth, FW1600 is now in the chip foundry and
> FW3200 is being ratified, IIRC.  Granted, it won't stop eSATA from
> being a competitor, but if we're going to go poking sticks in peoples'
> eyes, the eSATA plug interface leaves quite a bit to be desired.

esata has won the battle.  it's quite common already and it's very
cheap (no bridge board needed).

In article
<2140aa75-07d6-4f8c-8634-71a51dd63ead@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> More seriously, while the PowerMac G5 case is pretty large, the
> problem is that once we start down the path of having empty space
> inside for upgrading, there will be some people complaining that its
> too big, while at the same time others will complain that there's not
> "enough" expansion room.   Afterall, do recall the firestorm of
> complaints from a decade ago when the 6-slot Mac IIfx was discontinued
> and the "Compact" Mac II series replacements of the day didn't have as
> many expansion slots.

that's true.  most people bought a mac ii and had only one (maybe two)
video cards, and that's it.  the mac iici with onboard video and 3
slots was an excellent compromise for most people, and those who needed
more could get the iix or iifx.  

> There's no way for a manufacturer to avoid someone complaining,
> because even if they choose to offer several products to cover the
> gambit, then you'll hear complaints that they're too expensive (a
> reality of manufacturing when sales get fragmented and inventories
> increase), the product line is too cluttered, and too confusing to the
> consumer.  Simply put, its quite hard to strike the perfect balance.

that's why there's more than one model from which to choose.  if
everyone wanted the same thing, there would only need to be one
computer.

(Re-crafted response; looks like my other ISP is acting up & not
delivering)
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >
> > ... =A0The real
> > underlying motivation for the mini-tower buyer is utterly self-
> > serving: to get a cheap box that he'll proverbially never have to
> > replace, because he can instead just forever do incremental upgrades
> > from cheap aftermarket sources.
>
> the reason is that the mini is too low end. =A0

Agree that that's part of the issue, but it still comes down to the
consumer niche who wants "something for nothing" through buying a dirt
cheap box and then paying for incremental upgrades whenever.  The
fallacy of this is that its a lot like buying camera lenses:  you can
easily end up spending more when you buy 2-3 intermediaries before you
get to the "L" glass.


> personally, i'd like to see a mac mini with a full size hard drive
> that's easy to replace (because they do fail) ...

I'd like an easily accessible 3.5" too, but not because they fail
often enough to worry about - - its because I'm always needing more
storage.

Since I've not been privy to Apple's design study trade-offs, I don't
know what the form factor would end up being of a "mini" type system.
THus, I'm not going to be particularly critical of the decision that
they made when I know that I'm not well informed.

Besides, today's realities are that roughly half of consumers are
buying laptops, and all laptops use 2.5" HDs, so this is evidence that
HD performance is not a "make or break" factor in many consumer's
product decision making process, even if you or I consider it
important for our individual needs.  By way of Apple's aggregate
consumer grouping, the machine that we should be buying is
significantly more high end.

> and a decent graphics chip for software such as aperture.

Sorry, Photoshop and Lightroom here.   As such, my need is in the
CPU's ponies instead of in a graphics card.


> oh, and esata.

YMMV.  For me, the only value that I see to eSATA is for an external
box to hold a RAID, which then trashes many arguments about a
desktop's size:  why not just de-clutter by making the CPU's box
slightly bigger and put the RAID inside?  Plus not having to deal with
the criticized eSATA plug design would be a bonus.

And while I concede that eSATA  does offer more performance potential
if its running SATA-II, this is not really the case if its on SATA-I,
since Firewire800 is pragmatically a close enough equal to SATA-I.
And since IIRC no conventional 7200rpm single spindle HDs are capable
of really saturating a SATA-I or FW800 interface yet, the general
question of SATA-I vs -II appears to me to mostly be a non-issue for
"normal" external HD expansions today.

The exception, of course, is for RAID implimentations, which is
arguably quite far from the target consumer of any entry level PC.
Even here, SATA-II is really only in the "lead" when Fibre Channel is
ignored because of its expense.  Nevertheless, that gap is closing
with the recent introduction into the Foundries of a physical
implimentation of Firewire1600.  With demo parts available and with
pricing ($3.50/chip), it makes credibly plausible that FW1600 may very
well be included in Apple's next round of high end system updates;
see:

<http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/09/symwave-demoes-firewire-1600-gear/
>

<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=3D104&STORY=3D/www/
story/04-08-2008/0004788297&EDATE=3D>


> > If a new one is too expensive for your blood, then do the same thing
> > that first-time Porsche buyers end up usually doing: =A0go buy a used
> > one. =A0You can find used G5 PowerMacs for under $1000 today, and they
> > have 8 RAM slots and with a Sonnet Jive, you can put up to 5 hard
> > drives inside. =A0Enjoy.
>
> it's physically *huge*, and it won't run intel native software, such as
> vmware.

Then you'll just have to continue to wait.

Its just like the Porsche Cayman that I'd similarly like to buy for
under $25K.  Since it was a brand new product first introduced only
two years ago (and at $50K+), the prices on the few used ones out
there simply haven't come down yet to my desired price point.  Such is
the marketplace.


-hh

Keith Wood wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
>> In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
>> 
>> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> 
> Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?

Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of
people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from
building their own Mac system?  Would the loss of two handfuls of Mac
hardware sales make such a big dent in a business that now sells in 
excess of 2 Million Macs per quarter?

On 2008-04-18, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> You don't need fink or like that; wget compiles happily with the 
> standard gnu-ish tools supplied with OS X.

I am sure it does, provided you install XCode. If you install XCode and 
MacPorts then it also installs quite happily using port.

Anything that can be installed under MacPorts can obviously be be built 
using standard tools. Are you implying that I should explain this 
explicitly in every post where I suggest a solution involving MacPorts?  
Or even that I should not not mention MacPorts at all?

A Ruby developer called Giles Bowkett said "Nobody's complaining about 
that problem any more, because we're all using up-to-date installs, in 
most cases thanks to MacPorts".  It is one of the first things I install 
(right after XCode) and it simplifies my life. I don't see why I 
shouldn't recommend it as a way of installing applications that are in 
the tree.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <SZ2Oj.47381$4f4.595@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> >>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means 
> >>> nothing?
> >> 
> >> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> > 
> > Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> 
> Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of 
> people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from 
> building their own Mac system?  Would the loss of two handfuls of Mac 
> hardware sales make such a big dent in a business that now sells in 
> excess of 2 Million Macs per quarter?

Do you really believe that if people built their own systems to run the 
Mac OS, they would build one that conforms to the specs that this 
handful of people are clamoring for?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <SZ2Oj.47381$4f4.595@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> Keith Wood wrote:
> 
> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> >>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means nothing?
> >> 
> >> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> > 
> > Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> 
> Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of
> people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from
> building their own Mac system?  Would the loss of two handfuls of Mac
> hardware sales make such a big dent in a business that now sells in 
> excess of 2 Million Macs per quarter?

My guess would be for the same reasons they protect their logos and 
trademarks.  Apple won't be the only one coming down on Psystar, see 
<http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/04/17/psystar.violates.v8.eula/>.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> esata has won the battle. =A0it's quite common already and it's very
> cheap (no bridge board needed).

To a great degree, agreed.  Only real problem IMO is that eSATA's
physical plug interface leaves something to be desired in terms of
overall lifespan.  YMMV on how much of this problem is being reported
by college kids or tinkerers who are forever moving and/or
reconfiguring their system (thus, lots of unplugs & replugs), but for
a few extra bucks, I'd just assume avoid it entirely.


-hh

In article <SZ2Oj.47381$4f4.595@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>,
 Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

> Keith Wood wrote:
> 
> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <160420081922034882%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> >>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means 
> >>> nothing?
> >> 
> >> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> > 
> > Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> 
> Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of 
> people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from 
> building their own Mac system?

Are they all that adamant? There's a whole little community that has 
sprung up around OS X on generic hardware, and Apple doesn't seem to 
care that all much.

> Would the loss of two handfuls of Mac hardware sales make such a big 
> dent in a business that now sells in excess of 2 Million Macs per 
> quarter?

-- 
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way." 
� � � � � � � � � � � � --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <znu-CE7C0A.14534618042008@news.individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls 
> > of people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people 
> > from building their own Mac system?
> 
> Are they all that adamant? There's a whole little community that has 
> sprung up around OS X on generic hardware, and Apple doesn't seem to 
> care that all much.

By the way, check these out:
<http://www.macworld.com/article/133028/2008/04/building_mac_clone.html>

<http://www.macworld.com/article/133035/2008/04/hobbyist_os_x.html>

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <180420080442101647%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <a97fe185-e754-42c5-83cf-4d948660ba53@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> 
> > For future capability growth, FW1600 is now in the chip foundry and
> > FW3200 is being ratified, IIRC.  Granted, it won't stop eSATA from
> > being a competitor, but if we're going to go poking sticks in peoples'
> > eyes, the eSATA plug interface leaves quite a bit to be desired.
> 
> esata has won the battle.  it's quite common already and it's very
> cheap (no bridge board needed).

eSATA has been very successful in the market that used to be dominated 
by SCSI. I don't think most regular consumers are buying eSATA external 
drives, though; that's almost all still USB2 and FireWire, both of which 
are rather more user friendly, support more devices without messing 
around with port multipliers, have nicer connectors, and provide bus 
power.

Anyway, I'm not sure that the notion of one external storage technology 
taking over completely ("winning the battle") makes all that much sense. 
I think we'll continue to have multiple technologies in the market for 
the foreseeable future.

-- 
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way." 
� � � � � � � � � � � � --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <180420080442101647%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <a97fe185-e754-42c5-83cf-4d948660ba53@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> 
> > For future capability growth, FW1600 is now in the chip foundry and
> > FW3200 is being ratified, IIRC.  Granted, it won't stop eSATA from
> > being a competitor, but if we're going to go poking sticks in peoples'
> > eyes, the eSATA plug interface leaves quite a bit to be desired.
> 
> esata has won the battle.  it's quite common already and it's very
> cheap (no bridge board needed).

I'll believe that when I see an eSATA connection for a high definition 
video camera.  Won the battle... pfft...

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-C8AAD4.16285718042008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <180420080442101647%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article
> > <a97fe185-e754-42c5-83cf-4d948660ba53@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > For future capability growth, FW1600 is now in the chip foundry and
> > > FW3200 is being ratified, IIRC.  Granted, it won't stop eSATA from
> > > being a competitor, but if we're going to go poking sticks in peoples'
> > > eyes, the eSATA plug interface leaves quite a bit to be desired.
> > 
> > esata has won the battle.  it's quite common already and it's very
> > cheap (no bridge board needed).
> 
> I'll believe that when I see an eSATA connection for a high definition 
> video camera.  Won the battle... pfft...

Yes, this *is* cobblers, isn't it.

In article <noemailhere-AC4F93.11593017042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <no-C55919.23223317042008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
>  Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-9A1102.19184216042008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > Transmission is superb - way better than Azureus, Tomato and others I've 
> > > tried.
> > 
> > So it no longer crashes midway through large transfers losing ALL the 
> > data it's downloaded in that session?
> 
> No.  It just resumes. 

So it still *crashes* then?!  

I think I'll stick with Azureus...

-- 
Cheers,
Andy.

The Usenet Improvement Project  |  http://improve-usenet.org/
The StupidFilter Project  |  http://stupidfilter.org/main/

In article <slrng0hfbs.n3.foo@ID-256592.user.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@prdetfanaaeextna.invalid> wrote:

> A Ruby developer called Giles Bowkett said "Nobody's complaining about 
> that problem any more, because we're all using up-to-date installs, in 
> most cases thanks to MacPorts".  It is one of the first things I install 
> (right after XCode) and it simplifies my life. I don't see why I 
> shouldn't recommend it as a way of installing applications that are in 
> the tree.

Fine. Most people don't use all the stuff that comes with MacPorts, so I 
like to point them in the direction of /usr/local and so on.
-- 
W. Oates

In article <025fb79d$0$10232$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <no-C55919.23223317042008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
>  Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:
> 
> > So it no longer crashes midway through large transfers losing ALL the 
> > data it's downloaded in that session?
> 
> Azureus has never done that to me, and it downloads maxed-out, so I'm 
> happy with it. Encryption, Peer Guardian, all the good stuff.

Likewise - I was talking about 'Transmission' crashing.

-- 
Cheers,
Andy.

The Usenet Improvement Project  |  http://improve-usenet.org/
The StupidFilter Project  |  http://stupidfilter.org/main/

In message <no-C55919.23223317042008@freenews.iinet.net.au> 
  Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:
> In article <noemailhere-9A1102.19184216042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
>> Transmission is superb - way better than Azureus, Tomato and others I've 
>> tried.

> So it no longer crashes midway through large transfers losing ALL the 
> data it's downloaded in that session?

Heh.. Noooo, it still does that.


-- 
"Woof bloody woof." 

In message <025fb81e$0$10232$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> 
  Warren <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <iKKNj.51350$h65.29080@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
>  Keith Wood <k.wood@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Overtly pedantic muppet.
>> 
>> *plonk*

> Ooh, a sensitive type. Please, plink me also. Plink plonk planck.

Me Too!

-- 
You try to shape the world to what you want the world to be. Carving your
	name a thousand times won't bring you back to me. Oh no, no I might as
	well go and tell it to the trees. Go and tell it to the trees, yeah. 

> > > > > Wrong.  The fact is that Mac users have a much higher standard than 
> > > > > PC users.
> > > > 
> > > > If that was true then Mac hardware would be used by high end Windows 
> > > > users. 
> > > 
> > > That does not follow at all.
> 
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote: 
> > Windows users can choose any hardware they want.  If Macs were more 
> > advanced and were good value for money, Windows users would flock to 
> > Apple stores and purchase them.  But that doesn't happen.  
> 
> You should check your facts before making statements like this. The fact 
> is that more and more first time Macintosh users are former Windows 
> users. A healthy percentage of Mac sales falls into this category.

You might want to reread my statement.  Your reply doesn't address it.  
I said that Mac hardware would be used to run Windows by the masses if 
Mac hardware was good value.  I have never met (and I talk to computer 
people every day) a single Windows user that uses a Mac solely for 
Windows.  Ever.  In fact I've never heard of it occurring. Now I wonder 
why that is?  Could it be because Macs do not offer good value?  Could 
it be because their hardware is price often at 100% more than Newegg?  I 
wonder?

In article <michelle-123C89.12222917042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-EBAEBD.12422117042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > > > That's the reason Mac owners keep their computers longer than 
> > > > > PC owners do?  You make less and less sense every time you put 
> > > > > fingers to keyboard.
> > > > 
> > > > eSata and DDR-3 are 2 huge bottlenecks.  Apple hasn't come up to 
> > > > that standard yet.  They are a year behind the PC world 
> > > > unfortunately.
> > > 
> > > You are a master of non sequitur.
> > 
> > You think DDR-3 and eSata are not useful?
> 
> There is nothing in what I wrote that would lead anyone who can read 
> with comprehension to reach that conclusion.

That's because you snipped the relevant part.  It was a hardware 
discussion.  The point being that Windows users never use Macs to run 
Windows only.  That is proof that Macs are poor hardware value.  And 
they are yesterday's technology.  The lack of DDR-3, eSata, and common 
overclocking is testament to this.

In article <170420081326559510%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-EBAEBD.12422117042008@news.mts.net>, The New
> guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Windows users can choose any hardware they want.  If Macs were more 
> > advanced and were good value for money, Windows users would flock to 
> > Apple stores and purchase them.  But that doesn't happen.  
> 
> actually it is happening.  something like half of mac buyers are
> ex-windows users.

That's not what I said.  Or meant.  The point I was making was that if 
Macs were good hardware values, many Windows users would buy them to run 
Windows only.  I've never heard of that ever happening.  Because Apple 
hardware is yesterday's technology at grossly inflated prices.

In article <fu8lbi$571$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Priam <priam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> nospam a �crit :
> 
> >> Likely for free, and in a few hours, you should add. But I know a Mac 
> >> user who had to bring this Mac back and forth to the store for 2 months 
> >> before it really worked.
> > 
> > yea and?  there are horror stories for any product.  
> 
> Let's put it this way. Whereas Mac users here pretend that so-called 
> "commodity PCs" are cheap and don't last, just the contrary is true. 
> Apple has always favored features over sound design. That's why they had 
> more than their fair share of horror stories.
> 
> >>>> But, if your iMac breaks, you've got to send the whole 
> >>>> sheebang to the store, and that's including your personal data... 
> >>> encrypt it.  guess what -- that capability is built into os x (and has
> >>> been for a very long time). 
> >> You Mac users have all kind of workarounds to deal with Mac problems. I 
> >> can also encrypt my data, but would rather not just to have a frickin' 
> >> computer fixed.
> > 
> > so you tear open a computer to remove the hard drive just to send it in
> > to get it fixed?  that's wonderful, but most people don't do that.  and
> > what if it is the hard drive itself that has failed?  
> 
> I used to put the computer to the store and bring it back on the same 
> day. Today, I'd bring whatever part is failing to the store and I'd say: 
> �Give me another one�. So far, it happened only for my old Samsung 
> monitor. I didn't bring it back to the store when I bought my Viewsonic :)

The whole point I was making before but unfortunately seems to be very 
difficult to grasp by most Mac users:  When a part fails its usually at 
least 2 years old.  Now if you're familiar with used computer hardware 
prices you know that there is almost no single piece of 2 year old 
computer hardware that costs more than $50.  And often its more like $10 
or $20.  Apple would happily see you throw your hands in the air and 
walk in to a Apple store, go all gooey eyed at the slickness and fork 
out your credit card for a whole new system.  A PC user simply replaces 
the very same part and is back to where he was before the failure.  
Often that replacement costs less than $20.  The difference is rather 
enormous.

In article <timmcn-9160AE.18292617042008@news.iphouse.com>,
 Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-EBAEBD.12422117042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Windows users can choose any hardware they want.  
> 
> Well, no, they can't.  Have you ever actually used Windows or tried to 
> install it on a computer?  If you had, you'd know how wrong you are.
> 
> > If Macs were more advanced and were good value for money, Windows 
> > users would flock to Apple stores and purchase them.  
> 
> And they do.
> 
> http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/11/13/mac.up.win.down.in.japan/
> 
> http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/20/1829236
> 
> http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/10/05/news/18871.shtml
> 
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/05/11/07/over_1_million_windows_to_m
> ac_converts_so_far_in_2005.html
> 
> > But that doesn't happen.
> 
> You were saying?

These are comparing OS's.  As I've repeated before I was talking about 
the low value of Mac hardware.  Not the OS.

In article <noemailhere-D1CAF6.15270620042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > > That's the reason Mac owners keep their computers longer 
> > > > > > than PC owners do?  You make less and less sense every time 
> > > > > > you put fingers to keyboard.
> > > > > 
> > > > > eSata and DDR-3 are 2 huge bottlenecks.  Apple hasn't come up 
> > > > > to that standard yet.  They are a year behind the PC world 
> > > > > unfortunately.
> > > > 
> > > > You are a master of non sequitur.
> > > 
> > > You think DDR-3 and eSata are not useful?
> > 
> > There is nothing in what I wrote that would lead anyone who can 
> > read with comprehension to reach that conclusion.
> 
> That's because you snipped the relevant part.

No, I did not.  You wrote that eSata and DDR-3 are the reasons that Mac 
owners keep their computers longer than PC owners do.  When I questioned 
that, you tried to change the discussion to the usefulness of eSata and 
DDR-3.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-A50B2D.15244920042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> I have never met (and I talk to computer people every day) a single 
> Windows user that uses a Mac solely for Windows.  Ever.  In fact I've 
> never heard of it occurring. Now I wonder why that is?

Because once they start using Mac OS X, they don't want to run only 
Windows.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-8AC8F7.15434820042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Now if you're familiar with used computer hardware prices you know 
> that there is almost no single piece of 2 year old computer hardware 
> that costs more than $50.

Got proof of that, or are you making it up as you usually do?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

> > You think DDR-3 and eSata are not useful? �You think there is an
> > advantage to using ram running at less than half of current available
> > speeds (1600 mhz)? �Be specific. 
> 
> The Mac Pro runs at 1600MHz FSB 

Specific.  I was talking about RAM speeds.  Not FSB.  Lots of PC 
motherboards run at that speed.  

> and if four (4) internal HD's isn't enough, then you can add a PCI card

at a very significant cost. Which is the reason very few Mac people run 
Raid 0.  Its not the number of the hard drives, its the Raid setup that 
matters.  OS X has a good software raid 0 solution yet almost no Mac Pro 
users take advantage of it.  Also the Mac Pro's case is so poorly built 
that vibration is a problem with 10k drives.  Its those stupid sleds.  
They can't support the drive properly.  Imagine the logic - make an 
easily removable sled - but design it so it doesn't work well with the 
exact drives most likely to be used (the fastest) in a top end machine, 
and then make sure they are not hot swappable so video users can't take 
it seriously.  They have to buy (for no reason) a eSata PCI card and an 
external multi-bay Sata enclosure.  All costing hundreds of dollars, and 
taking up lots of room - for nothing.  If Apple had any brains it would 
have been built into the Mac Pro.  A hot swappable, esata sled that is 
anchored in somehow so the drive is supported well.  For more on this 
see http://silentpcreview.com  They are the experts in noise and 
vibration.

> for eSATA.   If you think that its
> too pricey for you, Dell's equivalent is ~$1000 more (but only runs at
> 1333MHz FSB).

I'm not an idiot that goes to HP, Dell or Gateway to pay them to put 
together something a 6 year old could do.  Go to Newegg for the real 
world.  See the humongous differences.  
 
> No, the real problem is that the generic home consumer buyer doesn't
> generally need or buy this class of horsepower.

One of my points. So the Mac Pro is not for them.  Then there is this 
immense chasm until you get to the Mac Mini, which has to be torn apart 
to extract any real performance.  But I was talking about the high end 
user who does need that class of horsepower.  
 
> And insofar as "Slow" Firewire, Firewire800 is pragmatically the same
> performance as SATA-I, which has more bandwidth than any standard
> 7200rpm single spindle hard drive can deliver.

Gee - I wonder why eSata is so much more popular?  Ever heard of Sata-2? 
3000 speed That's what Firewire 800 (800 speed) is competing with.  Its 
almost 4 times as fast.  
 
> For future capability growth, FW1600 is now in the chip foundry and
> FW3200 is being ratified, IIRC.  Granted, it won't stop eSATA from
> being a competitor, but if we're going to go poking sticks in peoples'
> eyes, the eSATA plug interface leaves quite a bit to be desired.

And USB-3 is supposed to be 10 times as fast as USB-2.  Its never boring!

In article <180420080442101647%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <a97fe185-e754-42c5-83cf-4d948660ba53@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> 
> > For future capability growth, FW1600 is now in the chip foundry and
> > FW3200 is being ratified, IIRC.  Granted, it won't stop eSATA from
> > being a competitor, but if we're going to go poking sticks in peoples'
> > eyes, the eSATA plug interface leaves quite a bit to be desired.
> 
> esata has won the battle.  it's quite common already and it's very
> cheap (no bridge board needed).

Maybe you can convince Steve to add a smidgeon to each model's cost and 
implement it then.  When its on a $50 cheap-o motherboard you know its 
not expensive to implement.

> > >>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means 
> > >>> nothing?
> > >> 
> > >> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> > > 
> > > Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> > 
> > Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of 
> > people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from 
> > building their own Mac system?
> 
> Are they all that adamant? There's a whole little community that has 
> sprung up around OS X on generic hardware, and Apple doesn't seem to 
> care that all much.

Not yet.  But Psystar could wake the sleeping giant.  If Apple really 
had wanted to make OS X uncrackable on PC hardware, it probably would 
be.  Many people think this is their way of transitioning so they can 
release it to the masses. It could take years.  My guess it will 
coincide with the departure of Steve Jobs.  How Apple reacts to Psystar 
this coming week will say a lot.  
 
> > Would the loss of two handfuls of Mac hardware sales make such a big 
> > dent in a business that now sells in excess of 2 Million Macs per 
> > quarter?

Remember that because of Psystar, many more people are comparing Apple's 
hardware prices because that is the premise of Psystar's business model.  
Fill a void.  Its not good publicity for Apple at all.  Interesting 
times ahead.  Psystar probably has all their assets offshore anyway.  
They sell some computers and the money is funnelled out of the country.  
If Apple sues them they can just declare bankruptcy.  Then open another 
company down the street.  Welcome to America.  :)

In article <michelle-492A35.12220318042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <znu-CE7C0A.14534618042008@news.individual.net>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls 
> > > of people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people 
> > > from building their own Mac system?
> > 
> > Are they all that adamant? There's a whole little community that has 
> > sprung up around OS X on generic hardware, and Apple doesn't seem to 
> > care that all much.
> 
> By the way, check these out:
> <http://www.macworld.com/article/133028/2008/04/building_mac_clone.html> 
> <http://www.macworld.com/article/133035/2008/04/hobbyist_os_x.html>

Also its the word of mouth.  As an OS X convert I have told hundreds and 
hundreds people about its advantages over Windows.  Apple may no make a 
cent off me but I sure spread the word.  People will believe a user much 
more than some Mac/PC guy ad on TV.

In article <no-E582B1.12042020042008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
 Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:

> In article <025fb79d$0$10232$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <no-C55919.23223317042008@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> >  Andy <no@spam.no> wrote:
> > 
> > > So it no longer crashes midway through large transfers losing ALL the 
> > > data it's downloaded in that session?
> > 
> > Azureus has never done that to me, and it downloads maxed-out, so I'm 
> > happy with it. Encryption, Peer Guardian, all the good stuff.
> 
> Likewise - I was talking about 'Transmission' crashing.

Transmission is great here.  Hasn't crashed in months.  Best P2P program 
by far I've ever had the pleasure of using.  Version 1.11 here.

In article <michelle-9D84E5.13521920042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-A50B2D.15244920042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > I have never met (and I talk to computer people every day) a single 
> > Windows user that uses a Mac solely for Windows.  Ever.  In fact I've 
> > never heard of it occurring. Now I wonder why that is?
> 
> Because once they start using Mac OS X, they don't want to run only 
> Windows.

They don't start using OS X because they game and need the software 
selection for Windows.  Just like they will never use the machine for 
running Linux.  Its for Windows and Windows only.  I was talking about 
why they purchase it in the first place.  If it was good value, Windows 
only users would still buy them.

In article <michelle-E34A39.13534720042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-8AC8F7.15434820042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Now if you're familiar with used computer hardware prices you know 
> > that there is almost no single piece of 2 year old computer hardware 
> > that costs more than $50.
> 
> Got proof of that, or are you making it up as you usually do?

Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
store.  That's my point.

In article <noemailhere-2D7861.15575720042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Gee - I wonder why eSata is so much more popular?  Ever heard of Sata-2? 
> 3000 speed That's what Firewire 800 (800 speed) is competing with.

Nope.  Wrong. Firefire is much more than just a hard drive bus.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-790DC7.16404920042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <michelle-E34A39.13534720042008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-8AC8F7.15434820042008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > Now if you're familiar with used computer hardware prices you know 
> > > that there is almost no single piece of 2 year old computer hardware 
> > > that costs more than $50.
> > 
> > Got proof of that, or are you making it up as you usually do?
> 
> Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
> those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
> store.  That's my point.

Oh?  Show me a new 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo T2300 for $50 please.

You so obviously belong in comp.sys.mac.advocacy, where you will surely 
feel right at home. Do the rest of us a favor - post your useless drivel 
there from now on.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-790DC7.16404920042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
> those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
> store.  That's my point.

I asked you for proof of that, not to repeat it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-CD0155.16394820042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > Because once they start using Mac OS X, they don't want to run only 
> > Windows.
> 
> They don't start using OS X because they game and need the software 
> selection for Windows.

They buy the computer with Mac OS X installed, so they take a look at 
it, and get hooked.

> Just like they will never use the machine for running Linux.  Its for 
> Windows and Windows only.  I was talking about why they purchase it 
> in the first place.  If it was good value, Windows only users would 
> still buy them.

No, because single-minded Windows-only users won't listen to facts; 
their minds are made up.  Just like you.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 2008-04-20, The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> These are comparing OS's.  As I've repeated before I was talking about 
> the low value of Mac hardware.  Not the OS.

If you want a machine on which to run Vista it clearly makes no sense to 
buy a Mac because you are presumably paying something for Leopard which 
you don't need or want, and then paying retail for Vista which you can 
get thrown in with generic x86 hardware for effectively very little 
money due to Microsoft's OEM deals.

You can't separate Mac OS X from Mac hardware. When you buy a Mac you 
are buying a package and you have to compare that with alternative 
systems. Linux on generic x86 hardware may well be better value for many 
people, or even a new Dell loaded with Vista, it depends what you want.  
If you don't want to run Mac OS X then there is no compelling reason to 
buy a Mac. Apple are not interested in entering the ultra-competitive 
market for generic x86 systems on which to run Windows or Linux.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <jollyroger-CB61BC.17040520042008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-790DC7.16404920042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <michelle-E34A39.13534720042008@news.west.cox.net>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-8AC8F7.15434820042008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Now if you're familiar with used computer hardware prices you know 
> > > > that there is almost no single piece of 2 year old computer hardware 
> > > > that costs more than $50.
> > > 
> > > Got proof of that, or are you making it up as you usually do?
> > 
> > Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
> > those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
> > store.  That's my point.
> 
> Oh?  Show me a new 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo T2300 for $50 please.
> 
> You so obviously belong in comp.sys.mac.advocacy, where you will surely 
> feel right at home. Do the rest of us a favor - post your useless drivel 
> there from now on.

Actually that's a current model.  But even those CPU's have sold on Ebay 
for less than $50 recently.  And newer ones (E4300) as well.  

I'm not trying to perpetuate this thread.  I'm answering those that are 
posting questions.  Just like you just did.  

JR and you are both right.  I probably should post this in the other 
newsgroup.  Drivel and all.....lol.

In article <michelle-18762B.15061620042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-790DC7.16404920042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
> > those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
> > store.  That's my point.
> 
> I asked you for proof of that, not to repeat it.

Well I guess because I know the used prices.  To anyone that does, its 
common knowledge.  If its not obvious, you probably have better things 
to do than scour Ebay and Craigslist for deals.  :)  Trust me.  I'm 
right.  Like always.....lol.

In article <michelle-729CE1.15081920042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-CD0155.16394820042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > Because once they start using Mac OS X, they don't want to run only 
> > > Windows.
> > 
> > They don't start using OS X because they game and need the software 
> > selection for Windows.
> 
> They buy the computer with Mac OS X installed, so they take a look at 
> it, and get hooked.

And so they should if they have an open mind.  But that is not the 
point.  The point is, if one has 2 choices where to purchase your 
Windows machine, one being the Apple store and the other your popular 
discounter like Newegg, you would naturally go to the place that has 
better value.  This is a hardware comparison, pure and simple.  And that 
is where Apple falls flat.  Wish it weren't so.  
 
> > Just like they will never use the machine for running Linux.  Its for 
> > Windows and Windows only.  I was talking about why they purchase it 
> > in the first place.  If it was good value, Windows only users would 
> > still buy them.
> 
> No, because single-minded Windows-only users won't listen to facts; 
> their minds are made up.  Just like you.

They are quite open to running any computer hardware.  Macs use Core 2 
Duo CPU's, DDR2 ram, Sata 2 hard drives - Just like most PC's.  There is 
no mystique.

> > These are comparing OS's.  As I've repeated before I was talking about 
> > the low value of Mac hardware.  Not the OS.
> 
> If you want a machine on which to run Vista it clearly makes no sense to 
> buy a Mac because you are presumably paying something for Leopard which 
> you don't need or want, and then paying retail for Vista which you can 
> get thrown in with generic x86 hardware for effectively very little 
> money due to Microsoft's OEM deals.

We're not talking about the software.  Most Windows users don't even buy 
software.  Its a non-issue.  The point is if the hardware was better 
value than they can get at places like Newegg or Tigerdirect, Windows 
users would buy Macs.  
 
> You can't separate Mac OS X from Mac hardware. 

Really?  Thousands around the world have managed it quite nicely.  Its 
called OSX86.  Welcome to the 21st century.  :)

> When you buy a Mac you 
> are buying a package and you have to compare that with alternative 
> systems. Linux on generic x86 hardware may well be better value for many 
> people, or even a new Dell loaded with Vista, it depends what you want.  
> If you don't want to run Mac OS X then there is no compelling reason to 
> buy a Mac. Apple are not interested in entering the ultra-competitive 
> market for generic x86 systems on which to run Windows or Linux.

Oh - now Apple is "not interested" when its proven they are not hardware 
competitive.  

Don't get me wrong - I love OS X.  Its made a huge improvement in my 
productivity.  Perhaps not in my writing ability though!  Anyway I 
promote it every second I can with everybody I meet if the conversation 
every drifts toward computers.  A large percentage of OSX86 users buy 
genuine Macs after a while (the updates and configs can get a little 
tedious).  So Apple wins again.  Good for them.  They deserve it.  They 
designed the OS which is really the crux of the matter.

In article <noemailhere-8AECC5.18493820042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > They buy the computer with Mac OS X installed, so they take a look 
> > at it, and get hooked.
> 
> And so they should if they have an open mind.  But that is not the 
> point. 

That is the point; they don't have an open mind, so they don't buy the 
Mac in the first place.

> The point is, if one has 2 choices where to purchase your Windows 
> machine, one being the Apple store and the other your popular 
> discounter like Newegg, you would naturally go to the place that has 
> better value.  

The point is that if you're a Windows user who believes that Windows 
machines are better than Macs, you buy a Windows machine and don't 
bother checking out the Mac.  And when they find a review that says the 
Mac is better, they call the reviewer an idiot.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-145CA4.18462620042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none 
> > > of those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have 
> > > left the store.  That's my point.
> > 
> > I asked you for proof of that, not to repeat it.
> 
> Well I guess because I know the used prices.  To anyone that does, 
> its common knowledge.  If its not obvious, you probably have better 
> things to do than scour Ebay and Craigslist for deals.  :)  Trust me. 
>  I'm right.  Like always.....lol.

Interesting how you keep refusing to provide the proof.  The only 
logical conclusion is that you don't have the proof.

By the way, I can't recall when you've ever been right.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-C9410D.18445720042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Actually that's a current model.  But even those CPU's have sold on 
> Ebay for less than $50 recently. 

Citation?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-D7CD65.19025220042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> We're not talking about the software.  Most Windows users don't even 
> buy software.

They steal it?  Of course, they won't buy a Mac in that case; they're 
cheapskates and won't pay more for better, but will pay less for worse.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:28:09 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-844DE4.17280920042008@news.west.cox.net>):

> In article <noemailhere-145CA4.18462620042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
>>>> Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none 
>>>> of those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have 
>>>> left the store.  That's my point.
>>> 
>>> I asked you for proof of that, not to repeat it.
>> 
>> Well I guess because I know the used prices.  To anyone that does, 
>> its common knowledge.  If its not obvious, you probably have better 
>> things to do than scour Ebay and Craigslist for deals.  :)  Trust me. 
>> I'm right.  Like always.....lol.
> 
> Interesting how you keep refusing to provide the proof.  The only 
> logical conclusion is that you don't have the proof.

I just had a look at craigslist. This is the cheapest that I can find, it's 
$100, not $50. <http://miami.craigslist.org/sys/624556815.html>.

He is, of course, welcome to show me one that's for $50.

> 
> By the way, I can't recall when you've ever been right.
> 
> 



-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <michelle-86F121.17264620042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-8AECC5.18493820042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > They buy the computer with Mac OS X installed, so they take a look 
> > > at it, and get hooked.
> > 
> > And so they should if they have an open mind.  But that is not the 
> > point. 
> 
> That is the point; they don't have an open mind, so they don't buy the 
> Mac in the first place.

Actually they do have an open mind.  They don't care.  For a PC user a 
Mac is just a computer using a Socket 775 CPU (or Xeon for the Mac Pro).  
They couldn't care less about cuteness, style, etc.  They want to 
computer to function.  Buy a stylish case if you want style.  They are 
comparing ram, cpu, hard drive(s), video card, etc.  Whichever has the 
better performance for the dollar wins.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:06:04 -0400, The New guy wrote
(in article <noemailhere-29BB7A.16060420042008@news.mts.net>):

>>>>>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means 
>>>>>> nothing?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
>>>> 
>>>> Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
>>> 
>>> Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of 
>>> people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from 
>>> building their own Mac system?
>> 
>> Are they all that adamant? There's a whole little community that has 
>> sprung up around OS X on generic hardware, and Apple doesn't seem to 
>> care that all much.
> 
> Not yet.  But Psystar could wake the sleeping giant.  If Apple really 
> had wanted to make OS X uncrackable on PC hardware, it probably would 
> be.  Many people think this is their way of transitioning so they can 
> release it to the masses. It could take years.  My guess it will 
> coincide with the departure of Steve Jobs.  How Apple reacts to Psystar 
> this coming week will say a lot.  
>  
>>> Would the loss of two handfuls of Mac hardware sales make such a big 
>>> dent in a business that now sells in excess of 2 Million Macs per 
>>> quarter?
> 
> Remember that because of Psystar, many more people are comparing Apple's 
> hardware prices because that is the premise of Psystar's business model.  
> Fill a void.  Its not good publicity for Apple at all.  Interesting 
> times ahead.  Psystar probably has all their assets offshore anyway.  
> They sell some computers and the money is funnelled out of the country.  
> If Apple sues them they can just declare bankruptcy.  Then open another 
> company down the street.  Welcome to America.  :)

You _do_ know that Psystar doesn't really exist, they've changed their 
address at least four times in three days? 
<http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3758>, 
<http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax>.

Go ahead. _You_ buy something from them. My CC stays in my wallet, 'cause 
they seem to be typical Marielito scam artists to me. South Florida is awash 
with 'em.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article <michelle-A97EC6.17284520042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-C9410D.18445720042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Actually that's a current model.  But even those CPU's have sold on 
> > Ebay for less than $50 recently. 
> 
> Citation?

What?  Search Completed Items on Ebay. You think I make this stuff up?

In article <michelle-707E6C.17305620042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-D7CD65.19025220042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > We're not talking about the software.  Most Windows users don't even 
> > buy software.
> 
> They steal it?  Of course, they won't buy a Mac in that case; they're 
> cheapskates and won't pay more for better, but will pay less for worse.

They are comparing hardware value - pure and simple.  Apple overcharges 
so they go to the likes of Newegg.

In article <0001HW.C4315ED201298A69F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:06:04 -0400, The New guy wrote
> (in article <noemailhere-29BB7A.16060420042008@news.mts.net>):
> 
> >>>>>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means 
> >>>>>> nothing?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> >>> 
> >>> Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of 
> >>> people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from 
> >>> building their own Mac system?
> >> 
> >> Are they all that adamant? There's a whole little community that has 
> >> sprung up around OS X on generic hardware, and Apple doesn't seem to 
> >> care that all much.
> > 
> > Not yet.  But Psystar could wake the sleeping giant.  If Apple really 
> > had wanted to make OS X uncrackable on PC hardware, it probably would 
> > be.  Many people think this is their way of transitioning so they can 
> > release it to the masses. It could take years.  My guess it will 
> > coincide with the departure of Steve Jobs.  How Apple reacts to Psystar 
> > this coming week will say a lot.  
> >  
> >>> Would the loss of two handfuls of Mac hardware sales make such a big 
> >>> dent in a business that now sells in excess of 2 Million Macs per 
> >>> quarter?
> > 
> > Remember that because of Psystar, many more people are comparing Apple's 
> > hardware prices because that is the premise of Psystar's business model.  
> > Fill a void.  Its not good publicity for Apple at all.  Interesting 
> > times ahead.  Psystar probably has all their assets offshore anyway.  
> > They sell some computers and the money is funnelled out of the country.  
> > If Apple sues them they can just declare bankruptcy.  Then open another 
> > company down the street.  Welcome to America.  :)
> 
> You _do_ know that Psystar doesn't really exist, they've changed their 
> address at least four times in three days? 
> <http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3758>, 
> <http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax>.
> Go ahead. _You_ buy something from them. My CC stays in my wallet, 'cause 
> they seem to be typical Marielito scam artists to me. South Florida is awash 
> with 'em.

Could be.  My guess is they do exist but didn't realize all the 
attention and problems this whole thing would bring on them.  And have 
made numerous mistakes during the past week under the pressure.  I hope 
they do NOT exist.  I don't want Apple battling down the hatches so 
OSX86 ceases to be.  We'll see what escapades they are up to this week.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:00:07 -0400, The New guy wrote
(in article <noemailhere-992C20.20000720042008@news.mts.net>):

> In article <michelle-A97EC6.17284520042008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <noemailhere-C9410D.18445720042008@news.mts.net>,
>> The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
>> 
>>> Actually that's a current model.  But even those CPU's have sold on 
>>> Ebay for less than $50 recently. 
>> 
>> Citation?
> 
> What?  Search Completed Items on Ebay. You think I make this stuff up?

That would be a 'yes'. I looked on craigslist. Not even the local Marieltio 
scam artists will try to sell for less than $100, or if they do I can't find 
it. See, for example, <http://miami.craigslist.org/sys/624556815.html>.

But you can show that I'm wrong quite easily. Just post a URI pointing to 
such an item for sale.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On 2008-04-21, The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Oh - now Apple is "not interested" when its proven they are not hardware 
> competitive.  

They are not interested because they already have a product line
generating both profits and production level increases that are the envy 
of other PC manufacturers. I don't want a "faster" iMac because "speed" 
is not a limiting factor in anything I do with it (unlike say my ADSL 
connection which I am thinking about upgrading). It runs Leopard fine 
and has so far proved entirely trouble free. When I start to come across 
hardware limitations that adversely affect me I will evaluate my options 
based on the hardware and operating systems of the day.

> Don't get me wrong - I love OS X.

You do? Well that is just dandy, but it is proprietary software and is 
not yours to do what you want with. Use an Open Source operating system 
if it bothers you and if it lacks the allure of Mac OS X then you can 
either suck it up or get involved in improving it. Just stop your school 
boy whining.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:03:43 -0400, The New guy wrote
(in article <noemailhere-755856.20034320042008@news.mts.net>):

> In article <0001HW.C4315ED201298A69F01846D8@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:06:04 -0400, The New guy wrote
>> (in article <noemailhere-29BB7A.16060420042008@news.mts.net>):
>> 
>>>>>>>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means 
>>>>>>>> nothing?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of 
>>>>> people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from 
>>>>> building their own Mac system?
>>>> 
>>>> Are they all that adamant? There's a whole little community that has 
>>>> sprung up around OS X on generic hardware, and Apple doesn't seem to 
>>>> care that all much.
>>> 
>>> Not yet.  But Psystar could wake the sleeping giant.  If Apple really 
>>> had wanted to make OS X uncrackable on PC hardware, it probably would 
>>> be.  Many people think this is their way of transitioning so they can 
>>> release it to the masses. It could take years.  My guess it will 
>>> coincide with the departure of Steve Jobs.  How Apple reacts to Psystar 
>>> this coming week will say a lot.  
>>> 
>>>>> Would the loss of two handfuls of Mac hardware sales make such a big 
>>>>> dent in a business that now sells in excess of 2 Million Macs per 
>>>>> quarter?
>>> 
>>> Remember that because of Psystar, many more people are comparing Apple's 
>>> hardware prices because that is the premise of Psystar's business model.  
>>> Fill a void.  Its not good publicity for Apple at all.  Interesting 
>>> times ahead.  Psystar probably has all their assets offshore anyway.  
>>> They sell some computers and the money is funnelled out of the country.  
>>> If Apple sues them they can just declare bankruptcy.  Then open another 
>>> company down the street.  Welcome to America.  :)
>> 
>> You _do_ know that Psystar doesn't really exist, they've changed their 
>> address at least four times in three days? 
>> <http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3758>, 
>> <http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax>.
>> Go ahead. _You_ buy something from them. My CC stays in my wallet, 'cause 
>> they seem to be typical Marielito scam artists to me. South Florida is 
>> awash 
>> with 'em.
> 
> Could be.  My guess is they do exist but didn't realize all the 
> attention and problems this whole thing would bring on them.

They came out and called out Apple's lawyers, saying that the EULA can't be 
enforced. This I _gotta_ see. The current Joy of Tech 
<http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1095.html> puts it best. 
There's gonna be blood, alright... They invited Apple to say hello to their 
little friend, forgetting what happened to Al Pacino right after he did that, 
and that Apple believes in massive overkill.

>  And have 
> made numerous mistakes during the past week under the pressure.

Changing the address four times ain't a mistake. Setting up the site to _not_ 
take payments ain't a mistake. Liberating the EFI virtualiser ain't a 
mistake.

>  I hope 
> they do NOT exist.  I don't want Apple battling down the hatches so 
> OSX86 ceases to be.  We'll see what escapades they are up to this week.

They'll be gone.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

> >>> Actually that's a current model.  But even those CPU's have sold on 
> >>> Ebay for less than $50 recently. 
> >> 
> >> Citation?
> > 
> > What?  Search Completed Items on Ebay. You think I make this stuff up?
> 
> That would be a 'yes'. I looked on craigslist. Not even the local Marieltio 
> scam artists will try to sell for less than $100, or if they do I can't find 
> it. See, for example, <http://miami.craigslist.org/sys/624556815.html>. 
> But you can show that I'm wrong quite easily. Just post a URI pointing to 
> such an item for sale.

OK OK.  

$40
http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-E2160-1-80MHz-Dual-Core-Tested-to-OC-to-3-0GHz_
W0QQitemZ330227819404QQihZ014QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcm
dZViewItem

$49.99
http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-E2140-Pentium-Dual-Core-Processor-1-6GHz-NEW_W0
QQitemZ270227029773QQihZ017QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZ
ViewItem

$43.38
http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-E2140-Pentium-Dual-Core-Processor-1-6GHz-NEW_W0
QQitemZ380015798829QQihZ025QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZ
ViewItem

$47
http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Core-2-Duo-Processor-E2160-1-8GHz-800MHz-LGA775
_W0QQitemZ230241834097QQihZ013QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQc
mdZViewItem

$34.99 for a E4300
http://cgi.ebay.com/INTEL-CORE-2-DUO-DESKTOP-PROCESSOR-E4300-1-8-OC-at-2-
4_W0QQitemZ230242940368QQihZ013QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQ
cmdZViewItem

$32
http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Pentium-Dual-Core-E2140-1-6Ghz-Socket-775_W0QQi
temZ270227699425QQihZ017QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVie
wItem

Need I go on?  There are tons of them.  I should note most of these are 
only a year old.  Add a year and the prices plummet far more of course.  
Most components fail after at least 2 years.  So when it times to 
replace them they are dirt cheap on the used market.  What's a 120 gb 
IDE hard drive worth today?  2 or 3 years ago it cost a lot.  Now its 
worth about $20.  How about a 64mb AGP video card.  $20?  2 years ago?  
Probably over a $100.  How about a Pentium D CPU at about 2.5 ghz?  $150 
2 years ago?  Now about $25.  How about a DVD burner 2 years ago?  Now 
they are $20 used for a DL one.  How about a typical $150 motherboard 2 
years ago?  Now about $25.  And on and on.  The only thing that has not 
plummeted in value is DDR ram.  That is an exception. Still, 1 gb is 
still under $40 if you shop around.  So as long as you stayed out of the 
stratosphere (like buying a large LCD 2 years ago), replacing any 
component will typically cost only about $10-$30.  Actually this is one 
of the best aspects of computing.  What other things can you buy at 20 
cents on the dollar just by waiting for a year or 2?  "Fools rush in".  
We should all be very grateful.

> >>>>>>>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means 
> >>>>>>>> nothing?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of 
> >>>>> people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from 
> >>>>> building their own Mac system?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Are they all that adamant? There's a whole little community that has 
> >>>> sprung up around OS X on generic hardware, and Apple doesn't seem to 
> >>>> care that all much.
> >>> 
> >>> Not yet.  But Psystar could wake the sleeping giant.  If Apple really 
> >>> had wanted to make OS X uncrackable on PC hardware, it probably would 
> >>> be.  Many people think this is their way of transitioning so they can 
> >>> release it to the masses. It could take years.  My guess it will 
> >>> coincide with the departure of Steve Jobs.  How Apple reacts to Psystar 
> >>> this coming week will say a lot.  
> >>> 
> >>>>> Would the loss of two handfuls of Mac hardware sales make such a big 
> >>>>> dent in a business that now sells in excess of 2 Million Macs per 
> >>>>> quarter?
> >>> 
> >>> Remember that because of Psystar, many more people are comparing Apple's 
> >>> hardware prices because that is the premise of Psystar's business model.  
> >>> Fill a void.  Its not good publicity for Apple at all.  Interesting 
> >>> times ahead.  Psystar probably has all their assets offshore anyway.  
> >>> They sell some computers and the money is funnelled out of the country.  
> >>> If Apple sues them they can just declare bankruptcy.  Then open another 
> >>> company down the street.  Welcome to America.  :)
> >> 
> >> You _do_ know that Psystar doesn't really exist, they've changed their 
> >> address at least four times in three days? 
> >> <http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3758>, 
> >> <http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax>.
> >> Go ahead. _You_ buy something from them. My CC stays in my wallet, 'cause 
> >> they seem to be typical Marielito scam artists to me. South Florida is 
> >> awash 
> >> with 'em.
> > 
> > Could be.  My guess is they do exist but didn't realize all the 
> > attention and problems this whole thing would bring on them.
> 
> They came out and called out Apple's lawyers, saying that the EULA can't be 
> enforced. This I _gotta_ see. The current Joy of Tech 
> <http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1095.html> puts it best. 
> There's gonna be blood, alright... They invited Apple to say hello to their 
> little friend, forgetting what happened to Al Pacino right after he did that, 
> and that Apple believes in massive overkill.

I wonder why the delay?  Or perhaps Apple is gonna come down on them in 
one fell swoop?  Not a peep out of Apple.  This is going to be an 
interesting week.  
 
> >  And have 
> > made numerous mistakes during the past week under the pressure.
> 
> Changing the address four times ain't a mistake. Setting up the site to _not_ 
> take payments ain't a mistake. Liberating the EFI virtualiser ain't a 
> mistake.
> 
> >  I hope 
> > they do NOT exist.  I don't want Apple battling down the hatches so 
> > OSX86 ceases to be.  We'll see what escapades they are up to this week.
> 
> They'll be gone.

I hope you're right.  Even the OSX86 people are pissed.  If Apple 
changes a lot of things the whole OSX86 will probably just freeze with 
the current incarnation being the latest working version.  That would be 
horrible.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:36:58 -0400, The New guy wrote
(in article <noemailhere-656C0C.20365820042008@news.mts.net>):

>>>>> Actually that's a current model.  But even those CPU's have sold on 
>>>>> Ebay for less than $50 recently. 
>>>> 
>>>> Citation?
>>> 
>>> What?  Search Completed Items on Ebay. You think I make this stuff up?
>> 
>> That would be a 'yes'. I looked on craigslist. Not even the local Marieltio 
>> scam artists will try to sell for less than $100, or if they do I can't 
>> find 
>> it. See, for example, <http://miami.craigslist.org/sys/624556815.html>. 
>> But you can show that I'm wrong quite easily. Just post a URI pointing to 
>> such an item for sale.
> 
> OK OK.  
> 
> $40
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-E2160-1-80MHz-Dual-Core-Tested-to-OC-to-3-0GHz_
> W0QQitemZ330227819404QQihZ014QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcm
> dZViewItem
> 
> $49.99
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-E2140-Pentium-Dual-Core-Processor-1-6GHz-NEW_W0
> QQitemZ270227029773QQihZ017QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZ
> ViewItem
> 
> $43.38
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-E2140-Pentium-Dual-Core-Processor-1-6GHz-NEW_W0
> QQitemZ380015798829QQihZ025QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZ
> ViewItem

The above are all Pentiums, not Core 2 Duos. You can't _give_ Pentiums away.

> 
> $47
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Core-2-Duo-Processor-E2160-1-8GHz-800MHz-LGA775
> _W0QQitemZ230241834097QQihZ013QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQc
> mdZViewItem

This one is a 1.8 GHz. Apple's stuff are faster, except in Mac minis... and 
there's a reason why I don't own a mini.

> 
> $34.99 for a E4300
> http://cgi.ebay.com/INTEL-CORE-2-DUO-DESKTOP-PROCESSOR-E4300-1-8-OC-at-2-
> 4_W0QQitemZ230242940368QQihZ013QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQ
> cmdZViewItem

This is another 1.8 GHz. It's overclocked, which means that I don't trust it. 
I don't want to buy someone else's cooked CPU.

> 
> $32
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Pentium-Dual-Core-E2140-1-6Ghz-Socket-775_W0QQi
> temZ270227699425QQihZ017QQcategoryZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVie
> wItem

That's another Pentium.

I stand corrected that you can find sub-$50 dual-core CPUs. However, those 
ain't anything even close the units that Apple ships. Or even that they used 
to ship.

> 
> Need I go on?  There are tons of them.

Tons of 'em... which don't quite meet the specs.

>  I should note most of these are 
> only a year old.  Add a year and the prices plummet far more of course.  
> Most components fail after at least 2 years.  So when it times to 
> replace them they are dirt cheap on the used market.  What's a 120 gb 
> IDE hard drive worth today?  2 or 3 years ago it cost a lot.  Now its 
> worth about $20.  How about a 64mb AGP video card.  $20?  2 years ago?  
> Probably over a $100.  How about a Pentium D CPU at about 2.5 ghz?  $150 
> 2 years ago?  Now about $25.  How about a DVD burner 2 years ago?  Now 
> they are $20 used for a DL one.  How about a typical $150 motherboard 2 
> years ago?  Now about $25.  And on and on.  The only thing that has not 
> plummeted in value is DDR ram.  That is an exception. Still, 1 gb is 
> still under $40 if you shop around.  So as long as you stayed out of the 
> stratosphere (like buying a large LCD 2 years ago), replacing any 
> component will typically cost only about $10-$30.  Actually this is one 
> of the best aspects of computing.  What other things can you buy at 20 
> cents on the dollar just by waiting for a year or 2?  "Fools rush in".  
> We should all be very grateful.



-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

The New guy <noemailh...@please.comm> wrote:
>
> That's not what I said. =A0Or meant. =A0The point I was making was that if=

> Macs were good hardware values, many Windows users would buy them to run
> Windows only. =A0I've never heard of that ever happening. =A0Because Apple=

> hardware is yesterday's technology at grossly inflated prices.

Wrong causality claim; try Occam's Razor instead:

Yes, the reason why Windows users running on Mac hardware is so rare
is, as you suggest, because it is a poor value.

However, the reason why is not because the hardware is "yesterday's"
or "overpriced", but for the extremely simple reason (yet somehow
overlooked by you) that Macs come bundled with software (eg, OS X)
that's going to be thrown away and replaced with Windows OS.

Based on MSRPs, the proposition is basically to throw away the $150
(or more) "worth" of the OS X software and replace it with $150 worth
of Windows OS, for a total of $300 effective difference.

By definition, even if the hardware were exactly the same cost, there
would be effectively a $300 handicap on the Macintosh.

For a generic $1000 price point, $300 is a 30% price handicap and
pretty damn hard to ignore.

In conclusion, it is not a "hardware" issue as you claimed, but simply
that the hardware isn't for sale without the additional expense of it
being bundled with software that that particular niche buyer doesn't
ascribe a value.

FWIW, it is interesting & telling to note that the cost-based adoption
barrier isn't all that much higher, as I understand that Mac laptops
are reportedly surprisingly common amongst Linux users.


-hh

In article <noemailhere-0C8F7C.20004820042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > We're not talking about the software.  Most Windows users don't 
> > > even buy software.
> > 
> > They steal it?  Of course, they won't buy a Mac in that case; 
> > they're cheapskates and won't pay more for better, but will pay 
> > less for worse.
> 
> They are comparing hardware value - pure and simple. 

How do you know?  You are making all of this up.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-992C20.20000720042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > Actually that's a current model.  But even those CPU's have sold 
> > > on Ebay for less than $50 recently. 
> > 
> > Citation?
> 
> What?  Search Completed Items on Ebay. You think I make this stuff 
> up?

Yes, I do think you make this stuff up.  If you weren't making it up, 
you would provide citations.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-755856.20034320042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> Could be.  My guess is they do exist but didn't realize all the 
> attention and problems this whole thing would bring on them.

They've changed their address four times in two days, and people on the 
ground in Florida checked out those addresses;Psystar was not at any of 
them, and no one at any of them had ever heard of Psystar.

They are scam artists, pure and simple.  Even the company that handled 
their payments stopped servicing them because of it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

The New guy <noemailh...@please.comm> wrote:
> > > You think DDR-3 and eSata are not useful? =A0You think there is an
> > > advantage to using ram running at less than half of current available
> > > speeds (1600 mhz)? =A0Be specific.
>
> > The Mac Pro runs at 1600MHz FSB
>
> Specific. =A0I was talking about RAM speeds. =A0Not FSB. =A0Lots of PC
> motherboards run at that speed. =A0

Really?  Then surely you should be able to cite where the big PC boys
are putting them into products at prices lower than what Apple is
charging for the Mac Pro, with *equal* hardware specs (most notably
dual Xeon quad-core 2.8GHz) @ 1600MHz FSB).


> > and if four (4) internal HD's isn't enough, then you can add a PCI card
>
> at a very significant cost. Which is the reason very few Mac people
> run Raid 0.

YMMV on what you claim is "significant".  I've been shopping for a PCI
card for my Mac; prices start at around $60.


>=A0Its not the number of the hard drives, its the Raid setup that
> matters. =A0OS X has a good software raid 0 solution yet almost no Mac Pro=

> users take advantage of it. =A0Also the Mac Pro's case is so poorly built
> that vibration is a problem with 10k drives. =A0Its those stupid sleds. =
=A0
> They can't support the drive properly. =A0Imagine the logic - make an
> easily removable sled - but design it so it doesn't work well with the
> exact drives most likely to be used (the fastest) in a top end machine,
> and then make sure they are not hot swappable so video users can't take
> it seriously. =A0They have to buy (for no reason) a eSata PCI card and an
> external multi-bay Sata enclosure. =A0

Gosh, Firewire is hot-swappable.  And its plugs carry power and don't
wear out.

And last I looked, Apple still sells the Xserve, but the Xserve RAID
was gone; its been replaced with the Promise VTrak E-Class Fiber
Channel RAID subsystem.


> All costing hundreds of dollars, and
> taking up lots of room - for nothing. =A0If Apple had any brains it would
> have been built into the Mac Pro. =A0A hot swappable, esata sled that is
> anchored in somehow so the drive is supported well. =A0For more on this
> seehttp://silentpcreview.com=A0They are the experts in noise and
> vibration.
>
> > for eSATA. =A0 If you think that its
> > too pricey for you, Dell's equivalent is ~$1000 more (but only runs at
> > 1333MHz FSB).
>
> I'm not an idiot that goes to HP, Dell or Gateway to pay them to put
> together something a 6 year old could do. =A0

If a 6-year old could do it, then why have HP, Dell or Gateway not
been able to beat Apple's price point on the Mac Pro?

And FYI, if you're talking about DIY'ing a system, then say so flat
out so that I can killfile you now.

>Go to Newegg for the real world. =A0See the humongous differences. =A0

The fact that Apple overcharges for OEM RAM and HDs isn't even new
news this Century.  Yes, I find it disappointing, but it is trivial to
circumvent in non-bureaucrac systems.



> > No, the real problem is that the generic home consumer buyer doesn't
> > generally need or buy this class of horsepower.
>
> One of my points. So the Mac Pro is not for them. =A0Then there is this
> immense chasm until you get to the Mac Mini, which has to be torn apart
> to extract any real performance. =A0But I was talking about the high end
> user who does need that class of horsepower. =A0

And yet not as much horsepower as the Mac Pro?   And just to add two
more segmentation slices to narrow the potential consumer base to
virtually nobody, they're not part of the 50% of consumers who now buy
laptops and they already own a (quote) "really nice CRT" so they don't
want to pay to duplicate it (or run two displays) with an iMac.



> > And insofar as "Slow" Firewire, Firewire800 is pragmatically the same
> > performance as SATA-I, which has more bandwidth than any standard
> > 7200rpm single spindle hard drive can deliver.
>
> Gee - I wonder why eSata is so much more popular? =A0Ever heard of Sata-2?=

> 3000 speed That's what Firewire 800 (800 speed) is competing with. =A0Its
> almost 4 times as fast. =A0

Its theoretically 3x faster on paper...but that's before taking into
account other real-world factors, such as its overhead.  The overhead
on SATA-I is 20%, which is where the "120MB/sec" value comes from on
some references; SATA-II has the same 20% overhead from its 8b10b
encoding, which means that your beloved "3000 speed" is actually only
"2400"  (240MB/sec)...now its down to "just slightly better than
double".

And in any event as I already mentioned:  no standard 7200rpm single
spindle HD can saturate the bandwidth of even SATA-I, which means that
SATA-II is currently limited to the esoteric niche market of the RAID
0 base application, which as you pointed out is extremely rare on
Macs.


> > For future capability growth, FW1600 is now in the chip foundry and
> > FW3200 is being ratified, IIRC. =A0Granted, it won't stop eSATA from
> > being a competitor, but if we're going to go poking sticks in peoples'
> > eyes, the eSATA plug interface leaves quite a bit to be desired.
>
> And USB-3 is supposed to be 10 times as fast as USB-2. =A0Its never boring=
!

USB3 is going to use a fiber connection to get its claimed
performance.  As such, its prospects are the same as Fibre Channel
which has been available for at least a couple of years now, which can
be summarized in three words:  Not Cheap Yet.   Considering that the
USB consortium is going to keep the crappy USB plug design while
adding the fiber, thereby creating a mess of cables and hubs where any
one component mismatch causes the whole mess to revert back to 2.0
speeds, they're knowingly designing a "red headed stepchild" that any
wise man will let 25% of the market adopt it before him, so as to work
out the worst of the headaches that they're introducing...just like
what happened with external SATA until they just finally got the eSATA
standard in place.  If you find it entertaining to work with Beta
revision junk, the more power to you ... my choice is to refrain from
the bleeding edge, since that's not the objective of my hobbies or
work (on computers).


-hh

> > That's not what I said. �Or meant. �The point I was making was that if
> > Macs were good hardware values, many Windows users would buy them to run
> > Windows only. �I've never heard of that ever happening. �Because Apple
> > hardware is yesterday's technology at grossly inflated prices.
> 
> Wrong causality claim; try Occam's Razor instead:
> 
> Yes, the reason why Windows users running on Mac hardware is so rare
> is, as you suggest, because it is a poor value.
> 
> However, the reason why is not because the hardware is "yesterday's"
> or "overpriced", but for the extremely simple reason (yet somehow
> overlooked by you) that Macs come bundled with software (eg, OS X)
> that's going to be thrown away and replaced with Windows OS.

Please - An OS doesn't result in the system costing hundreds of dollars 
more than it should.  Nice try.  
 
> Based on MSRPs, the proposition is basically to throw away the $150
> (or more) "worth" of the OS X software and replace it with $150 worth
> of Windows OS, for a total of $300 effective difference.
 
> By definition, even if the hardware were exactly the same cost, there
> would be effectively a $300 handicap on the Macintosh.
> 
> For a generic $1000 price point, $300 is a 30% price handicap and
> pretty damn hard to ignore.
> 
> In conclusion, it is not a "hardware" issue as you claimed, but simply
>  that the hardware isn't for sale without the additional expense of it
> being bundled with software that that particular niche buyer doesn't
> ascribe a value.

So how does that explain Apple's ludicrous hardware prices in their 
store?  Configure a Mac Pro.  Compare the cost of a larger hard drive or 
ram with Newegg.  I hope you're not going to factor in software here.  

> FWIW, it is interesting & telling to note that the cost-based adoption
> barrier isn't all that much higher, as I understand that Mac laptops
> are reportedly surprisingly common amongst Linux users.

They are only fair priced to those who don't know current prices.

In article <michelle-DD408F.19343920042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-755856.20034320042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > Could be.  My guess is they do exist but didn't realize all the 
> > attention and problems this whole thing would bring on them.
> 
> They've changed their address four times in two days, and people on the 
> ground in Florida checked out those addresses;Psystar was not at any of 
> them, and no one at any of them had ever heard of Psystar.
> 
> They are scam artists, pure and simple.  Even the company that handled 
> their payments stopped servicing them because of it.

I hope you're right.  We'll probably know for sure this week.  I do 
remember reading that Psystar is a registered company in Florida and has 
been for a few years.

In article <noemailhere-FE56B5.22072720042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> that Macs come bundled with software (eg, OS X)
> > that's going to be thrown away and replaced with Windows OS.
> 
> Please - An OS doesn't result in the system costing hundreds of 
> dollars more than it should.  Nice try. 

OS X, iLife, and other goodies.

> So how does that explain Apple's ludicrous hardware prices in their 
> store?

They're not ludicrous; they're on a Par with Dell, HP, and the like.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-72D8B2.22082520042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > Could be.  My guess is they do exist but didn't realize all the 
> > > attention and problems this whole thing would bring on them.
> > 
> > They've changed their address four times in two days, and people on 
> > the ground in Florida checked out those addresses;Psystar was not 
> > at any of them, and no one at any of them had ever heard of 
> > Psystar.
> > 
> > They are scam artists, pure and simple.  Even the company that 
> > handled their payments stopped servicing them because of it.
> 
> I hope you're right. 

Hope, shmope; it's documented.

<http://www.macworld.com/article/133079/2008/04/psystar.html>

<http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/04/16/report_waves_caution_at_sh
adiness_of_would_be_mac_clone_maker.html>

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

> > > > You think DDR-3 and eSata are not useful? �You think there is an
> > > > advantage to using ram running at less than half of current available
> > > > speeds (1600 mhz)? �Be specific.
> >
> > > The Mac Pro runs at 1600MHz FSB
> >
> > Specific. �I was talking about RAM speeds. �Not FSB. �Lots of PC
> > motherboards run at that speed. �
> 
> Really?  Then surely you should be able to cite where the big PC boys
> are putting them into products at prices lower than what Apple is
> charging for the Mac Pro, with *equal* hardware specs (most notably
> dual Xeon quad-core 2.8GHz) @ 1600MHz FSB).

Didn't you read what I mentioned before?  Single CPU, non-Xeon machines 
are getting better scores because of overclocked CPU's and faster ram 
and Raid 0 hard drive systems than Mac Pro's costing way more.  
 
> > > and if four (4) internal HD's isn't enough, then you can add a PCI card
> >
> > at a very significant cost. Which is the reason very few Mac people
> > run Raid 0.
> 
> YMMV on what you claim is "significant".  I've been shopping for a PCI
> card for my Mac; prices start at around $60.

A Raid 0 PCI-Express card is available for the Mac Pro at $60? Its $999 
here:
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/07/mac-pro-pci-raid-card-available/ 
$1000 here:
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/11/01/apple.ships.raid.cards/
$999 here:
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/11/01/apple-ships-raid-cards-for-mac-pro-and-xse
rve/

Or is it possible to use a PC Raid card?  Apparently many PC video cards 
work perfectly in the Mac Pro.  Maybe its the same with the Raid card?  
Let us know please.  That would save some people a heap of money. 

> >�Its not the number of the hard drives, its the Raid setup that
> > matters. �OS X has a good software raid 0 solution yet almost no Mac Pro
> > users take advantage of it. �Also the Mac Pro's case is so poorly built
> > that vibration is a problem with 10k drives. �Its those stupid sleds. �
> > They can't support the drive properly. �Imagine the logic - make an
> > easily removable sled - but design it so it doesn't work well with the
> > exact drives most likely to be used (the fastest) in a top end machine,
> > and then make sure they are not hot swappable so video users can't take
> > it seriously. �They have to buy (for no reason) a eSata PCI card and an
> > external multi-bay Sata enclosure. �
> 
> Gosh, Firewire is hot-swappable.  And its plugs carry power and don't
> wear out.

True.  But at 400 or 800 speed its just not nearly as fast.  It will be 
interesting to see when video cameras will implement it.  With HD 
becoming more and more common its going to be a real fight to see who 
comes out on top.  OF course everybody wants USB3 to come out on top 
because of the sheer convenience of its backward compatibility.  
 
> > All costing hundreds of dollars, and
> > taking up lots of room - for nothing. �If Apple had any brains it would
> > have been built into the Mac Pro. �A hot swappable, esata sled that is
> > anchored in somehow so the drive is supported well. �For more on this
> > seehttp://silentpcreview.com�They are the experts in noise and
> > vibration.
> >
> > > for eSATA. � If you think that its
> > > too pricey for you, Dell's equivalent is ~$1000 more (but only runs at
> > > 1333MHz FSB).
> >
> > I'm not an idiot that goes to HP, Dell or Gateway to pay them to put
> > together something a 6 year old could do. �
> 
> If a 6-year old could do it, then why have HP, Dell or Gateway not
> been able to beat Apple's price point on the Mac Pro?

You can beat the performance in almost all areas for about 1/2 the price 
of the Mac Pro if you shop at Newegg!
 
> And FYI, if you're talking about DIY'ing a system, then say so flat
> out so that I can killfile you now.

Well its true.  That's exactly what I meant.  Any idiot can screw a 
system together.  Its the software that's complicated. I could never 
understand how people could pay someone to assemble parts.  Its like 
paying an engineer to change our burnt out lightbulb in your living 
room. 

> >Go to Newegg for the real world. �See the humongous differences. �
> 
> The fact that Apple overcharges for OEM RAM and HDs isn't even new
> news this Century.  Yes, I find it disappointing, but it is trivial to
> circumvent in non-bureaucrac systems.
 
I guess my point is that they overcharge on just about everything.  One 
can't use the "included software" excuse.  
 
> > > And insofar as "Slow" Firewire, Firewire800 is pragmatically the same
> > > performance as SATA-I, which has more bandwidth than any standard
> > > 7200rpm single spindle hard drive can deliver.
> >
> > Gee - I wonder why eSata is so much more popular? �Ever heard of Sata-2?
> > 3000 speed That's what Firewire 800 (800 speed) is competing with. �Its
> > almost 4 times as fast. �
> 
> Its theoretically 3x faster on paper...but that's before taking into
> account other real-world factors, such as its overhead.  The overhead
> on SATA-I is 20%, which is where the "120MB/sec" value comes from on
> some references; SATA-II has the same 20% overhead from its 8b10b
> encoding, which means that your beloved "3000 speed" is actually only
> "2400"  (240MB/sec)...now its down to "just slightly better than
> double".

It sounds like you're a lot more knowledgeable than I am here.  But 
still you admit that its twice as fast.  That's rather significant.  
Plus its an accepted standard now.  There are hardly any motherboards in 
existence now with FW800.  Most all newer ones have FW400 thankfully, 
for video of course.
 
> And in any event as I already mentioned:  no standard 7200rpm single
> spindle HD can saturate the bandwidth of even SATA-I, which means that
> SATA-II is currently limited to the esoteric niche market of the RAID
> 0 base application, which as you pointed out is extremely rare on
> Macs.
 
I guess that's the reason Western Digital hasn't bothered to make a Sata 
2 10k Raptor.  
 
> > > For future capability growth, FW1600 is now in the chip foundry and
> > > FW3200 is being ratified, IIRC. �Granted, it won't stop eSATA from
> > > being a competitor, but if we're going to go poking sticks in peoples'
> > > eyes, the eSATA plug interface leaves quite a bit to be desired.
> >
> > And USB-3 is supposed to be 10 times as fast as USB-2. �Its never boring!
> 
> USB3 is going to use a fiber connection to get its claimed
> performance.  As such, its prospects are the same as Fibre Channel
> which has been available for at least a couple of years now, which can
> be summarized in three words:  Not Cheap Yet.   Considering that the
> USB consortium is going to keep the crappy USB plug design while
> adding the fiber, thereby creating a mess of cables and hubs where any
> one component mismatch causes the whole mess to revert back to 2.0
> speeds, they're knowingly designing a "red headed stepchild" that any
> wise man will let 25% of the market adopt it before him, so as to work
> out the worst of the headaches that they're introducing...just like
> what happened with external SATA until they just finally got the eSATA
> standard in place.  If you find it entertaining to work with Beta
> revision junk, the more power to you ... my choice is to refrain from
> the bleeding edge, since that's not the objective of my hobbies or
> work (on computers).

eSata is pretty mainstream.  We all look forward to improvements though.  
Apple should put eSata plugs in all their machines.  I wonder why they 
don't.  I wonder if its some licensing issue.  Think of all the video 
work that could be streamlined.

In article <michelle-2930A8.20302220042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-FE56B5.22072720042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > that Macs come bundled with software (eg, OS X)
> > > that's going to be thrown away and replaced with Windows OS.
> > 
> > Please - An OS doesn't result in the system costing hundreds of 
> > dollars more than it should.  Nice try. 
> 
> OS X, iLife, and other goodies.
> 
> > So how does that explain Apple's ludicrous hardware prices in their 
> > store?
> 
> They're not ludicrous; they're on a Par with Dell, HP, and the like.

But nobody goes to Dell to buy a stick of ram.  Nobody with any sense 
that is.  They go to a store like Newegg or a hundred others that are 
fiercely competitive.  Its just an example of the audacity of Apple's 
pricing.

In article <michelle-937868.20345820042008@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-72D8B2.22082520042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > > Could be.  My guess is they do exist but didn't realize all the 
> > > > attention and problems this whole thing would bring on them.
> > > 
> > > They've changed their address four times in two days, and people on 
> > > the ground in Florida checked out those addresses;Psystar was not 
> > > at any of them, and no one at any of them had ever heard of 
> > > Psystar.
> > > 
> > > They are scam artists, pure and simple.  Even the company that 
> > > handled their payments stopped servicing them because of it.
> > 
> > I hope you're right. 
> 
> Hope, shmope; it's documented.
> 
> <http://www.macworld.com/article/133079/2008/04/psystar.html>

I wonder if Apple influenced their first credit card company.  If they 
can't accept credit cards they're sure not going to sell many computers.  
If the credit card company is linked to them peddling possibly illegal 
goods, you'd think that might put the cc company in risk of litigation.  
And unlike Psystar they would have sizable assets to chomp on.  
"Goodrich disagreed and said if Psystar had been up-front about its 
intention to sell Mac clones, it wouldn�t have done business with the 
Florida company at all."  That's Apple muscle no doubt.
 
> <http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/04/16/report_waves_caution_at_sh
> adiness_of_would_be_mac_clone_maker.html>

Looks pretty bad.  This week should be interesting.

In article <noemailhere-29BB7A.16060420042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > >>> so the fact that countless people are requesting it means 
> > > >>> nothing?
> > > >> 
> > > >> Countless?  I've seen barely two handfuls of people requesting it.
> > > > 
> > > > Do the two handfuls include Steve Wozniak?
> > > 
> > > Just thought about something else: if there are only two handfuls of 
> > > people requesting it, why is Apple so adamant to prevent people from 
> > > building their own Mac system?
> > 
> > Are they all that adamant? There's a whole little community that has 
> > sprung up around OS X on generic hardware, and Apple doesn't seem to 
> > care that all much.
> 
> Not yet.  But Psystar could wake the sleeping giant.  If Apple really 
> had wanted to make OS X uncrackable on PC hardware, it probably would 
> be.  Many people think this is their way of transitioning so they can 
> release it to the masses. It could take years.  My guess it will 
> coincide with the departure of Steve Jobs.  How Apple reacts to Psystar 
> this coming week will say a lot.  

Honestly, the notion of OS X on generic third-party hardware just 
doesn't make that much sense. If Apple wanted to make a low-end OS X 
tower, they could do so themselves.

They could do so at the same exact price anyone else could. At a lower 
price than most companies, in fact, because they're one of the largest 
component buyers in the world and they wouldn't have to pay an outside 
company for OS licenses.

They could do so at a higher quality level, doing better 
hardware/software integration than a third-party likely would.

And, if they just made this system themselves, they could save 
themselves a world of pain trying to write drivers to support all the 
stuff out there in generic boxes.

What is the advantage to Apple supporting generic low-cost x86 hardware? 
The home-built market? Tiny. People who have ideological objections to 
single-source hardware? There are hardly any of them, and they'll 
probably be running Linux for related ideological reasons.

There always seems to be an implicit discussion that shipping your OS 
for generic hardware is the key to success, because it worked for 
Microsoft. But the truth is, of course, that it worked for Microsoft in 
a very specific set of historical circumstances. It hasn't worked for 
anyone else since. It hasn't even worked in other markets for Microsoft!

What consumers want these days is not the meaningless option to buy 
essentially the same hardware from Dell or HP. What they want is a 
system that's well designed, well integrated, and that just works. That 
fits with the computer-as-appliance approach that dates back within 
Apple all the way to the original Macintosh. It would be nuts for Apple 
to move away from this approach; the rest of the world is only now 
starting to grasp it, probably because of the success of the iPod.

[snip]

-- 
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way." 
� � � � � � � � � � � � --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <noemailhere-6035C3.22575420042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> I wonder if Apple influenced their first credit card company. 

Do you also wonder whether there was a gunman on the grassy knoll?  Do 
you also wonder whether Bush had anything to do with 9/11?  Do you also 
wonder whether Republicans murdered Paul Wellstone?  Do you also wonder 
whether the Moon landings were faked in a soundstage in the Nevada 
desert?

> "Goodrich disagreed and said if Psystar had been up-front about its 
> intention to sell Mac clones, it wouldn�t have done business with the 
> Florida company at all."  That's Apple muscle no doubt.

That's common business sense, no doubt.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-41040B.22505220042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > They're not ludicrous; they're on a Par with Dell, HP, and the 
> > like.
> 
> But nobody goes to Dell to buy a stick of ram.  Nobody with any sense 
> that is.

And nobody goes to Apple to buy a stick of RAM, nobody with any sense, 
that is.  They look for RAM prices at ramseeker.com.

> They go to a store like Newegg or a hundred others that are fiercely 
> competitive.  Its just an example of the audacity of Apple's pricing.

Funny that you don't complain about "the audacity of Dell's pricing" 
considering that PC owners go to NewEgg instead of Dell for their RAM.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <noemailhere-41040B.22505220042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <michelle-2930A8.20302220042008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-FE56B5.22072720042008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > that Macs come bundled with software (eg, OS X)
> > > > that's going to be thrown away and replaced with Windows OS.
> > > 
> > > Please - An OS doesn't result in the system costing hundreds of 
> > > dollars more than it should.  Nice try. 
> > 
> > OS X, iLife, and other goodies.
> > 
> > > So how does that explain Apple's ludicrous hardware prices in their 
> > > store?
> > 
> > They're not ludicrous; they're on a Par with Dell, HP, and the like.
> 
> But nobody goes to Dell to buy a stick of ram.  Nobody with any sense 
> that is.  They go to a store like Newegg or a hundred others that are 
> fiercely competitive.  

So do Mac users, dumbass.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-38BA29.20423120042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > >  I hope 
> > > they do NOT exist.  I don't want Apple battling down the hatches so 
> > > OSX86 ceases to be.  We'll see what escapades they are up to this week.
> > 
> > They'll be gone.
> 
> I hope you're right.  Even the OSX86 people are pissed.  If Apple 
> changes a lot of things the whole OSX86 will probably just freeze with 
> the current incarnation being the latest working version.  That would be 
> horrible.

Not horrible for me.  It wouldn't affect me at all.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-4BB6B3.19571420042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <michelle-86F121.17264620042008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-8AECC5.18493820042008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > > They buy the computer with Mac OS X installed, so they take a look 
> > > > at it, and get hooked.
> > > 
> > > And so they should if they have an open mind.  But that is not the 
> > > point. 
> > 
> > That is the point; they don't have an open mind, so they don't buy the 
> > Mac in the first place.
> 
> Actually they do have an open mind.  They don't care.  For a PC user a 
> Mac is just a computer using a Socket 775 CPU (or Xeon for the Mac Pro).  
> They couldn't care less about cuteness, style, etc.  They want to 
> computer to function.  Buy a stylish case if you want style.  They are 
> comparing ram, cpu, hard drive(s), video card, etc.  Whichever has the 
> better performance for the dollar wins.

Only you're wrong, because half of all Mac purchases are previous PC 
users.  Oops.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-145CA4.18462620042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <michelle-18762B.15061620042008@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-790DC7.16404920042008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
> > > those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
> > > store.  That's my point.
> > 
> > I asked you for proof of that, not to repeat it.
> 
> Well I guess because I know the used prices.  To anyone that does, its 
> common knowledge.  If its not obvious, you probably have better things 
> to do than scour Ebay and Craigslist for deals.  :)  Trust me.  I'm 
> right.  Like always.....lol.

USED?  Please.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-C9410D.18445720042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-CB61BC.17040520042008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-790DC7.16404920042008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <michelle-E34A39.13534720042008@news.west.cox.net>,
> > >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <noemailhere-8AC8F7.15434820042008@news.mts.net>,
> > > >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Now if you're familiar with used computer hardware prices you know 
> > > > > that there is almost no single piece of 2 year old computer hardware 
> > > > > that costs more than $50.
> > > > 
> > > > Got proof of that, or are you making it up as you usually do?
> > > 
> > > Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
> > > those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
> > > store.  That's my point.
> > 
> > Oh?  Show me a new 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo T2300 for $50 please.
> > 
> > You so obviously belong in comp.sys.mac.advocacy, where you will surely 
> > feel right at home. Do the rest of us a favor - post your useless drivel 
> > there from now on.
> 
> Actually that's a current model.  

It's at least 2 years old.  You said: "Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard 
drives, video cards.......almost none of those cost more than $50 to 
replace 2 years after they have left the store"

Care to revise your incorrect statement?

> But even those CPU's have sold on Ebay 
> for less than $50 recently.  And newer ones (E4300) as well.  

Used parts don't count. We're talking about the value of new Macs in 
this thread, not used Macs.

> I'm not trying to perpetuate this thread.  I'm answering those that are 
> posting questions.  Just like you just did.  
> 
> JR and you are both right.  I probably should post this in the other 
> newsgroup.  Drivel and all.....lol.

Probably my ass.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-D7CD65.19025220042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > These are comparing OS's.  As I've repeated before I was talking about 
> > > the low value of Mac hardware.  Not the OS.
> > 
> > If you want a machine on which to run Vista it clearly makes no sense to 
> > buy a Mac because you are presumably paying something for Leopard which 
> > you don't need or want, and then paying retail for Vista which you can 
> > get thrown in with generic x86 hardware for effectively very little 
> > money due to Microsoft's OEM deals.
> 
> We're not talking about the software.  

Correction: YOU are not talking about the software. Then why are you 
posting this in a Mac system software forum?

The rest of us fully understand that the software is what makes a Mac 
valuable.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

> > > They're not ludicrous; they're on a Par with Dell, HP, and the 
> > > like.
> > 
> > But nobody goes to Dell to buy a stick of ram.  Nobody with any sense 
> > that is.
> 
> And nobody goes to Apple to buy a stick of RAM, nobody with any sense, 
> that is.  They look for RAM prices at ramseeker.com.

Well if ram is priced in the stratosphere, and hard drives and most 
everything else is too, why buy anything there?  You see, at a certain 
point you have admitted Apple has some silly prices.  Now what matters 
is when do you "forgive" Apple's pricing structure and still give them 
your business.  Not with ram, probably not with drives.  You recently 
bought an iMac from them so I guess that's the line.  I draw my line a 
little later.  If they don't offer something at a good price I don't 
buy.  Ram, hard drives or complete systems.  
 
> > They go to a store like Newegg or a hundred others that are fiercely 
> > competitive.  Its just an example of the audacity of Apple's pricing.
> 
> Funny that you don't complain about "the audacity of Dell's pricing" 
> considering that PC owners go to NewEgg instead of Dell for their RAM.

We're not talking about Dell here.  But if Dell enthusiasts were as 
brainwashed as some of the lemmings here, I would.

> > > > that Macs come bundled with software (eg, OS X)
> > > > > that's going to be thrown away and replaced with Windows OS.
> > > > 
> > > > Please - An OS doesn't result in the system costing hundreds of 
> > > > dollars more than it should.  Nice try. 
> > > 
> > > OS X, iLife, and other goodies.
> > > 
> > > > So how does that explain Apple's ludicrous hardware prices in their 
> > > > store?
> > > 
> > > They're not ludicrous; they're on a Par with Dell, HP, and the like.
> > 
> > But nobody goes to Dell to buy a stick of ram.  Nobody with any sense 
> > that is.  They go to a store like Newegg or a hundred others that are 
> > fiercely competitive.  
> 
> So do Mac users.

And at what point do you draw the line JR?  Apparently you buy new 
systems from Apple.  But you don't buy ram.  What about a printer that 
is 10% or 30% over a competitor.  What about a hard drive that is 50% 
over?  Where do you draw the line on Apple's ludicrous pricing?  I guess 
its different for everyone.  

We're making some progress here.  Even if you refuse to admit it.

In article <jollyroger-87F132.23530420042008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-4BB6B3.19571420042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <michelle-86F121.17264620042008@news.west.cox.net>,
> >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-8AECC5.18493820042008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > They buy the computer with Mac OS X installed, so they take a look 
> > > > > at it, and get hooked.
> > > > 
> > > > And so they should if they have an open mind.  But that is not the 
> > > > point. 
> > > 
> > > That is the point; they don't have an open mind, so they don't buy the 
> > > Mac in the first place.
> > 
> > Actually they do have an open mind.  They don't care.  For a PC user a 
> > Mac is just a computer using a Socket 775 CPU (or Xeon for the Mac Pro).  
> > They couldn't care less about cuteness, style, etc.  They want to 
> > computer to function.  Buy a stylish case if you want style.  They are 
> > comparing ram, cpu, hard drive(s), video card, etc.  Whichever has the 
> > better performance for the dollar wins.
> 
> Only you're wrong, because half of all Mac purchases are previous PC 
> users.  Oops.

That is great.  OS X is winning people over.  But that is not the 
subject being discussed here.  My point is that if Macs were good 
hardware value, Windows users would flood Apple stores and snap them up.  
I'm talking about people using a machine for Windows only.

> > > > Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
> > > > those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
> > > > store.  That's my point.
> > > 
> > > I asked you for proof of that, not to repeat it.
> > 
> > Well I guess because I know the used prices.  To anyone that does, its 
> > common knowledge.  If its not obvious, you probably have better things 
> > to do than scour Ebay and Craigslist for deals.  :)  Trust me.  I'm 
> > right.  Like always.....lol.
> 
> USED?  Please.

If you're rich, may you enjoy your wealth.  For the rest of us.....The 
cost of something is the difference between buying and selling it and 
maintenance while owning it.  Its really has nothing to do with the 
purchase price.  Devaluation is everything.  So if someone buys a brand 
new computer, in 2 years its will be worth about 30% of the original 
price paid.  But if one buys used, and avails oneself of the variability 
of used pricing, its easy to enjoy something for a year, resell it for 
what you paid for it, and it costs you nothing.  Smarter and patient  
people resell for more than they paid for it.

> > > > > > Now if you're familiar with used computer hardware prices you know 
> > > > > > that there is almost no single piece of 2 year old computer 
> > > > > > hardware that costs more than $50.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Got proof of that, or are you making it up as you usually do?
> > > > 
> > > > Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
> > > > those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
> > > > store.  That's my point.
> > > 
> > > Oh?  Show me a new 1.6 GHz Core 2 Duo T2300 for $50 please.

All Ebay references deleted....Nice.  Thanks.
 
> > Actually that's a current model.  
> It's at least 2 years old.  You said: "Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard 
> drives, video cards.......almost none of those cost more than $50 to 
> replace 2 years after they have left the store"
> Care to revise your incorrect statement?

I was talking about the e4300.  Its been selling new until quite 
recently I believe.  The e4500 is the current model to replace it.  And 
that is being sold new as we speak locally here.  I've seen those on 
Ebay go for less than $60.  And the CPU is one of the most expensive 
parts of the computer.  2 year old motherboards are way less than $50.  
Same with hard drives.  Only DDR ram has held some value but 1gb sticks 
are only around $40.  Way less than 2 years ago.    
 
> > But even those CPU's have sold on Ebay 
> > for less than $50 recently.  And newer ones (E4300) as well.  
> 
> Used parts don't count. We're talking about the value of new Macs in 
> this thread, not used Macs.

My point here was to point out how buying something from a few months 
old to a couple of years old can result in immense savings.  Like the 
difference between a computer costing $1000 and nothing!

> > > > These are comparing OS's.  As I've repeated before I was talking about 
> > > > the low value of Mac hardware.  Not the OS.
> > > 
> > > If you want a machine on which to run Vista it clearly makes no sense to 
> > > buy a Mac because you are presumably paying something for Leopard which 
> > > you don't need or want, and then paying retail for Vista which you can 
> > > get thrown in with generic x86 hardware for effectively very little 
> > > money due to Microsoft's OEM deals.
> > 
> > We're not talking about the software.  
> 
> Correction: YOU are not talking about the software. Then why are you 
> posting this in a Mac system software forum?

Guess it kind of mutated.  
 
> The rest of us fully understand that the software is what makes a Mac 
> valuable.

JR - if you don't want to perpetuate a thread, don't respond.  Its like 
hanging up on a crank caller.  It ends faster.

In article <noemailhere-59A1E4.01472021042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none of 
> > > > > those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left the 
> > > > > store.  That's my point.
> > > > 
> > > > I asked you for proof of that, not to repeat it.
> > > 
> > > Well I guess because I know the used prices.  To anyone that does, its 
> > > common knowledge.  If its not obvious, you probably have better things 
> > > to do than scour Ebay and Craigslist for deals.  :)  Trust me.  I'm 
> > > right.  Like always.....lol.
> > 
> > USED?  Please.
> 
> If you're rich, may you enjoy your wealth.  For the rest of us.....The 
> cost of something is the difference between buying and selling it and 
> maintenance while owning it.  Its really has nothing to do with the 
> purchase price.  

You claim Apple's prices are too high, because Apple doesn't sell their 
new computers at used component prices.  Sorry, but that doesn't fly 
here - you can't have it both ways.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-CD90F5.01433321042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-87F132.23530420042008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-4BB6B3.19571420042008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <michelle-86F121.17264620042008@news.west.cox.net>,
> > >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <noemailhere-8AECC5.18493820042008@news.mts.net>,
> > > >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > They buy the computer with Mac OS X installed, so they take a look 
> > > > > > at it, and get hooked.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And so they should if they have an open mind.  But that is not the 
> > > > > point. 
> > > > 
> > > > That is the point; they don't have an open mind, so they don't buy the 
> > > > Mac in the first place.
> > > 
> > > Actually they do have an open mind.  They don't care.  For a PC user a 
> > > Mac is just a computer using a Socket 775 CPU (or Xeon for the Mac Pro).  
> > > They couldn't care less about cuteness, style, etc.  They want to 
> > > computer to function.  Buy a stylish case if you want style.  They are 
> > > comparing ram, cpu, hard drive(s), video card, etc.  Whichever has the 
> > > better performance for the dollar wins.
> > 
> > Only you're wrong, because half of all Mac purchases are previous PC 
> > users.  Oops.
> 
> That is great.  OS X is winning people over.  But that is not the 
> subject being discussed here.  My point is that if Macs were good 
> hardware value, Windows users would flood Apple stores and snap them up.  
> I'm talking about people using a machine for Windows only.

People using machines for Windows only want cheaper computers. Boohoo... 
Really, who cares?

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-12D3CC.01575521042008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-59A1E4.01472021042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > Motherboard, ram, CPU, hard drives, video cards.......almost none 
> > > > > > of 
> > > > > > those cost more than $50 to replace 2 years after they have left 
> > > > > > the 
> > > > > > store.  That's my point.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I asked you for proof of that, not to repeat it.
> > > > 
> > > > Well I guess because I know the used prices.  To anyone that does, its 
> > > > common knowledge.  If its not obvious, you probably have better things 
> > > > to do than scour Ebay and Craigslist for deals.  :)  Trust me.  I'm 
> > > > right.  Like always.....lol.
> > > 
> > > USED?  Please.
> > 
> > If you're rich, may you enjoy your wealth.  For the rest of us.....The 
> > cost of something is the difference between buying and selling it and 
> > maintenance while owning it.  Its really has nothing to do with the 
> > purchase price.  
> 
> You claim Apple's prices are too high, because Apple doesn't sell their 
> new computers at used component prices.  Sorry, but that doesn't fly 
> here - you can't have it both ways.

Nice try.  I'm comparing Neweggs brand new prices to Apples.  Used Macs 
compared to used PC's - Apple's ludicrous prices still are evident.  New 
or used - its still the same.

In article <jollyroger-04CEB8.01590121042008@individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <noemailhere-CD90F5.01433321042008@news.mts.net>,
>  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-87F132.23530420042008@individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <noemailhere-4BB6B3.19571420042008@news.mts.net>,
> > >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <michelle-86F121.17264620042008@news.west.cox.net>,
> > > >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <noemailhere-8AECC5.18493820042008@news.mts.net>,
> > > > >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > They buy the computer with Mac OS X installed, so they take a 
> > > > > > > look 
> > > > > > > at it, and get hooked.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And so they should if they have an open mind.  But that is not the 
> > > > > > point. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is the point; they don't have an open mind, so they don't buy 
> > > > > the 
> > > > > Mac in the first place.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually they do have an open mind.  They don't care.  For a PC user a 
> > > > Mac is just a computer using a Socket 775 CPU (or Xeon for the Mac 
> > > > Pro).  
> > > > They couldn't care less about cuteness, style, etc.  They want to 
> > > > computer to function.  Buy a stylish case if you want style.  They are 
> > > > comparing ram, cpu, hard drive(s), video card, etc.  Whichever has the 
> > > > better performance for the dollar wins.
> > > 
> > > Only you're wrong, because half of all Mac purchases are previous PC 
> > > users.  Oops.
> > 
> > That is great.  OS X is winning people over.  But that is not the 
> > subject being discussed here.  My point is that if Macs were good 
> > hardware value, Windows users would flood Apple stores and snap them up.  
> > I'm talking about people using a machine for Windows only.
> 
> People using machines for Windows only want cheaper computers. Boohoo... 
> Really, who cares?

And Apple users want more expensive prices?  You can't have it both ways 
JR.  EVERYBODY wants lower prices.

In article <noemailhere-8F0B6B.01180221042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > > that Macs come bundled with software (eg, OS X)
> > > > > > that's going to be thrown away and replaced with Windows OS.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please - An OS doesn't result in the system costing hundreds of 
> > > > > dollars more than it should.  Nice try. 
> > > > 
> > > > OS X, iLife, and other goodies.
> > > > 
> > > > > So how does that explain Apple's ludicrous hardware prices in their 
> > > > > store?
> > > > 
> > > > They're not ludicrous; they're on a Par with Dell, HP, and the like.
> > > 
> > > But nobody goes to Dell to buy a stick of ram.  Nobody with any sense 
> > > that is.  They go to a store like Newegg or a hundred others that are 
> > > fiercely competitive.  
> > 
> > So do Mac users.
> 
> And at what point do you draw the line JR?  

I draw the line in the obvious place - at upgrade parts like RAM, hard 
drives, and so on.

> Apparently you buy new 
> systems from Apple.  But you don't buy ram.  

Just like many people buy their PC systems from Dull, HP, Sony, and so 
on, and buy their RAM elsewhere. So?

> What about a printer that 
> is 10% or 30% over a competitor. 

What are you talking about? Would you buy an overpriced printer from 
Dell?  What makes you think i would buy an overpriced printer from Apple?

> What about a hard drive that is 50% over?  

Obvious answer...

> Where do you draw the line on Apple's ludicrous pricing?

Apple's pricing for hard drives and RAM is in-line with Dell, HP, Sony, 
and so on.  If you are going to say Apple's pricing is ludicrous, then 
say it of *all* computer makers, to be fair.

> I guess its different for everyone.  

Only in your mind.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-8F6EE8.01154821042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> > > > They're not ludicrous; they're on a Par with Dell, HP, and the 
> > > > like.
> > > 
> > > But nobody goes to Dell to buy a stick of ram.  Nobody with any sense 
> > > that is.
> > 
> > And nobody goes to Apple to buy a stick of RAM, nobody with any sense, 
> > that is.  They look for RAM prices at ramseeker.com.
> 
> Well if ram is priced in the stratosphere, and hard drives and most 
> everything else is too, why buy anything there?  

For the same reason people buy computers from Dell, HP, Sony, Gateway, 
and so on.

> You see, at a certain 
> point you have admitted Apple has some silly prices.  

Just like Dell, HP, Sony, Gateway, and other PC manufacturers have 
equally silly prices.

> Now what matters 
> is when do you "forgive" Apple's pricing structure and still give them 
> your business.  Not with ram, probably not with drives.  You recently 
> bought an iMac from them so I guess that's the line.  I draw my line a 
> little later.  If they don't offer something at a good price I don't 
> buy.  Ram, hard drives or complete systems.  

That Mac mini you're using must have just fallen into your lap - you 
wouldn't purchase one from Apple - not at those horrid prices...

> > > They go to a store like Newegg or a hundred others that are fiercely 
> > > competitive.  Its just an example of the audacity of Apple's pricing.
> > 
> > Funny that you don't complain about "the audacity of Dell's pricing" 
> > considering that PC owners go to NewEgg instead of Dell for their RAM.
> 
> We're not talking about Dell here.  But if Dell enthusiasts were as 
> brainwashed as some of the lemmings here, I would.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You don't get to complain about 
Apple's pricing of RAM, hard drives, and so on and expect the rest of us 
to ignore the fact that other PC manufacturers have similar pricing.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR

In article <noemailhere-AC0E1F.02044621042008@news.mts.net>,
 The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-04CEB8.01590121042008@individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noemailhere-CD90F5.01433321042008@news.mts.net>,
> >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <jollyroger-87F132.23530420042008@individual.net>,
> > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <noemailhere-4BB6B3.19571420042008@news.mts.net>,
> > > >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <michelle-86F121.17264620042008@news.west.cox.net>,
> > > > >  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In article <noemailhere-8AECC5.18493820042008@news.mts.net>,
> > > > > >  The New guy <noemailhere@please.comm> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > They buy the computer with Mac OS X installed, so they take a 
> > > > > > > > look 
> > > > > > > > at it, and get hooked.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > And so they should if they have an open mind.  But that is not 
> > > > > > > the 
> > > > > > > point. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That is the point; they don't have an open mind, so they don't buy 
> > > > > > the 
> > > > > > Mac in the first place.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Actually they do have an open mind.  They don't care.  For a PC user 
> > > > > a 
> > > > > Mac is just a computer using a Socket 775 CPU (or Xeon for the Mac 
> > > > > Pro).  
> > > > > They couldn't care less about cuteness, style, etc.  They want to 
> > > > > computer to function.  Buy a stylish case if you want style.  They 
> > > > > are 
> > > > > comparing ram, cpu, hard drive(s), video card, etc.  Whichever has 
> > > > > the 
> > > > > better performance for the dollar wins.
> > > > 
> > > > Only you're wrong, because half of all Mac purchases are previous PC 
> > > > users.  Oops.
> > > 
> > > That is great.  OS X is winning people over.  But that is not the 
> > > subject being discussed here.  My point is that if Macs were good 
> > > hardware value, Windows users would flood Apple stores and snap them up.  
> > > I'm talking about people using a machine for Windows only.
> > 
> > People using machines for Windows only want cheaper computers. Boohoo... 
> > Really, who cares?
> 
> And Apple users want more expensive prices?  You can't have it both ways 
> JR.  EVERYBODY wants lower prices.

I want quality hardware that performs well, and, most importantly, runs 
Mac OS X. 

I don't mind that Apple picks hardware that most companies put in 
servers because it's blazing fast. I don't mind that I could purchase 
pieces parts cheaper and build my own, because it wouldn't run Mac OS X 
- and what's the point if it won't run Mac OS X? I don't mind spending 
the money to purchase a system that's been thoroughly tested with Mac OS 
X, my operating system of choice.

-- 
Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to
this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not
read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to
see your posts.

JR