iLife Quietly Moves Intel Dual Core Only
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Feb 2009 07:05 UTC
Apple Apple has always been about moving forward, about pressing customers to buy the latest and greatest. Product pacing has been high in Cupertino (except for the Mac Mini, obviously), and this is obviously a good thing if you're an Apple bean counter. Most Apple fans more or less accept this planned obsolescence without question, but the company may have just gone a little too far.
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 60 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/g4t
Thread beginning with comment 347162
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Two points
by Bounty on Wed 4th Feb 2009 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Two points"
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

Right. And let's say you bought a computer with Windows XP on it at the time that you bought your G4. Are you saying that you could have bought Vista Ultimate and ran EVERYTHING that is part of Ultimate and that you could run EVERY game that game out in the last year? I'm knowledgeably saying no to both. No you wouldn't have been able to run everything in Vista and no you wouldn't have been able to run ALL of the newest games. So you would be limited either way. You also KNEW that Apple wasn't going to be sticking with PowerPC chips when the G5 came out. The problems with IBM and Motorola updating the G5 chip for iMacs and Mac Pros, let alone laptops, was ALL over the web even before the G5 came out. Which is why I didn't buy a G5. I also didn't buy an early Intel Mac because I was pretty certain that there would be bugs to work out. I waited until the Core2Duo's came out and only then bought a new iMac. In the meantime my wife and I used, and still use, our 2000 800mhz G4 iMac lamp and our 800mhz G4 PowerBook, which I'm writing this on, by the way. I've been wanting a Mac mini for over a year now. At the time it had been just under 180 days since the last time that the Mac Mini had been updated and I figured I'm not going to buy a new one until it has been updated again. I'm still waiting at 530 some days or so for it to be updated. I'm not going to buy one know that if I bought one before it gets updated I would be pretty upset when it did. I in no way feel screwed that my G4s can't install Mac OS 10.5.



I'm gonna go ahead and call this a Troll... You're going to compare what games you can run on a PC purchased in 2006 v.s. a PPC imac purchased at the same time in the same price bracket.... MAUAHAHAMAUAHAMAUIAHAMAMAUAHAHAA

(p.s. This may be a foregin concept for iMac users, but on a PC you can purchase this thing called a video card upgrade for about 100$, and run all of Vista's features and all PC games.)

Edited 2009-02-04 16:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Two points
by weildish on Thu 5th Feb 2009 06:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Two points"
weildish Member since:
2008-12-06

(p.s. This may be a foregin concept for iMac users, but on a PC you can purchase this thing called a video card upgrade for about 100$, and run all of Vista's features and all PC games.)


You know, I've heard of that? It's genius! I think the general term is called "customization." I read about people who actually build their own computers with as little or as much power as they want and with as high or as low quality parts as they want, usually for cheaper than buying from a manufacturer. Fancy that! Installing whatever you want on most hardware available! Power to the consumer!

Sarcasm aside, Apple artificially disabling hardware and software? I don't follow Apple as much as MS and some open source, but have they been practicing this for their entire existence? If this is a new concept, I don't see it helping computer sales in the future. They're hurting enough as it is because the price-to-power ratio when compared with non-Mac PCs is in favor of the non-Macs, especially in this economy. Bad move, I say. It'll only lose them customers. But then Apple really doesn't make a ton of profits from Macs when you look at iPhones and iPods and all of their other iStuff.

On the other hand, I can see why Apple's doing it. Letting new software run on hardware incapable of running it properly will often result in some negative light. But doesn't it seem a little... totalitarian to limit people's choice on what hardware to run their software on? That's what system requirements on the side of the box are for. Just make sure the requirements are high enough to run the software well, and most people, especially Mac users, will know that they're taking a risk of poor performance to run on a machine that doesn't meet the standards.

**getting off my soapbox and going to bed**

Edited 2009-02-05 06:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1