http://www.osnews.com/story/11465/Interview_Wim_Schermer_Long-time_Apple_Reseller Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Thu, 23 May 2013 19:06:12 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://www.osnews.com/thread?13732 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13732 A good interview, very detailed, one question though... why drop prices of all G4's because a Mac Mini was was the same CPU speed? Mac Mini has flaws such as its HD which is a 5400RPM Drive and in some cases it is a 4800RPM drive, also it has a very slow FSB by modern standards, it is the slowest FSB of all the G4's (haven't checked the iBook's FSB mind). Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Andrew Youll) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13742 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13742 One of the most honest Linux positions I had read on a long time. Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13744 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13744 the mac mini changed the resale value for a lot of macs i believe is the point.. granted it does have lower specs then some, it still has higher specs (in areas) then others.. pre mac mini i would bet you could get 6 or 700 for a dual 500 g4.. after the mac mini that dropped.. i know the value of mine dropped like 150 Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (godawful) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13746 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13746 I wouldn't call the speed of the drive a flaw... its running at full speed.

Its a slowish speed, but that was what helped define product categories. Bump up the speed too much and Apple runs the risk of canibalizing lower-end tower sales. Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13749 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13749 algarete Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13751 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13751 So he considers up to a point that customers might want to run Mac OS and Windows, but not at all linux?

Well, that is certainly not me. Mac and Linux, what a wonderful combination (and we all know that there is a very limited choice of distros for PPC)
But Mac OS and Windows? What a nonsense. Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous Penguin) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13762 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13762 Its a slowish speed, but that was what helped define product categories. Bump up the speed too much and Apple runs the risk of canibalizing lower-end tower sales.

If a single processor G4 with a decent hard drive will cannibalize a dual G5 tower with slots and many other upgrades, Apple is in serious trouble.

Fortunately outside of Apple and its patented "Greatly Insane Management" protocols, such a risk does not exist.

As has been shown on many sites, the Mac mini with a 7200rpm 2.5" drive is a much nicer computer to use. And it has been thoroughly shown that this mod does not enable the machine to compete with a G5 tower.

At the end of the day, Apple does not offer a 7200rpm Mac mini because Apple has a horrible problem delivering value to customers. Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (pravda) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13764 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13764 I just got my first Mac mini and I love it (the 1.42 GHz model). It currently only has 256 MB of ram, but for web browsing and simple work like web processing and listening to music it's more than enough.

I am upgrading to 1GB of RAM, just didn't want to pay Apple's price on that.

I totally love it! Granted I was upgrading from a 450MHz machine. Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13766 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13766 >If a single processor G4 with a decent hard drive will cannibalize a dual G5 tower with slots and many other upgrades, Apple is in serious trouble.

You're over-generalizing. For most people, a Mac mini is all they need. Apple wants the people who want something in the middle to upgrade to the low-end towars... not simply be content with the Mac mini. It makes a lot of business sense Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13771 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13771 He also gives a good explanation why Macs are more expensive than PC's:

'The price/quality ratio must be similar to the rest of the market, and I think Apple is doing that quite well.' Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Matt24) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13775 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13775 Actually, I think he got it wrong about the whole price issue. Sure, Macs typically are of higher quality but they don't cost more. The problem the creates this illusion amongst most PC users is that Apple includes bundled software and additional hardware components in the computers which aren't typically incorporated in what they believe are comparable PCs. If Apple costs more its because you're getting more. It's a hard point to illustrate because Apple limits the amount of selection that you can get. As a result, you are typically forced into buying more than what you may want. Regardless, the notion that Macs are more expensive is a false one. When a PC is equipped with the exact same components in hardware, software and operating system (and that means ALL the components no more no less) as that which come standard on any Mac the two computers will typically be the same price. Often times, the Mac will be less expensive. Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym4) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13781 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13781 I think he's just not very informed. Its also against his interest to say "Oh yes, Linux is very good, and it runs on commodity hardware!". So of course he's going to play it down. Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13785 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13785 "Apple includes bundled software"

My Sony Vaio desktop also included Windows XP and plenty of commercial software (I didn't care for any of it), yet it was no more expensive than an equivalent PC sold without OS.

Ergo: that argument doesn't stand. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous Penguin) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13788 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13788 I agree with you. It's Mac OS X only. It's easier than Windows and solid as Linux. Why bother with dual boot? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13789 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13789 I didn't see his comments as "playing Linux down". He's right in the sense that "why dual boot if you already have a UNIX system".

In the same machine, OS X "feels" faster than Linux. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13790 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13790 "My Sony Vaio desktop also included Windows XP and plenty of commercial software (I didn't care for any of it), yet it was no more expensive than an equivalent PC sold without OS.

Ergo: that argument doesn't stand."

How does it not stand? I was saying that the Mac doesn't cost more than an equivalent PC. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym4) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13792 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13792 "How does it not stand? I was saying that the Mac doesn't cost more than an equivalent PC."

Because when you Mac users say that, you put a very high price tag on the value of bundled software, something that PC users never do (I know, Mac software is better, but its cost to Apple isn't higher than the cost of equivalent software to Dell or Sony) Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous Penguin) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13796 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13796 "He's right in the sense that "why dual boot if you already have a UNIX system"."

Simply because not all "Unix" are the same. Example: install Debian and you have immediately up to 20.000 packages available for free.
So: Mac OS? Yes, of course, else why buy a Mac. Linux? Why not? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous Penguin) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13802 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13802 "Simply because not all "Unix" are the same. Example: install Debian and you have immediately up to 20.000 packages available for free."

Well, install Fink on OS X and you have access to most of those packages anyway.

That said, I think there is certainly a place for GNU/Linux on Mac hardware, but the point Wim was making in the article is that your average user wouldn't have a need for it (and would probably mess up their computers trying to install it), so he doesn't market it at his stores, which is fair enough. If techies have a need for Debian, they can easily download the ISOs anyway. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Marlor) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13807 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13807 "why Macs are more expensive than PC's"

A Mac is a PC Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13812 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13812 "you put a very high price tag on the value of bundled software, "

No, only the price to an equivilent version of software to run on Windows. Windows equivilents for iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto and Garageband cost between $200 - $250. If you factor this in, and then match Windows XP Professional (not consumer) against OS X Tiger, then the Mac usually comes out about $50 - $100 less than a comperably equipped PC. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym4) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13814 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13814 No, only the price to an equivilent version of software to run on Windows. Windows equivilents for iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto and Garageband cost between $200 - $250.


Yeah, right. You get Nero or EasyCD creator when you buy a burner. Movie Maker 2 is free, Picasa is free, iTunes is free, Acid XPress is free. Only an idiot would pay $200 for something like iLife. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13817 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13817 Yes, but Joe User *does not buy separate commercial software*, except maybe for MS Office, but tech savy friends are telling Joe User to download OpenOffice instead.
And the majority of us use OSS instead, unless we *really* need a commercial program. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous Penguin) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13824 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13824 Mac OS X doesn't always feel faster under Linux. On my machine, it typically feels much slower. But that was because I typically ran a leaner Linux installation which better suited my needs anyway.

The second point is that the typical Unix distribution will offer a greater number and more current packages than Mac OS X. Sure, stuff will compile and run under Mac OS X but I don't want to waste time doing that. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13830 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13830 you are by far in the minority. by far. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13831 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13831 "you are by far in the minority. by far."

Maybe. But clearly not among the people who post here (just read the other comments) Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous Penguin) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13841 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13841 "Yeah, right. You get Nero or EasyCD creator when you buy a burner."

These are applications for Burning DVDs (and CDs) not making a DVD.


"Movie Maker 2"

Movie Maker's video editing capeabilities are more akin to QuickTime Pro's.


"Picasa is free"

You're right. Now that its free... it does trump iPhoto for its freeness.


"iTunes is free"

I didn't mention iTunes for that reason.


"Acid XPress is free"

Garageband is not a sequencer. Well, it can sequence audio, but its not a sequencer. An appropriate comparitive application is fruity loops.


"Only an idiot would pay $200 for something like iLife."

Well, sure... if iLife was what you described it then ya. But you're obviously not familair with iLife so your response isn't accurate. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym6) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13844 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13844 Kelly, please let's not turn this thread into yet another boring "Macs are too expensive, no they're not" back and forth. People have pretty much made up their minds on this particular issue, and there's not much you or anyone else will be able to do to change that.

People used to complain that there was no sub $500 Mac, and then Apple came out with one, and it didn't stop the "Macs are too much money" crowd, because they're always going to look at the issue with different criteria than someone on your side of the issue. Let's just let this one go and not rehash it every single time someone mentions Mac pricing. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (David) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13845 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13845 It's "insanely great." Get your RDF terminology right, for Steve's sake. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13846 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13846 LOL, i wanted to give you a + vote and then I noticed that you are the boss. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous Penguin) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13850 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13850 Nice to hear from Wim, but when asked about Linux, he seemd like the Mac version of Martin Taylor, friendly but dismissive:

"...f you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren't many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac"

"But, there aren't many good applications for the Linux desktop."

You might as well say that since Debian works, why have any other Linux distro-people like choice. Often, an older Mac may run better under Linux than under the latest OSX, I agree, users of new models will likely prefer OS X.

Linux will not give you MS OFfice Logic, or Final Cut Pro, but do most users use those programs? I don't know about businesses and specialized software, like for dentists and small shops that like the point of sale hand holding, but how many mac users have super specialized commercial software on their macs that you won't find in Linux? ( just asking ). Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13852 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13852 So what you're saying is that people can continue making false commets and you would rather I not respond because they are already misinformed and are unlikely to change their mind? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym6) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13855 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13855 David, I don't mean to be rude, but are you going to pull a Eugenia and dictate what people can and can't talk about now? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym6) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13858 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13858 Kelly, Wim put the price issue really well when he said:

Apple is better, prettier, more reliable, but in the end it's up to the customer. And if that customer is satisfied with a Windows computer for 800 Euro (970 US Dollars), and the price is his selling point, then he won't buy a pretty iMac G5 for 1 500 Euro.

What is not expensive too you might be very expensive to someone else. The world isn't as black and white as you always want it to be in these threads.

Look, if a user can do all he wants with a Windows PC for 800E, then to that user, a 1500E iMac, which doesn't let him do more, is simply more expensive. Get over it. 1500E is more than 800E.

Does that mean that the iMac is *too* expensive? No! It simply means it's *more* expensive.

If you believe that 1500E isn't more than 800E, and if you also cannot understand that not everyone in this world is rich enough to spend 1500E on a new computer, than you're simply a sad person. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13859 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13859 And if you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren't many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac.

Wow, I didn't know OS X is based on FreeBSD. Here I was deluded that it was based on Darwin, which considering it is a Mach-based microkernel, rather hard to mix up for FreeBSD.

FreeBSD isn't synonymous to BSD. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rajan r) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13862 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13862 "Kelly, Wim put the price issue really well when he said: "

Thats pretty good... but I think I can sum it up more simply...

--
PCs allow you to buy less and spend less. Macs require you to buy more so your spending more... even if the're not more expensive than an equally equipped PC.
-- Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym6) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13863 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13863 At the end of the day, Apple does not offer a 7200rpm Mac mini because Apple has a horrible problem delivering value to customers.

Oh, come on, that is the biggest load of bullcrap I have ever heard; they probably didn't use the 7200rpm, because they couldn't get the number they wanted in volume; maybe they got a better deal by asking for more 5400rpm models rather than spliting their request, thus lowering their power to leverage during negotiations.

7200rpm 2.5inch hard disks aren't the status quo, they aren't being produced in volume, and it would be crazy for Apple to start demanding HDD manufacturers to start speeding up production of 7200rpm without an expected delay. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13867 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13867 Its more likely a simple means off differentiating their hardware lineups in palatable means which affect most computer users. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym6) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13868 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13868 "Thats pretty good... but I think I can sum it up more simply..."
I think i can sum it up more simply...
--
Shut the fuck up you stupid ho, you're giving us mac users a bad name Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13872 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13872 A good interview, very detailed, one question though... why drop prices of all G4's because a Mac Mini was was the same CPU speed? Mac Mini has flaws such as its HD which is a 5400RPM Drive and in some cases it is a 4800RPM drive, also it has a very slow FSB by modern standards, it is the slowest FSB of all the G4's (haven't checked the iBook's FSB mind).

Its all about perception and marketing, you, I and a majority of OS news readers know how much things like harddrive,ram and video gpu speed effect the overall speed of a computer. However the umm unwashed masses don't, most do know that cpu speed does efect it so when they see 2 computers on the shelf both are 1.5 ghz but one is 600-700$ more it becomes difficult for salesmen to explain why, so in the sales pitch after the techno jargon they mention they can get it it for 200$ less now Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13883 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13883 Wow, I didn't know OS X is based on FreeBSD. Here I was deluded that it was based on Darwin, which considering it is a Mach-based microkernel, rather hard to mix up for FreeBSD.

FreeBSD isn't synonymous to BSD.

What? Next thing you know you'll claim that Red Hat isn't synonymous to Linux? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 07:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13892 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13892 ""why Macs are more expensive than PC's"

A Mac is a PC"

Be-jaysus ! - Did it ever occur to you that some (actually quite a lot!) words have more than one notion..? Probably not. For the purpose of this discussion, a Mac is not a PC. Life is a lot easier if you get these little notions and don't bug others with decade-old, and wrong comments. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 07:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13893 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13893 XNU does not have identical performance characteristics to alternative PPC operating systems that some may desire to use for certain server applications. Yep, that matters about next to nil for the vast majority of people that are going to buy a Mac. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 07:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (japail) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13894 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13894 Of course, he knows his business. But think what will be on the shelves a year from now. It will be products from Dell and from Apple whose sole difference will be the OS and bundled software. The punter will immediately be able to see processor speed, disk size, memory, graphics and know that these are or are not comparably spec'd at comparable prices. At the moment he really cannot make that comparison. because of all the FUD about processors. Now, the Apple loyalists would argue, this is fine. Macs are comparably priced now, and will still be comparably priced a year from now. We'll see. I think there will turn out to be a 30% premium, at least, and I think it won't fly. Or rather, it will fly for the loyalists, who will tell themselves the usual stories. But it won't fly for the other 95% of the market. And in the end, as a strategy, this is the way to become the Amiga of this decade. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 07:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13898 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13898 Yes, it is definitely amusing how people gloss over the details of XNU in order to refer to it as FreeBSD. Apple provides extensive documentations as well as public CVS access to the source code for anyone to peruse and see the myriad of sources various pieces of code come from, the fundamental differences in the underlying design, and where common code between original sources has since diverged. Despite all of this, the base of XNU is FreeBSD and that means it's stable/fast/Real UNIX/a superhero. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 08:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (japail) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13909 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13909 Now, I'm the first to admit I know nothing first-hand about the 900 series CPU's, but knowing the thermal characteristics of Intel CPU's (disregarding the M, which I think is the best CPU Intel ever created), does the following really rhyme?

And, they won't be able to make a G5 PowerBook, because it produces too much heat, and so Apple decided to bet on Intel because Intel can get the same speeds with about 5 to 7 times less the amount of heat.

Assume we have a 3.x something GHz x86 from intel, and its thermal output is in the range 35W. How in the name of all evil can a G5 CPU emit 175-245W of thermal energy?

Assuming a somewhat similar efficiency as an Intel CPU, that wastes around 30% of the power it consumes as heat, it would mean the G5 would need about as much power as a household microwave oven, or a full-sized vacuum cleaner!

That can't be right, can it? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13910 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13910 Thank you for making the interview available. As a customer of Wim I
know he is a nice guy. But, even though I am probably not the "average" customer, my plans are definitely different from what Wim describes, because the main reason for not buying a PC still exist, the Intel processor, with its unbelievable way of processing bits (aka small-endian).
So what I'll do is, switch the major part of my processing to Linux and just keep a system for iLife type applications. With G5 iMacs getting cheaper there must be a moment that I can buy such a beast and say Goodbye to Apple (and Wim).
---
Klaas. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13911 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13911 Assume we have a 3.x something GHz x86 from intel, and its thermal output is in the range 35W. How in the name of all evil can a G5 CPU emit 175-245W of thermal energy?

Um, haven't you heard of the Pentimu M? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Johann Chua) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13913 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13913 > These are applications for Burning DVDs (and CDs) not making a DVD.

The part of Nero that does authoring is called NeroVision Express and is included in OEM bundles.

> Movie Maker's video editing capeabilities are more akin to QuickTime Pro's.

iMovie is a low end movie editor for home users. It's not much more capable than WMM2.

> Garageband is not a sequencer. Well, it can sequence audio, but its not a sequencer. An appropriate comparitive application is fruity loops.

In Acid XPress you can also create tracks by painting prerecorded loops on a roll. Why do you suppose it's so different from GB? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13915 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13915 Johann Chua wrote:
Um, haven't you heard of the Pentimu M?

No, never. Could that be the reason I stated I think it's the best CPU Intel ever created?

Sarcasm aside, you've got a point. He was talking about laptops, and obviously a P4 is not even on the radar while M is. Still, is the M really that more efficient than a G5? 5-7 times is ... much. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13919 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13919 iMovie is much more capable than Movie Maker (I kanow, I have used both.)

GB has the capability to be used as a place to lay down midi tracks from your board. you canb then mix them and put nice effects on them.

a band could actualy use garageband to create an album (like you know, a highschool garageband)

Acid Xpress is NOT like garageband in almost every way. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Who is That) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13927 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13927 Yes, it consumes less energy and produces less heat in average, but can it be honsetly compared with other CPU with same nominal clock speed?
I mean SpeedStep or alike.
If Pentium M runs permanently at its whole speed, e.g. while encoding DivX, i suspect it produces almost same heat as, to say, PIII. And maybe more than G4 Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13931 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13931 I agree. A company can't advertise and comment in the news, seminars, etc that their processor is the most powerful, fastest on the planet then retract it later with out having significant impact on how consumers view the company. Especially when the company, in this case Apple switches to Intel who they have trashed publicly in recent history. In the process of switching to Intel I do believe Apple has a lot of damage control to worry about and resellers that believe it won't be an issue seem to have their head stuck in the sand. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Dark_Knight) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13939 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13939 *sighs*

I think I need to find my asbestos underwear, because I'm carrying some gasoline in leaking containers.

We need to come to a couple of real quick understandings here. I am a Mac user. I am an Apple shareholder. I am also a Sun user and shareholder. (Come on at the current price, how can a geek *not* be a Sun shareholder). Now, with Disclaimer firmly in place.

A Mac is not a Whitebox PC as a Lamborghini Countach is not a Mitsubishi Galant. Lamborghini sells what? 10 cars a year? They have less than 1% of the total Car Market. Does your grandmother own a Lambo? Do you think Lambo cares about their position in the automotive food chain? No, because their cars are $150,000 + and they've been around long enough that they used to make farm equipment.

A Mac costs MORE than a Wintel PC. Please, embrace and accept this fact.

A Lambo is wicked fast, uses engine technology that is not broadly available in other makes and is sexy as all hell. Can I rice out my Mitsu to give supercar performance? Sure, look at the Evo. Is it as sexy? No. Is it as fun? In a lot of ways. If you offered me the keys to both and told me I could only have one, which one do you think I'd get into?

The simple fact of the matter is this: A Mac has a price premium in much the same way IBM used to have. An IBM PC almost always cost more than any other PC which at the time DID have the exact same parts.

IBM isn't dead yet, either. Please, get over it. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lrdeclpse) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13944 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13944 Over all it was a good interview article to read. Though I did find it some what confusing regarding a few comments made by Mr. Schermer as pointed out below.

Re: "Linux is a very good system, but let's be honest, it's a UNIX variant. And if you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren't many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac."

The simple answer here is choice. In that the consumer should have the freedom to run on their hardware what ever software they want and not have it decided by someone else. Also most switchers to Linux that don't choose OSX do so not because it's a UNIX variant as Mr. Schermer commented but because they are in most cases coming from a Windows background where the desktop GUI is similar to what distributions such as SuSE Linux, Mandriva Linux, Linspire, etc provide. While OSX is a good OS and it can be a useful resource to consumers it's apparent the GUI is not familiar to consumers (home, business, etc) that typically have used Windows for several years.

Re: "Of course, Linux is a good and especially compact system, there's nothing wrong with it. But, there aren't many good applications for the Linux desktop. You can't really do anything with it as an individual or small company. For servers, yes, it's very good for that. But that's just a relatively small part of the market. And it's also on solid ground in the scientific area. But the largest piece of the pie is the desktop segment; companies, individuals. Linux is on the rise, but mostly on servers."

What applications is he referring to..Office applications, graphics, etc? Post-Production studios for example have used Linux for years and have several options between commerical and open source applications to choose from. They don't just use Linux for servers or render farms but on their workstations as well. I could point out several distributions that not only offer just as much as OSX but in some cases would be easier for Windows users to transition to. This isn't just for businesses but also home consumers too. Typically the arguement from non-Linux users is that a Linux user can't buy products such as Photoshop for Linux. Well why should we when there's viable alternatives for free (ie: Gimp and Cinepaint)? With a selection of several thousand open source software applications to choose from it's hard to find reason to buy commercial software if there's a viable alternative available for free. The only thing Linux doesn't have going for it right now is mass marketing by distribution developers. It's only until this past year that I've noticed SuSE Linux and Linspire being offered through distributor channels and retail outlets. I'm sure due to the issues being raised with Windows users upgrading to Windows Vista and Apple's decision to switch to another architecture will provide increased interest in Linux. This would not only be due to what applications are available but also Linux increased support for new and legacy hardware. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Dark_Knight) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13947 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13947 We mac users are idiots in this respect. We pay more for what we think is worth it! Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13951 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13951 The Mini Mac is a great value. I'm enjoying it and safari is cool.

Even though the hard drive speeds are lower. I have successfully loaded video in to Final Cut Pro through fire wire, no problems what so ever. The deck is Panasonic and it's 2,000.00. That's 4x as much as a paid for my Mini.

No viruses, I will buy another one when it has Intel in it. I never shut the mini off. I still want a G5 though.

ken Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13954 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13954 Only in the most general sense of the word. Technically speaking, a Mac is a 'Personal Computer'. However, it's been many years since the Mac described itself that way. Some people would, and could make a case for modern Mac's being 'workstation' class computers. I'm not one of them, I always felt that to be a misnomer anyways. For what's it's worth, IBM service marked the IBM PC, and the clones of the original 4.77 mhz 8086 based IBM PC used the term 'PC' (not the full Personal Computer as you are inferring it to be) as a general moniker for 'x86 computer capable of running software designed for the IBM PC and compatable devices'. This general term does not therefore include the Mac, as it does not meet that criteria.

As an aside, it is called Virtual 'PC', not Virtual x86, though that is in fact what it is.

In short, while you may be technically correct on one level, you are incorrect on the more approriate social and conversational level.

A Mac may be a Personal Computer, it is not a PC, which in a nod to the evolution of spoken language may have started life as an acronym for Personal Computer, it has become through common usage a moniker that means x86 compatable computer. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dru_satori) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13956 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13956 Linux will not give you MS OFfice Logic, or Final Cut Pro, but do most users use those programs? I don't know about businesses and specialized software, like for dentists and small shops that like the point of sale hand holding, but how many mac users have super specialized commercial software on their macs that you won't find in Linux? ( just asking ).

Probably more than you'd guess, particularly if they have existing Mac's. There are several tools, like 4D and FileMaker that have quite a bit of custom development that's specific to Mac's. There is also a fair amount of veritcal market success that start life on NeXTstep that went to the Mac with OS X. These numbers certainly aren't on the level of projects rooted in Platform specific technologies like MS Access, Visual Basic or Delphi (Kylix is a joke), but for existing Mac shops or shops looking to go Mac, there are few niche markets that don't have Mac competitive products, and that includes the one that I work in (230 potential customers in the US, there are 5 competitors vending to them. There are 3 sites running Mac products written in 4D, some are using a product written in C#, others one in Basic, and others one in PRogress, the one I work on is in a mix of Delphi and C++).

For what it's worth, I do my development on a Mac, and am doing Mac development in my spare time, and there is a growing marketplace for custom Mac development, so this trend is only likely to continue. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dru_satori) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13959 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13959 Kelly,

I'm a Mac user, and will counter the arguments where it reasonable. You've taken to doing so at the unreasonable level, and I agree wholeheartedly with David. Please let them have their say, anyone that has done some shopping lately, at the consumer level, not at the I can build it myself level, already knows that you can buy a WinTel for a little bit less money. Notice I didn't say equivalent, because it doesn't exist. The feature sets simply aren't. An entry level Mac caters to a different need than an entry level WinTel, and that in and of itself is a large part of the issue, because you simply cannot compare true equals, and don't expect the MacTel's to change that.

An entry level WinTel is not going to have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box, because that's not it's market. An entry level Mac isn't going to arrive with a PCCard slot, because it's target market shouldn't need it.

It's not an argument that's worth having, and it's been had way too many times. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dru_satori) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13960 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13960 "A Mac may be a Personal Computer, it is not a PC"

The x86 computer for Apple will be a Mac AND a PC. I think thats the point people are making. Essentially, Apple will have all the benefits of a Windows PC, all the benefits of a Macintosh will also being fully compatible with x86 Linux and BSD all without paying more than any other comperably equipped PC from any OEM or DIY config. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13961 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13961 "But, there aren't many good applications for the Linux desktop. You can't really do anything with it as an individual or small company."

It sure sounds like he's playing down desktop linux here, or just willfully ignorant. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13963 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13963 "anyone that has done some shopping lately, at the consumer level, not at the I can build it myself level, already knows that you can buy a WinTel for a little bit less money."

I never said otherwise. Ofcourse you can build a PC for less money by equipping it with less. That's what I've been saying all along.


"you simply cannot compare true equals"

Asside from the processor, (which we can find equivilents for) and software (which we can find equivilents for) and OS (which can be matched up) the two can be matched up equally.


"you simply cannot compare true equals, and don't expect the MacTel's to change that."

As a poster mentioned (above), when Apple releases an x86 Mac, the two will be able to be compared more equally than ever before. Now, the Mac can have EXACTLY the same parts as a PC.


"An entry level WinTel is not going to have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box"

And yet it can.


"An entry level Mac isn't going to arrive with a PCCard slot, because it's target market shouldn't need it."

The PC's advantage isn't price like everyone says it is... its configurability. It allows you to buy less and pay less or buy more and pay more. Apple simply doesn't have a match for that. If an entry level Mac doesn't come with a a PCCard slot, thats a definate loss for Apple's business model, but in response again to your comment above... An entry level WinTel can indeed (and sometimes does) have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box.


"It's not an argument that's worth having, and it's been had way too many times."

Its an argument worth having because there are many that may opt to not buy a Mac based solely on the misconception that Apple charges more for less... which is false. As a Mac user, I don't like to see that happen, but as a multi-OS fan, its not like I wouldn't (or don't) do the same for any other OS that has a misconception freequently propigated about it. It's just that the price misconception seems to be the most common one quoted, so I'll respond to it and correct it whenever I see it. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13964 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13964 "anyone that has done some shopping lately, at the consumer level, not at the I can build it myself level, already knows that you can buy a WinTel for a little bit less money."

I never said otherwise. Ofcourse you can build a PC for less money by equipping it with less. That's what I've been saying all along.


"you simply cannot compare true equals"

Asside from the processor, (which we can find equivilents for) and software (which we can find equivilents for) and OS (which can be matched up) the two can be matched up equally.


"you simply cannot compare true equals, and don't expect the MacTel's to change that."

As a poster mentioned (above), when Apple releases an x86 Mac, the two will be able to be compared more equally than ever before. Now, the Mac can have EXACTLY the same parts as a PC.


"An entry level WinTel is not going to have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box"

And yet it can.


"An entry level Mac isn't going to arrive with a PCCard slot, because it's target market shouldn't need it."

The PC's advantage isn't price like everyone says it is... its configurability. It allows you to buy less and pay less or buy more and pay more. Apple simply doesn't have a match for that. If an entry level Mac doesn't come with a a PCCard slot, thats a definate loss for Apple's business model, but in response again to your comment above... An entry level WinTel can indeed (and sometimes does) have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box.


"It's not an argument that's worth having, and it's been had way too many times."

Its an argument worth having because there are many that may opt to not buy a Mac based solely on the misconception that Apple charges more for less... which is false. As a Mac user, I don't like to see that happen, but as a multi-OS fan, its not like I wouldn't (or don't) do the same for any other OS that has a misconception freequently propigated about it. It's just that the price misconception seems to be the most common one quoted, so I'll respond to it and correct it whenever I see it. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13966 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13966 The x86 computer for Apple will be a Mac AND a PC. I think thats the point people are making. Essentially, Apple will have all the benefits of a Windows PC, all the benefits of a Macintosh will also being fully compatible with x86 Linux and BSD all without paying more than any other comperably equipped PC from any OEM or DIY config

I don't think so. While it will share many of the same guts, most Macs today already do, the only real differences in what's inside is a CPU and chipset, a Mac wll continue to differentiate itself by design and implementation. We already know that will happen with the first generation MacTel's. We've already been told that Apple intends on using Intel's new BIOS, which to this point none of the x86 vendors are doing. We also can be fairly certain that Apple will continue it's emphasis on leveraging the hardware, and that means that they will continue to integrate the OS to the hardware to tweak performance and functions. This is probably the biggest reason _against_ opening the OS to any x86 box. Once you get into generic systems, and the general x86 'Reference Designs' that make up the vast bulk of x86 hardware today, you get into Least Common Denominator territory.

LCD is the great weakness of all the x86 proponents. It means making sacrifices for non-optimized hardware, or worse, implementing a hundred little kludges around known LCD issues, sacrificing performance and stability. I don't expect Apple to go down this path. While Windows and Linux will probably run on the hardware, don't expect Apple to go out of their way to make that easier. Their only interest will lie in tweaking the Hardware and OS X to work together as smoothly as possible.

I do have a Transition Kit, and while I can't say anything more than that about it, I can say with confidence that the next 5 years are going to be a hell of alot of fun for the entire IT industry as Intel, Microsoft, Apple and AMD lay waste to the stagnate rate of innovation in hardware and operating systems of the past 10 years. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dru_satori) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13968 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13968 I didn't tell you that you couldn't trot out the whole "Macs are too expensive no they're not" issue. I said that you shouldn't. You don't have to obey me, and I won't retaliate against you if you don't.

And, like Eugenia, I read this site often enough to get a little tired of the same old flamewars. And, like Eugenia, I feel it's my right to say so. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (David) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13972 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13972 David, thanks for clearing that up.

>I read this site often enough to get a little tired of the same old flamewars.

May I ask why you don't comment to those that insight the flame wars but instead only do so to those that correct them?

(In regards to Eugenia, I agree... it is yours (and was hers) to say so. I was Eluding to how she had freequently modded-down comments she disagreed with and sometimes ban those that would repeatedly make comments she disagreed with.) Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13974 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13974 Defending Apple on hardware value is just dumb. A $40 Audigy Value includes both digital out and in (iMac has only digital out). A three port FW800 card costs $35 (iMac has only FW400). Gigabit ethernet cards go for less than $15. A DVD-RW drive costs $40 (how much to upgrade to a "Superdrive" in the Mini?). Many "high-end" features are actually pretty cheap. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13987 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13987 Defending Apple on hardware value is just dumb. A $40 Audigy Value includes both digital out and in (iMac has only digital out). A three port FW800 card costs $35 (iMac has only FW400). Gigabit ethernet cards go for less than $15. A DVD-RW drive costs $40 (how much to upgrade to a "Superdrive" in the Mini?). Many "high-end" features are actually pretty cheap.

And yet, the vendors that do include these features, by default, are all priced on par with the Apple hardware, or, in many cases, higher. I point to AlienWare as an example, where you are paying a premium to get an excellently integrated and designed piece of hardware, that uses commodity x86 parts, and yet is price competitive, not with the Dell's or DIY's that people trot out as reasons why the Mac is too expensive, but with the Mac's particularly the Professional Mac's.

I'm not arguing that they aren't cheap, or that they cannot be had, I'm arguing that the configurations that are trotted out in the price flamewars aren't equal comparisons, and in most cases cannot be made to be equal without using third party or after market addons, and more importantly, that these products are not targeted at the same consumer.

A potential Mini customer isn't shopping AlienWare, but then again, AlienWare is building workstation class PC's and selling them to Gamers, while Apple is building Workstation class Mac's and selling them to developer's, artists and anyone else interested in Unix machines that just work. Again, different targets. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dru_satori) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?13999 http://www.osnews.com/thread?13999 Of course. Alienware, Sony etc are in the market of premium computers, just like Apple. You do pay for the branding, and there is nothing wrong with that. Unlike Apple however, you don't get hordes of Alienware or Sony fans jumping to their defense if you dare to mention that you can get better hardware for less money elsewhere. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14021 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14021 "just like Apple. You do pay for the branding, and there is nothing wrong with that."

Thats the misconception. You're NOT baying more for branding. You're paying more, for more product... and no I'm not referring to better design or anything else that might be regarded as subjective. I'm referring to you getting more... and so you pay more. When you look at it like that, you're not actually paying more... you're just getting fewer options to choose less and thus pay less. A PC equipped with the same specs in hardware software and operating system will cost the same (if not more) than any Macintosh. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14022 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14022 That would be because unlike Apple, they are just bit players in the saturated WinTel marketplace, so it's not often you see a comparison of an AlienWare Area-51 to a Dell DImension 3100, because the aren't targetted at the same users, which is in short, my point, and why I feel that it's not relevant to argue price of computers with different target demographics.

And yet, I managed to get sucked into that very debate. Call me foolish... Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dru_satori) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14041 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14041 I'm referring to you getting more... and so you pay more.

Kelly, Kelly, Kelly. I told you already in various threads, and even on AIM: this is a totallly subjective matter and not as black&white as you're putting it here. *You* might find that you're getting "more" when you buy a Mac, but for someone else, say a heavy gamer, that simply doesn't go! That gamer will be a lot better off with an x86 machine, because we all know that most games are made for x86 first, and then for Mac (if at all).

You see? People like us, Mac users, we get "more" from our Mac and pay for that "more". However, not everyone sees the things you get with a Mac as "more". If Joe wants to play games, a Mac will be useless to him.

You get it now? I'm really starting to lose my patience here. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14043 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14043 Why wouldn't a person make price comparisons of comperabley equipped PCs? Who cares who its targeted at? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14060 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14060 > Thats the misconception. You're NOT baying more for branding. You're paying more, for more product...

The real misconception is that things like FW800, GigE, optical digital IO etc that Apple users seem to think as high end features are actually quite cheap. Low end PCs don't include them, so if you have no need for them anyway, you're better off. If you do need them, adding them afterwards still does not raise the price very much.

Apple can only offer a limited set of configurations. If they happen to suit you, great, but PCs offer much more choice. Tell me, what are your options from Apple if you want a computer with a more powerful card than a Radeon 9600? What is the cheapest Apple computer with FW800? Can I equip any of them with two GigE ports besides the PMG5? Or RAID? Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14061 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14061 "That gamer will be a lot better off with an x86 machine, because we all know that most games are made for x86 first, and then for Mac (if at all)."

Thom, as I replied back to you... you are 100% correct but not for the reasons you're eluding to. Yes, an x86 machine *IS* better for games, but not because of its better price but because of its adaptability and configurability. You're able to buy the parts that are more specific to your needs. In essence, you can buy more and spend more or buy less and spend less. That doesn't mean that PCs are less expensive, it simply means that they're more configurable.

Somewhere along the line you seem to think that I'm of the mindset that a Mac is the most ideal solution for all purposes. I know thats not the case and thats not what I've been saying. Rather, I'm simply contesting the statement that a Mac is the more expensive machine. It *CAN* be if you want to only buy specific hardware and nothing more, but as I've been saying repeatedly over and over again... "A Mac is not more expensive than a comparably equipped PC." And thats true.

I find it concerning that so many have such a hard time clinging to that concept. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kellym) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14065 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14065 This isn't necessarily a bad thing :-), it also means that the OS has fewer permutation of a configuration to support, and reduces the risk of the old Modem and COM port conflicts that plagued Windows until Windows 2000 :-), or the Network card driver stomping on Video card memory in ring 0 causing a kernel panic and BSOD in Windows XP, because they are trying to share an interupt or DMA channel. It's the old trade off of control and consistancy versus freedom and inconsistancy. Both have pros and cons. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dru_satori) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14081 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14081 Thom, as I replied back to you... you are 100% correct but not for the reasons you're eluding to. Yes, an x86 machine *IS* better for games, but not because of its better price but because of its adaptability and configurability.

Doesn't that configurability counts as a "more" for the x86?

Somewhere along the line you seem to think that I'm of the mindset that a Mac is the most ideal solution for all purposes.

Where did I say that?

Rather, I'm simply contesting the statement that a Mac is the more expensive machine.

You've been saying that a Mac isn't expensive because of the "pay more, get more". All I've been trying to do is expain to you (something tells me I'll have more luck telling a floortile to flip), that not everyone regards the stuff you get with a Mac as "more". The conclusion one can draw from that, is that for some people, a Mac is the more expensive machine, and for some (like me), it isn't.

It's similair to having a discussion over what you'll do with a million Euros. My parents will say that they wanna add a new wing to their house. To which I will say, "damn, our house is big enough, a waste of money. I will buy myself an Aston Martin DB9" (202 000 Euros), to which my parents will say: "you already have a car, you'll not be able to get any faster from A to B with an Aston!"

It's all a matter of needs and wants, Kelly. As long as you don't understand that, discussing this issue with you is a complete was of time (now, where's that floortile?).

I find it concerning that so many have such a hard time clinging to that concept.

Maybe that's because you're not right? I'm sorry, but I have more faith in Wim Schermer, who has been leading a succesfull company that's growing with 50% a year, then in you. Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14225 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14225 Look, if a user can do all he wants with a Windows PC for 800E, then to that user, a 1500E iMac, which doesn't let him do more, is simply more expensive. Get over it. 1500E is more than 800E.

Good Point.
However,
a Dell Inspiron xps gen 2 Notebook IS MORE EXPENSIVE then an Dell Inspiron 600 notebook. If these Smart Critics of Apple would apply the same ILLOGIC to Dell then there'd be No Argument.

But, someone Unwilling to pay 2200 dollars for a top end Powerbook will SIMPLY SAY APPLE's are too expensive. On top of that they justifiy their criticism by doing a Half-Assed price comparison.

The problem boils down to people desperately trying to prove that a VW is a BMW. If a VW meets your needs then be Happy and leave us, that use computers hard and "Get" Apple's Value, alone. Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14293 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14293 It would be interesting if someone wrote a hardware price comparison web page.

The user could select from a variety of weightings (based on usage of the machine) and then compare systems from different vendors.

I am surprised one of the shopping sites does not make such a thing.

With such a web page / app, it would make some of these comparisons less about viewpoints and more about numbers. Sat, 06 Aug 2005 06:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (pravda) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?14563 http://www.osnews.com/thread?14563 you people are a bunch of losers.. I spend a ton of time in various OSes but jeez, ive never sat and argued over a fscking price point.

and i thought i had no life... Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?17473 http://www.osnews.com/thread?17473 No one, except for those who are trying to be sarcastic is suggesting that a faster Mini would compete with a Powermac. That's just insane.

It would compete with the eMac, and the low end $1295 iMac G5.

The eMac is not much different except for the crt. The 17" iMac is not too much more than a Mini with a 17" LCD plus keyboard and mouse. Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (melgross) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?17475 http://www.osnews.com/thread?17475 No, I don't agree. He's right. I never found Linux to be useful. It's fine to play around with. If you want to use the stuff available to have fun with as a hobby, it's fine. But it's just too much hassle for those of us who want to use our systems rather than play with them. Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (melgross) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?17476 http://www.osnews.com/thread?17476 Mostly terrible packages from the standpoint of general usability, thats why.

On the desktop, Linux is still a hobbyist OS.

the difference is that with OS X the computer can be your hobby, with Linux the OS must be your hobby. Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (melgross) Comments