Hardware upgrading - a bad thing.
zara
Warchild
"zara" <zsp...@visionnet.net> wrote:
> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
And anybody who owns a Wintel laptop....
Michelle Ronn
> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
Is it really worth upgrading hardware these days? Usually, I want a new
graphics card, larger/faster hard drive, faster processor and more RAM.
That alone can justify the cost of a new machine.
Adding to that, whenever AMD or Intel do a major processor revision, it
is almost a given that the RAM has to be swapped out.
Just doesn't make economic sense to upgrade. I usually just replace my
equipment every 2-3 years. The monitors seem to migrate, but that is
about it.
Snit
2006102620394116807-micron@invalidnet on 10/26/06 8:39 PM:
True for most users... and even monitors are passed on with the rest of the
old system. Only a very small percentage of users ever upgrade their
machines.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
I slapped a combo RAID/USB/Firewire card in my desktop when I got my
camcorder. I also added two 300 Gb HDs. It makes perfect sense to
upgrade if you're adapting your machine to new uses.
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
Peter Hayes
> "Michelle Ronn" <mic...@invalid.net> stated in post
> 2006102620394116807-micron@invalidnet on 10/26/06 8:39 PM:
>
>> On 2006-10-26 17:19:38 -0700, "zara" <zsp...@visionnet.net> said:
>>
>>> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
>>
>> Is it really worth upgrading hardware these days? Usually, I want a
>> new graphics card, larger/faster hard drive, faster processor and
>> more RAM. That alone can justify the cost of a new machine. Adding
>> to that, whenever AMD or Intel do a major processor revision, it is
>> almost a given that the RAM has to be swapped out. Just doesn't make
>> economic sense to upgrade. I usually just replace my equipment every
>> 2-3 years. The monitors seem to migrate, but that is about it.
>
> True for most users... and even monitors are passed on with the rest
> of the old system. Only a very small percentage of users ever upgrade
> their machines.
That'll be why every PC store carries a wide variety of parts,
everything you need to build or upgrade your PC.
--
Peter
Snit
20061027133...@news.individual.net on 10/27/06 5:32 AM:
And yet, it is still true that only a small percentage of computer users
every upgrade their machines. The fact that a small percentage do, and that
this small percentage leads to a decent sized market, does not alter that.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Steve Carroll
Peter Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
I know... it's amazing how many of these kinds of stores are around,
too. Most every PC using neighbor on my block has upgraded their machine
in some way or other.
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit
Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself - Snit
I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit
zara
"Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:noone-E8CE01....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <20061027133...@news.individual.net>,
> Peter Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> In <C166D77E.63DE3%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> Snit wrote:
>> > "Michelle Ronn" <mic...@invalid.net> stated in post
>> > 2006102620394116807-micron@invalidnet on 10/26/06 8:39 PM:
>> >
>> >> On 2006-10-26 17:19:38 -0700, "zara" <zsp...@visionnet.net> said:
>> >>
>> >>> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
>> >>
>> >> Is it really worth upgrading hardware these days? Usually, I want a
>> >> new graphics card, larger/faster hard drive, faster processor and
>> >> more RAM. That alone can justify the cost of a new machine. Adding
>> >> to that, whenever AMD or Intel do a major processor revision, it is
>> >> almost a given that the RAM has to be swapped out. Just doesn't make
>> >> economic sense to upgrade. I usually just replace my equipment every
>> >> 2-3 years. The monitors seem to migrate, but that is about it.
>> >
>> > True for most users... and even monitors are passed on with the rest
>> > of the old system. Only a very small percentage of users ever upgrade
>> > their machines.
>>
>> That'll be why every PC store carries a wide variety of parts,
>> everything you need to build or upgrade your PC.
>
> I know... it's amazing how many of these kinds of stores are around,
> too. Most every PC using neighbor on my block has upgraded their machine
> in some way or other.
Because they can if they want - maccies can't, if they want.
zara
"Michelle Ronn" <mic...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:2006102620394116807-micron@invalidnet...
I agree.
Steve Carroll
"zara" <zsp...@visionnet.net> wrote:
Things upgraded on my Macs over the years that I can quickly recall:
1 - CPU
2 - SCSI I/O
3 - RAM
4 - hard drives
5 - graphic subsystems (even the video RAM on one Mac)
6 - CD/DVD drives
7 - ZIP drive
8 - tape drive
9 - DSP processing cards (audio)
10 - USB I/O
11 - audio subsystems
12 - PCI expansion module for additional PCI slots
Snit
8ko0h.75050$zF5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net on 10/27/06 7:03 AM:
That's funny - I have upgraded and replaced Macs with hard drives, memory,
floppy drives, zip drives, mice, keyboards, etc. All very easy to do -
well, other than hard drives in some of the iMacs... even then not hard but
far too time consuming and too many darn screws.
Peter Hayes
wrote:
> In article <20061027133...@news.individual.net>,
> Peter Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> In <C166D77E.63DE3%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> Snit wrote:
>> > "Michelle Ronn" <mic...@invalid.net> stated in post
>> > 2006102620394116807-micron@invalidnet on 10/26/06 8:39 PM:
>> >
>> >> On 2006-10-26 17:19:38 -0700, "zara" <zsp...@visionnet.net> said:
>> >>
>> >>> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
>> >>
>> >> Is it really worth upgrading hardware these days? Usually, I want
>> >> a new graphics card, larger/faster hard drive, faster processor
>> >> and more RAM. That alone can justify the cost of a new machine.
>> >> Adding to that, whenever AMD or Intel do a major processor
>> >> revision, it is almost a given that the RAM has to be swapped out.
>> >> Just doesn't make economic sense to upgrade. I usually just
>> >> replace my equipment every 2-3 years. The monitors seem to
>> >> migrate, but that is about it.
>> >
>> > True for most users... and even monitors are passed on with the
>> > rest of the old system. Only a very small percentage of users
>> > ever upgrade their machines.
>>
>> That'll be why every PC store carries a wide variety of parts,
>> everything you need to build or upgrade your PC.
>
> I know... it's amazing how many of these kinds of stores are around,
> too. Most every PC using neighbor on my block has upgraded their
> machine in some way or other.
Graphics cards especially. The turnround for new GPU hardware is four or
five months and buying a new PC for every graphics card upgrade is
totally out of the question, especially for the gamer wanting to keep on
the edge. They'll invest in a new motherboard for PCI Express or SLI
perhaps, but recycle a lot of other stuff.
One side effect of Vista's "two install" EULA will be to scupper these
upgrades and kill off the component market. Thanks, Microsoft. Not.
--
Peter
Snit
You hit on the primary - though of course not the only - market that looks
to upgrades: gamers. Many of them do upgrade their video cards several
times... and add hard drive space and memory. Most users, however, do not
do this... simply not worth the time, effort, and money to do so. Heck,
look how well the mini and, especially, iMac do - how many people even add
memory to those?
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
Walter Bushell
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Michelle Ronn" <mic...@invalid.net> stated in post
> 2006102620394116807-micron@invalidnet on 10/26/06 8:39 PM:
>
> > On 2006-10-26 17:19:38 -0700, "zara" <zsp...@visionnet.net> said:
> >
> >> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
> >
> > Is it really worth upgrading hardware these days? Usually, I want a new
> > graphics card, larger/faster hard drive, faster processor and more RAM.
> > That alone can justify the cost of a new machine.
> >
> > Adding to that, whenever AMD or Intel do a major processor revision, it
> > is almost a given that the RAM has to be swapped out.
> >
> > Just doesn't make economic sense to upgrade. I usually just replace my
> > equipment every 2-3 years. The monitors seem to migrate, but that is
> > about it.
>
> True for most users... and even monitors are passed on with the rest of the
> old system. Only a very small percentage of users ever upgrade their
> machines.
Beyond memory.
--
Divided we stand!
Snit
proto-978EA0....@reader2.panix.com on 10/27/06 9:38 AM:
I would say the most common upgrade is memory expansion... though even with
that most people never do it. Compared to, say, adding common peripherals
such as printers, scanners, or connecting things like iPods and cameras,
there is no comparison... people use the external connectivity far more.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Walter Bushell
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Most machines are standard with inadequate memory, maybe they get their
dealer to upgrade memory, I suppose that doesn't count.
--
Divided we stand!
Walter Bushell
"zara" <zsp...@visionnet.net> wrote:
People who are heavily into games do however. Remember they have paid a
hugh share of the processor development relative to their numbers.
--
Divided we stand!
Walter Bushell
Peter Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Unfortunate. Those people pay more than their fair share of compute r
technology advancement. We all benefit from their profligate ways.
--
Divided we stand!
Snit
I am thinking in terms of after the consumer gets it.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Mitch
> > True for most users... and even monitors are passed on with the rest
> > of the old system. Only a very small percentage of users ever upgrade
> > their machines.
>
> That'll be why every PC store carries a wide variety of parts,
> everything you need to build or upgrade your PC.
The fact that there are such stores doesn't really mean that there are
a large percentage of users buying the parts. -- you're building an
assumption out of the simple presence of those.
Nevertheless, you are both right -- lots of computer owners do upgrade
parts, or even build their own, and lots of people never do anything
inside the case.
Just because both situations exist doesn't actually establish an
advantage to either one until you know much more about which parts are
replaced and why (and why the new-package buyer chose that).
Personally, I like to be able to replace and upgrade things -- and my
Macs have always been able to. It's a myth that this has been a major
difference between platforms.
Mitch
<not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Graphics cards especially. The turnround for new GPU hardware is four or
> five months and buying a new PC for every graphics card upgrade is
> totally out of the question, especially for the gamer wanting to keep on
> the edge. They'll invest in a new motherboard for PCI Express or SLI
> perhaps, but recycle a lot of other stuff.
Okay, but isn't the user who is interested in buying every GPU upgrade
a real rarity?
I mean, gamers and gamer reviews keep talking about how often they do
NOT buy the latest and greatest, and yet that seems to be all that they
are concerned about in hardware -- are they actually buying quite a few
of the newest cards?
> One side effect of Vista's "two install" EULA will be to scupper these
> upgrades and kill off the component market. Thanks, Microsoft. Not.
Yes, that's gonna make a lot of people angry.
I can't believe it's really going to happen -- even Microsoft has to
know that isn't how many users work.
Steve de Mena
You will be able to upgrade Vista more than you
can XP without "triggering" a re-activation.
Steve
Peter Hayes
> You will be able to upgrade Vista more than you
> can XP without "triggering" a re-activation.
Cite?
People who go to lan parties frequently do a clean install beforehand.
It guarantees a virus free package and maximum performance.
If Vista just pops up a silly notice saying 30 days to activation as XP
does, fine, but if immediate activation is mandatory then it's a big no
no.
--
Peter
Wayne Stuart
> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
Provocative trolling aside...
I see both sides of the argument here. Clearly, Apple's range does not
cover every need and want of every buyer. Upgradability of their
affordable, consumer desktop range being the one area they lapse in.
For many, it's a non-issue, but for others - whether staunch Maccies
like to admit it or not - it's a very real reason why some perceive they
cannot choose a Mac.
On one hand, there's the iMac. I'm not going to criticise the iMac too
much. Not perfect, but it's an attractive, small form factor,
integrated appliance that serves its purpose, serves it well, and IMHO,
would make an excellent choice for the majority of consumers needs.
Probably why I've got one myself.
But on the other hand, I've always thought there is room in the consumer
range for something which the iMac does not cover. Someone who wants a
modest degree of expandability without having to pay MacPro prices.
Separate interchangeable monitor; additional/easily replaceable internal
hard drive; interchangeable graphics card. Sort of a sensibly priced
MacShuttle. That right there is a gap in the Mac range that I think is
worth filling.
The Mini was a step in that sort of direction - having separate monitor
- but while it doesn't fit the other expandability issues, it's not
meant to. Which is fine. But I've still always had issue with it.
They made it small. So small, it's only large enough to accommodate a
comparatively small and slow, lower $/gb ratio laptop hard drive. So
this begs the question, why did they need to it to be so small? Would
it have been so bad to make it big enough to accommodate a 3.5" drive at
least? Would that have made it so much less suitable for its purpose?
One could easily see how such a decision could be seen as typical Apple
style over substance...
And why the hell make the thing so difficult to get into? Why clips as
opposed to good old fashioned screws? Clearly they didn't *want* anyone
to get into it for any degree of user serviceability; and of that, I can
see no logic.
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
Snit
1hnxf7e.5g1ufqp3sk3fN%m...@privacy.net on 10/28/06 8:32 AM:
> zara <zsp...@visionnet.net> wrote:
>
>> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
>
> Provocative trolling aside...
>
> I see both sides of the argument here. Clearly, Apple's range does not
> cover every need and want of every buyer. Upgradability of their
> affordable, consumer desktop range being the one area they lapse in.
> For many, it's a non-issue, but for others - whether staunch Maccies
> like to admit it or not - it's a very real reason why some perceive they
> cannot choose a Mac.
I list it as one of the facts that piss trolls off:
Computer / industry facts:
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Needless to say, the trolls that this fact pisses off are mostly folks who
support the Mac.
>
> On one hand, there's the iMac. I'm not going to criticise the iMac too
> much. Not perfect, but it's an attractive, small form factor,
> integrated appliance that serves its purpose, serves it well, and IMHO,
> would make an excellent choice for the majority of consumers needs.
> Probably why I've got one myself.
I plan on getting one next summer. Before the iMac supported dual monitors
it was a no-go for me... even though there were hacks to make the older ones
do that. With the Intel Macs this is no longer an issue - and in my mind
Apple *creating* that issue was absurd - seems they went out of their way to
cripple machines.
Then again, at least one person in CSMA is whining that Apple will not
cripple the machine it sells them by shipping it with no OS or related
software. I called Apple and it turns out if you really do want a machine
crippled in such a way you can get it. Odd.
> But on the other hand, I've always thought there is room in the consumer
> range for something which the iMac does not cover. Someone who wants a
> modest degree of expandability without having to pay MacPro prices.
> Separate interchangeable monitor; additional/easily replaceable internal
> hard drive; interchangeable graphics card. Sort of a sensibly priced
> MacShuttle. That right there is a gap in the Mac range that I think is
> worth filling.
I think Apple hopes those folks will save up and get a MacPro. And, I
admit, it worked for me... I have an older tower.
> The Mini was a step in that sort of direction - having separate monitor
> - but while it doesn't fit the other expandability issues, it's not
> meant to. Which is fine. But I've still always had issue with it.
> They made it small. So small, it's only large enough to accommodate a
> comparatively small and slow, lower $/gb ratio laptop hard drive. So
> this begs the question, why did they need to it to be so small? Would
> it have been so bad to make it big enough to accommodate a 3.5" drive at
> least? Would that have made it so much less suitable for its purpose?
> One could easily see how such a decision could be seen as typical Apple
> style over substance...
Style matters - I know several people who purchased a mini because it was
small and easy to move around. I would not, however, be opposed to Apple
either making it a tad bigger or adding a JumboMini which would be a little
bigger (and have a funny name). :)
> And why the hell make the thing so difficult to get into? Why clips as
> opposed to good old fashioned screws? Clearly they didn't *want* anyone
> to get into it for any degree of user serviceability; and of that, I can
> see no logic.
If it had no screws but was still easy to snap open it would make more sense
to me... I do not get the current idea of making it so hard to get into.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Walter Bushell
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> Yes, that's gonna make a lot of people angry.
> I can't believe it's really going to happen -- even Microsoft has to
> know that isn't how many users work.
Do they care? They have a serious piracy problem, and if their solutions
cripples a small subset of their users, its just a price they have to
pay.
Gamers could always go to Linux, no?
--
Divided we stand!
Peter Hayes
> In article <271020062211320816%mi...@hawaii.rr>,
> Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's gonna make a lot of people angry.
>> I can't believe it's really going to happen -- even Microsoft has to
>> know that isn't how many users work.
>
> Do they care? They have a serious piracy problem, and if their
> solutions cripples a small subset of their users, its just a price
> they have to pay.
Gamers have driven hardware development. They may be a small subset of
Microsoft users but their importance is way out of proportion to their
numbers. Microsoft ignore them at their peril.
> Gamers could always go to Linux, no?
Certainly.
And if Linux becomes the gaming platform of choice that will really kill
off Microsoft.
--
Peter
ZnU
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> zara <zsp...@visionnet.net> wrote:
>
> > According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
>
> Provocative trolling aside...
>
> I see both sides of the argument here. Clearly, Apple's range does not
> cover every need and want of every buyer. Upgradability of their
> affordable, consumer desktop range being the one area they lapse in.
> For many, it's a non-issue, but for others - whether staunch Maccies
> like to admit it or not - it's a very real reason why some perceive they
> cannot choose a Mac.
>
> On one hand, there's the iMac. I'm not going to criticise the iMac too
> much. Not perfect, but it's an attractive, small form factor,
> integrated appliance that serves its purpose, serves it well, and IMHO,
> would make an excellent choice for the majority of consumers needs.
> Probably why I've got one myself.
>
> But on the other hand, I've always thought there is room in the consumer
> range for something which the iMac does not cover. Someone who wants a
> modest degree of expandability without having to pay MacPro prices.
> Separate interchangeable monitor; additional/easily replaceable internal
> hard drive; interchangeable graphics card. Sort of a sensibly priced
> MacShuttle. That right there is a gap in the Mac range that I think is
> worth filling.
There is some demand for this... but it's *vastly* over-represented in
CSMA. The pool of users who are interested in internal expandability,
but who aren't willing to shell out the case for hardware in the Mac
Pro's price range, is basically restricted to computer hobbyists and a
minority of the gaming market.
The gamers probably wouldn't buy Macs anyway because game availability
on OS X frankly isn't that great, and many people in the hobbyist market
wouldn't buy them because Apple is not going to let you build your own
Mac from parts anytime soon.
This idea that if Apple introduced a consumer tower, the Mac's market
share would explode, is complete nonsense. Apple's current range of
consumer machines is much better suited to the actual needs of the
consumer market than the cheap towers that Dell sells.
[snip]
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
Walter Bushell
Peter Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> In <proto-8338AF....@reader2.panix.com> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <271020062211320816%mi...@hawaii.rr>,
> > Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, that's gonna make a lot of people angry.
> >> I can't believe it's really going to happen -- even Microsoft has to
> >> know that isn't how many users work.
> >
> > Do they care? They have a serious piracy problem, and if their
> > solutions cripples a small subset of their users, its just a price
> > they have to pay.
>
> Gamers have driven hardware development. They may be a small subset of
> Microsoft users but their importance is way out of proportion to their
> numbers. Microsoft ignore them at their peril.
Why is there importance large relative to their numbers, they buy more
hardware sure but they haven't been upgrading operating systems. The
enterprise uses don't care about games, except negatively.
>
> > Gamers could always go to Linux, no?
>
> Certainly.
>
> And if Linux becomes the gaming platform of choice that will really kill
> off Microsoft.
One can hope.
--
Divided we stand!
Wayne Stuart
I'm not a gamer (much) or a hobbyist (much), but I'd like a bit of
internal upgradeability. Am I uncommon? Can you not conceive that
anyone outside of these generalisations could even make use of a second
internal HD?
> The gamers probably wouldn't buy Macs anyway because game availability
> on OS X frankly isn't that great, and many people in the hobbyist market
> wouldn't buy them because Apple is not going to let you build your own
> Mac from parts anytime soon.
>
> This idea that if Apple introduced a consumer tower, the Mac's market
> share would explode, is complete nonsense. Apple's current range of
> consumer machines is much better suited to the actual needs of the
> consumer market than the cheap towers that Dell sells.
That's not what I'm suggesting. The Mac's market share will not be
exploding, no matter what Apple does to its hardware range; arguably nor
should it. No, what I'm suggesting is an additional model in the range
that *existing* Apple customers may find fits their needs and wants
better than the model they do get; possibly reluctantly. And as an
added bonus, *may* attracts a few extra customers to the brand who were
previously *not* prepared to compromise on a non-expandable iMac or an
out of their budget MacPro.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
And yet the availability of these parts is increasing. What do you
now that the people who make their living catering to these trends
don't?
>
>The gamers probably wouldn't buy Macs anyway because game availability
>on OS X frankly isn't that great, and many people in the hobbyist market
>wouldn't buy them because Apple is not going to let you build your own
>Mac from parts anytime soon.
Apple isn't going to support anything beyond the official machines as
a way to limit their costs. That's all the much vaunted 'tight
integration' is. They limit your choice to limit their costs, charge
you out the wazoo and you say 'Thank you very much! May I please have
another?!'. Its all quite amusing to watch.
>This idea that if Apple introduced a consumer tower, the Mac's market
>share would explode, is complete nonsense. Apple's current range of
>consumer machines is much better suited to the actual needs of the
>consumer market than the cheap towers that Dell sells.
Not really. There's nothing an iMac or a Mini does that you can't do
on a low end Dell or HP, etc. What you can do on the PCs but not the
Mac is order a base model and move your other parts over to it as a
way of doing a cheap and quick upgrade. I know lots and lots of people
who've done that.
>
>[snip]
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
ZnU
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
It's extremely rare, in my experience. Are there such statistical
outliers? Yes. But that's exactly what they are. Apple makes products
suitable for more 90% of the consumer market, and their existing market
share is nowhere close to that. There is a *huge* amount of room for
Apple to grow before it becomes necessary for them to start fulfilling
more obscure requirements if they want to grow further.
Hell, the mainstream corporate market is a much bigger target than
"people who don't want to buy a Mac pro but want internal
expandability", and Apple's current hardware is quite suitable for that
market as well. (Their issue there is mostly integration with enterprise
software systems.)
Mitch
<st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> You will be able to upgrade Vista more than you
> can XP without "triggering" a re-activation.
You mean more of the small hardware upgrades?
That's good news, at least -- and it resolves my disbelief that
Microsoft doesn't recognize people actually do that a lot.
Mitch
Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> Do they care? They have a serious piracy problem, and if their solutions
> cripples a small subset of their users, its just a price they have to
> pay.
Clearly Microsoft cares a lot less about inconveniencing users, yes.
I'm not sure who is paying the price you refer to -- certainly
Microsoft has to pay the price of devising and implementing their own
protections scheme. But USERS do NOT have to pay that price -- and
that's my point. If Microsoft makes this really annoying or create
trouble, their users are going to be upset.
Probably most will try to make excuses for Microsoft's interest in
doing that -- even right after they are seriously inconvenienced
themselves. It's the nature of such personal attacks.
> Gamers could always go to Linux, no?
Everybody could go to some other OS -- that's a lot of what this group
is about. But obviously giving reasons for that to happen would be a
HUGE mistake for Microsoft.
Peter Hayes
> In article <20061028183...@news.individual.net>,
> Peter Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> In <proto-8338AF....@reader2.panix.com> Walter Bushell
>> wrote:
>> > In article <271020062211320816%mi...@hawaii.rr>,
>> > Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, that's gonna make a lot of people angry.
>> >> I can't believe it's really going to happen -- even Microsoft has
>> >> to know that isn't how many users work.
>> >
>> > Do they care? They have a serious piracy problem, and if their
>> > solutions cripples a small subset of their users, its just a price
>> > they have to pay.
>>
>> Gamers have driven hardware development. They may be a small subset
>> of Microsoft users but their importance is way out of proportion to
>> their numbers. Microsoft ignore them at their peril.
>
> Why is there importance large relative to their numbers, they buy more
> hardware sure but they haven't been upgrading operating systems.
That'll be because for the past five or six years they haven't had any
OS to upgrade to. Duh!
Remember, Microsoft are hoping to corner that market with DirectX 10
which is exclusive to Vista. Their attempt at lock-in is obvious.
> The enterprise uses don't care about games, except negatively.
The enterprise generally don't need high end machines. They don't
actually need mid range machines either for 90% of their seats. A five
year old P3 would be more than adequate, if truth were told.
>> > Gamers could always go to Linux, no?
>>
>> Certainly.
>>
>> And if Linux becomes the gaming platform of choice that will really
>> kill off Microsoft.
>
> One can hope.
:-)
--
Peter
Mitch
<not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > The enterprise uses don't care about games, except negatively.
>
> The enterprise generally don't need high end machines. They don't
> actually need mid range machines either for 90% of their seats. A five
> year old P3 would be more than adequate, if truth were told.
As long as they weren't already convinced they HAD to use Microsoft
Office, and they HAVE TO keep it upgraded to the most recent version at
all times, that woul be true.
We've got to inform people of several things at once to save them from
misconceptions that have hindered them all along.
Steve de Mena
> In article <20061029001...@news.individual.net>, Peter Hayes
> <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> The enterprise uses don't care about games, except negatively.
>> The enterprise generally don't need high end machines. They don't
>> actually need mid range machines either for 90% of their seats. A five
>> year old P3 would be more than adequate, if truth were told.
>
> As long as they weren't already convinced they HAD to use Microsoft
> Office, and they HAVE TO keep it upgraded to the most recent version at
> all times, that woul be true.
The business world needs to use Microsoft Office.
It's the de facto standard. Law firms used to be
heavy into WordPerfect but I think even they are
moving towards Word.
Steve
245-Trioxin
I would agree that it is extremely important to be able to read and
write Microsoft Office compatible formats, but I wouldn't go so far as
to say they need Office.
Steve de Mena
There is more to basic reading and writing
formats, it all HAS to work correctly, including
macros, formulas, VBA, etc.
Steve
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > But on the other hand, I've always thought there is room in the consumer
> > range for something which the iMac does not cover. Someone who wants a
> > modest degree of expandability without having to pay MacPro prices.
> > Separate interchangeable monitor; additional/easily replaceable internal
> > hard drive; interchangeable graphics card. Sort of a sensibly priced
> > MacShuttle. That right there is a gap in the Mac range that I think is
> > worth filling.
>
> There is some demand for this... but it's *vastly* over-represented in
> CSMA. The pool of users who are interested in internal expandability,
> but who aren't willing to shell out the case for hardware in the Mac
> Pro's price range, is basically restricted to computer hobbyists and a
> minority of the gaming market.
>
> The gamers probably wouldn't buy Macs anyway because game availability
> on OS X frankly isn't that great, and many people in the hobbyist market
> wouldn't buy them because Apple is not going to let you build your own
> Mac from parts anytime soon.
Well, a gamin friend of mine is seriously considering buying a Mac pro
to replace his current Mac *and* his gaming PC, since he can boot into
Windows to run the games he wants.
Macs - runs 100% of all software. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >There is some demand for this... but it's *vastly* over-represented in
> >CSMA. The pool of users who are interested in internal expandability,
> >but who aren't willing to shell out the case for hardware in the Mac
> >Pro's price range, is basically restricted to computer hobbyists and a
> >minority of the gaming market.
>
> And yet the availability of these parts is increasing.
Because the amount of computers sold is increasing, and thus the
percentage of this minority group represents a growing number. It's
mathematics, you wouldn't know anything about it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Peter Hayes
> Then again, at least one person in CSMA is whining that Apple will not
> cripple the machine it sells them by shipping it with no OS or related
> software. I called Apple and it turns out if you really do want a
> machine crippled in such a way you can get it. Odd.
What was the price? $129 cheaper?
--
Peter
Snit
20061029122...@news.individual.net on 10/29/06 5:23 AM:
They were still going to ship the software on CD... and the price was the
same.
Peter Hayes
> "Peter Hayes" <not_i...@btinternet.com> stated in post
> 20061029122...@news.individual.net on 10/29/06 5:23 AM:
>
>> In <C168C88A.63F29%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Then again, at least one person in CSMA is whining that Apple will
>>> not cripple the machine it sells them by shipping it with no OS or
>>> related software. I called Apple and it turns out if you really do
>>> want a machine crippled in such a way you can get it. Odd.
>>
>> What was the price? $129 cheaper?
>
> They were still going to ship the software on CD... and the price was
> the same.
No benefit then - you'd still have to reformat & install XP anyway if
that's what you wanted to do.
--
Peter
Snit
TLK wanted to put on Linux - and for some reason he thought it would be
easier to do on a blank or wiped drive instead of one with OS X. I have
since informed him that it would make no real difference.
Oh, and a correction - I think Apple sends the OS on a DVD. Whatever. :)
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<none-1C38C5.1...@news.west.earthlink.net>):
> In article <bgc0h.8138$Bs....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "zara" <zsp...@visionnet.net> wrote:
>
>> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
>
> And anybody who owns a Wintel laptop....
Both comments are silly. I've done hardware upgrades on both
macs and PC's, including laptops. Zara, you really need to find
a girlfriend.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
George Graves
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Warchild wrote
> (in article
> <none-1C38C5.1...@news.west.earthlink.net>):
>
> > In article <bgc0h.8138$Bs....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> > "zara" <zsp...@visionnet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> According to those who own machines that can't be. Mostly maccies.
> >
> > And anybody who owns a Wintel laptop....
>
> Both comments are silly. I've done hardware upgrades on both
> macs and PC's, including laptops. Zara, you really need to find
> a girlfriend.
Yeah, a little pussy might brighten his outlook and make him more
socially tractable. It CAN do that. Of course, if one goes too far in
that direction, it can also have just the opposite effect and make a man
more miserable that he ever thought it possible to be! I know too many
friends who are presently in that predicament. I wouldn't wish it on a
rat, or even on Mr. -273 (aka zara-Absolute Zero).
--
George Graves
Avoid arguments with the little woman about lifting the toilet seat
by simply using the sink.