How much will Apple's changes affect their market share?
Chris Clement
master stroke by Jobs and company. I see Apple making large market
share gains in the future because these calculated changes in
architecture and policy.
I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
jerryeveretts
I bought one, as did my father-in-law. We were both PC/Windows users
previously.
Chris Clement
Are you dual booting?
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
It has the potential to greatly increase their sales. It would help
with that if they'd drop the mindless (and largely untrue) Windows
bashing ads and move to some ads that emphasize with a Mac you get the
strengths of both OSs.
--
"We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser.
Internet Explorer is my browser of choice."
Steve Jobs
Chris Clement
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2006 08:34:27 -0700, "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
> >master stroke by Jobs and company. I see Apple making large market
> >share gains in the future because these calculated changes in
> >architecture and policy.
> >
> >I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
> >boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
>
> It has the potential to greatly increase their sales. It would help
> with that if they'd drop the mindless (and largely untrue) Windows
> bashing ads and move to some ads that emphasize with a Mac you get the
> strengths of both OSs.
>
>
>
>
The ads are somewhat inaccurate, but overall more cutesy than
informative. I really don't see them affecting sales either way except
that Apple needs to be more vocal in the advertisements about the
ability to run Windows.
jerryeveretts
> Are you dual booting?
I actually installed Boot Camp and Windows when I got it. After about 2
weeks, I uninstalled to get the disk space back, since I did not use
Windows. I am IT Manager for a 50M Company, and we use Windows for all
our desktop computers. My needs were this. In this order...
Play World of Warcraft
Email
VPN to a Microsoft PPTP server
Windows Remote Desktop
Excel Spreadsheets
Word Documents
iTunes
Limewire
Since the Mac did it all, and did it all well on OSX, I find I have no
need to dual boot.
John Slade
"Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1150904066....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
> master stroke by Jobs and company. I see Apple making large market
> share gains in the future because these calculated changes in
> architecture and policy.
>
Not if they keep their high prices for Macs. Even though the Mac is a PC
now, nobody is going to shell out the extra $$$ just to run OS X. OS X is
good. It's a fine OS but I don't see people paying up to $1000 more just to
run a tweaked Unix distro with widgets.
> I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
> boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
>
It depends on the next products Apple markets. If they make their dual
booting computers expandable desktops at good prices, they will gain. If
they sell their desktops for $1600 to compete with HP or Dell, you will be
one of the few. Most people have no need to run OS X. They really don't need
to run Windows either but it's the most popular and it comes on the lower
priced computer and those computers are of the same quality as Apple
computers. Most of them any way.
John
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
GreyCloud
> On 21 Jun 2006 08:34:27 -0700, "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>
>>Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
>>master stroke by Jobs and company. I see Apple making large market
>>share gains in the future because these calculated changes in
>>architecture and policy.
>>
>>I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
>>boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
>
>
> It has the potential to greatly increase their sales. It would help
> with that if they'd drop the mindless (and largely untrue) Windows
> bashing ads and move to some ads that emphasize with a Mac you get the
> strengths of both OSs.
>
It would be great if Apple releases a top notch Fortran compiler. Doubt
it tho.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Chris Clement
Makes sense. I'm a .Net developer so obviously Windows is a need.
That and most of my...ahem...I mean...my kids' games are Windows only.
:-)
Derek Currie
> > > boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
Don't forget about virtualization!
Except for CPU intensive games there is not much reason to boot into
Windows. If you have any Core Duo Mac it has hardware enabled
virtualization (VT-x) built into the chip. This means you can use
virtualization software to run Windows, or any other x86 OS, in a window
inside MOSX with very good speed, dramatically faster than crappy old
Virtual PC from MS. The virtualization application hands off one CPU
core direcly to the virtualized OS while MOSX gets the other core. Just
be sure you toss in enough memory to run both OSes at once with minimal
hard disk thrashing for virtual memory. IOW use 1 GB RAM minimum.
The first virtualization sofware out of the gate is Parallels
Workstation, currently free for beta testing with a $10 discount on
pre-orders, resulting in a cost of $40.
<Http://www.parallels.com/>
Note: If you wish to run Windows XP, as with Boot Camp dual booting you
need a unique copy of XP to run in your virtualized environment.
Coming up this summer or early fall: Conroe 64 bit Core Duo chips
promising additional hardware enabled virtualization features and
improved speed.
Coming this winter: Double Core Duo CPUs allowing the host OS two cores
and the virtualized OS two cores. Result is much higher speed. Expect
these chips to replace the current G5 Quad Core CPUs.
:-D
--
Fortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease
of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge.
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/>
[Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded
the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975]
Mike Zulauf
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> It would be great if Apple releases a top notch Fortran compiler. Doubt
> it tho.
Why does it have to be Apple - why not Intel?
<http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/compilers/fmac/ind
ex.htm>
Mike
--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@met.utah.edu
Chris Clement
At least one market analyst is saying there is growing interest in Mac
products. Doesn't mean that this trend will continue, but definitely
promising for the Apple line. I don't think this is a just coincidence
with the release of Intel Macs. Apple definitely has people thinking
about buying Mac.
Wayne Stuart
I don't see mass migration to Macs, no matter what Apple do, or how easy
they try to make it. Market share does have the potential to increase
to a degree, but many of the reason why most folk - particularly of the
not so computer savvy variety - have not bought Macs en masse before,
are still in place; some of validity, some of ignorance...
How many Joes know what a Mac is? And of those that do, how many knows
and understands you can dual boot Windows on one? And of those that do,
how many sees a benefit in now owning a Mac? Of of those that do, how
many are in the market to buy a new PC now? And of those that are, how
many are in the market for a PC that a Mac's limited range meets their
(assumed) price/spec/expandability requirements? Answer: Few!
Only the Mac curious will care about the potential of 'Boot Camp', and
frankly, that's a minority. For the majority, the commonly accepted
logic of, "Why should we give a damn about an expensive, incompatible
computer that most people obviously can't see the point in either?" is
still very much in place.
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
GreyCloud
I'm looking for a good fortran compiler for the PPC.
GreyCloud
> In article <8rOdnfMn_rbiGQTZ...@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It would be great if Apple releases a top notch Fortran compiler. Doubt
>>it tho.
>
>
> Why does it have to be Apple - why not Intel?
>
> <http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/compilers/fmac/ind
> ex.htm>
Unfortunately, none for PPC. I've got the free Linux version from Intel
on the IBM tho.
Mitch
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> I don't see mass migration to Macs,
It's not about 'mass migration' -- it's a question of how much MORE
migration there might be.
Just because we are talking about getting more Mac users doesn't mean
we are automatically talking about taking over the whole industry.
> no matter what Apple do, or how easy
> they try to make it. Market share does have the potential to increase
> to a degree, but many of the reason why most folk - particularly of the
> not so computer savvy variety - have not bought Macs en masse before,
> are still in place; some of validity, some of ignorance...
>
> How many Joes know what a Mac is? And of those that do, how many knows
> and understands you can dual boot Windows on one? And of those that do,
> how many sees a benefit in now owning a Mac? Of of those that do, how
> many are in the market to buy a new PC now? And of those that are, how
> many are in the market for a PC that a Mac's limited range meets their
> (assumed) price/spec/expandability requirements? Answer: Few!
Expandability is the wrong criterion here. For the few who actually
know and care about expandability, would certainly know about most of
the rest of the differences.
> Only the Mac curious will care about the potential of 'Boot Camp', and
> frankly, that's a minority. For the majority, the commonly accepted
> logic of, "Why should we give a damn about an expensive, incompatible
> computer that most people obviously can't see the point in either?" is
> still very much in place.
Sure -- but that assumption of expensive, which is arguably not true
anyway, and definitely that word 'incompatible,' have to break down
sometime. Most people only have a vague idea that it is important, and
many of those simply invent what it actually refers to.
In other words, as long as the resistance is about ignorance and people
who just don't know the difference, there is a lot of good reason to
have discussions and threads and groups like this.
Mike
"Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
> master stroke by Jobs and company.
Selling Windows PCs was a "master stroke"? Finally admitting that the
PPC was not everything he'd been claiming for the last 10 years?
Throwing in the towel and joining the Intel party?
Um, OK. If I had told you 3 years ago that this was going to happen,
would you have called me a genius or a "wintroll"?
>I see Apple making large market
> share gains in the future because these calculated changes in
> architecture and policy.
I don't. Still too expensive, still too cutesy, still too obsessed
with form over function, still running absurd ads stressing "look how
cool we are" without actually explaining any real-world benefits.
> I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
> boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
I've installed OS X on 2 existing PCs (a Thinkpad laptop and this
homebrew desktop) of mine in the last month. Will I be one of the few
or is a trend starting?
Mike
Snit
44997517$0$9812$8826...@free.teranews.com on 6/21/06 10:31 AM:
>
> "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1150904066....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
>> master stroke by Jobs and company. I see Apple making large market
>> share gains in the future because these calculated changes in
>> architecture and policy.
>>
>
> Not if they keep their high prices for Macs. Even though the Mac is a PC
> now, nobody is going to shell out the extra $$$ just to run OS X. OS X is
> good. It's a fine OS but I don't see people paying up to $1000 more just to
> run a tweaked Unix distro with widgets.
Can you point to comparisons that show the Mac being $1000 more? I doubt
it. Most comparisons show the Mac being comparably priced:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices/>. Those comparisons are getting
a bit dated, but so far nobody in CSMA has been able to point to ones that
contradict them.
>> I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
>> boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
>
> It depends on the next products Apple markets. If they make their dual
> booting computers expandable desktops at good prices, they will gain. If
> they sell their desktops for $1600 to compete with HP or Dell, you will be
> one of the few. Most people have no need to run OS X.
Most people have no "need" to run any OS. OS X, however, does offer the
best ROI / TCO for many people.
> They really don't need to run Windows either but it's the most popular and it
> comes on the lower priced computer and those computers are of the same quality
> as Apple computers. Most of them any way.
You can get lower priced Windows PC than you can get Macs. With the mini
Apple has *somewhat* targeted that group, but not as much as the rest of the
PC industry together. Still, few companies do well by racing to the bottom.
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
1hhayz1.1bpnfm01owt2bkN%m...@privacy.net on 6/21/06 2:28 PM:
I work with many novices... it is amazing the "buzz" surrounding Macs these
days. I suspect that will translate into sales.
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Snit
no-03AA5E.22...@news.supernews.com on 6/21/06 7:29 PM:
> In article <1150904066....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
>> master stroke by Jobs and company.
>
> Selling Windows PCs was a "master stroke"? Finally admitting that the
> PPC was not everything he'd been claiming for the last 10 years?
> Throwing in the towel and joining the Intel party?
Technology is not the same now as it was 10 years ago.
> Um, OK. If I had told you 3 years ago that this was going to happen,
> would you have called me a genius or a "wintroll"?
I will admit that Slade predicted it and I thought he was wrong. He is
wrong more often than not, though, so it makes sense to not trust things
based on his word. Still, he *was* right about this and *I* and most others
were wrong.
>> I see Apple making large market
>> share gains in the future because these calculated changes in
>> architecture and policy.
>
> I don't. Still too expensive
What are you comparing to what?
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices/>. While you can get cheaper PCs
than you can get Macs, if you look at comparable machines the prices tend to
be pretty close.
> , still too cutesy,
Can you explain what you mean?
> still too obsessed with form over function,
their form ties into their function better than most PCs
> still running absurd ads stressing "look how cool we are" without actually
> explaining any real-world benefits.
We shall have to see how they work... Apple has not historically had good
ads and I am not sure thesew
>
>> I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
>> boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
>
> I've installed OS X on 2 existing PCs (a Thinkpad laptop and this
> homebrew desktop) of mine in the last month. Will I be one of the few
> or is a trend starting?
Most people, I would hope, would follow legal avenues. What version of OS X
did you manage to get running, though? The older betas?
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Technology is not the same now as it was 10 years ago.
Actually, it is. Intel is still Intel and PPC is still PPC. Intel
has always been faster, rigged "bake offs" and Jobs proclamations
notwithstanding.
> > Um, OK. If I had told you 3 years ago that this was going to happen,
> > would you have called me a genius or a "wintroll"?
>
> I will admit that Slade predicted it and I thought he was wrong. He is
> wrong more often than not, though, so it makes sense to not trust things
> based on his word. Still, he *was* right about this and *I* and most others
> were wrong.
3 years ago most "Mac Advocates" would have scoffed at the idea, and
proudly proclaimed the superiority of the PPC. Never mind that
everyone else knew better.
> > I don't. Still too expensive
>
> What are you comparing to what?
> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices/>. While you can get cheaper PCs
> than you can get Macs, if you look at comparable machines the prices tend to
> be pretty close.
$2000 for a tower - you know, something with slots and actually
expandable/upgradeable is absurd. Apple desperately needs an $800 mini
tower configuration.
>
> > , still too cutesy,
>
> Can you explain what you mean?
You know exactly what I mean.
> their form ties into their function better than most PCs
If you say so, but apparently most PC buyers don't agree. I certainly
don't.
> Most people, I would hope, would follow legal avenues. What version of OS X
> did you manage to get running, though? The older betas?
It's a not a question of "managing to get running". You just boot the
DVD and install it. It "just works". :-)
I've got 10.4.1, 10.4.4 and 10.4.6. 10.4.3 and 10.4.5 exist, I just
haven't found them yet.
10.4.1 is the most complete version that I have. It includes the dev
tools, Itunes, Iphoto, etc. 10.4.4's ethernet is broken, as it doesn't
work on either machine I've tried, so it's useless. 10.4.6 works, but
doesn't include Iphoto or the dev tools, and IChat crashes on launch.
So I'm running 10.4.1 on this desktop (3.0 Ghz P4, Hyper-threaded, 1 GB
RAM) and on the ThinkPad T30. It works fine on both (it's blazingly
fast on this desktop, merely fast on the T30), and everything works -
audio, network, PS2 mouse, USB ports, FireWire, DVD Burning, etc.
There are *many* versions of OSX86 floating around, and the reports I've
seen of 10.4.4 and 10.4.6 running fine indicate that the versions I have
are not the best "distros" to have.
But I'm still searching. Check out
if you're really interested.
MIke
Snit
> In article <C0BF546A.52853%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Technology is not the same now as it was 10 years ago.
>
> Actually, it is.
No, it is not. Technology has moved quite rapidly over the last 10 years.
Heck, how old is your primary work computer? I bet it is a lot newer than
10 years old... heck, how many 10 year old machines would even run modern
OSs and software? 10 years ago: that means 1996... not too much after
Windows 95 came out. Do you really think that the hardware and software
technology has not improved greatly since the Windows 95 era?
> Intel is still Intel and PPC is still PPC.
Both have chips that are quite different than the ones they had 10 years
ago. You really should pay more attention to the CPU industry if you are
going to talk about it in public.
> Intel has always been faster, rigged "bake offs" and Jobs proclamations
> notwithstanding.
I do look forward to your support. For what it is worth, speed is not the
only consideration in CPUs and motherboards. Things such as BIOS, power
consumption, etc. come into play.
>
>>> Um, OK. If I had told you 3 years ago that this was going to happen,
>>> would you have called me a genius or a "wintroll"?
>>
>> I will admit that Slade predicted it and I thought he was wrong. He is
>> wrong more often than not, though, so it makes sense to not trust things
>> based on his word. Still, he *was* right about this and *I* and most others
>> were wrong.
>
> 3 years ago most "Mac Advocates" would have scoffed at the idea, and proudly
> proclaimed the superiority of the PPC. Never mind that everyone else knew
> better.
This chips of three years ago are not the chips of today. Where do you
think you could have gotten a core duo three years ago?
>
>>> I don't. Still too expensive
>>
>> What are you comparing to what?
>> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices/>. While you can get cheaper PCs
>> than you can get Macs, if you look at comparable machines the prices tend to
>> be pretty close.
>
> $2000 for a tower - you know, something with slots and actually
> expandable/upgradeable is absurd. Apple desperately needs an $800 mini
> tower configuration.
For what market segment?
>>> , still too cutesy,
>>
>> Can you explain what you mean?
>
> You know exactly what I mean.
Note: you were not able to explain what you mean. And, no, I am not a mind
reader. The word "cutesy" implies, incorrectly, that Apple products are
focused on looks over function, which is rarely correct (though there have
been some models where this may be true).
>> their form ties into their function better than most PCs
>
> If you say so, but apparently most PC buyers don't agree. I certainly
> don't.
Can you point to any poll that would represent "most PC buyers" that comes
to this conclusion? I doubt it.
>> Most people, I would hope, would follow legal avenues. What version of OS X
>> did you manage to get running, though? The older betas?
>
> It's a not a question of "managing to get running". You just boot the
> DVD and install it. It "just works". :-)
What DVD? I do not see any such DVD being available from Apple or any othe
legal source.
>
> I've got 10.4.1, 10.4.4 and 10.4.6. 10.4.3 and 10.4.5 exist, I just
> haven't found them yet.
Why would 10.4.3/5 do for you that 10.4.6 would not? And if you have 10.4.1
you can just update it.
> 10.4.1 is the most complete version that I have. It includes the dev
> tools, Itunes, Iphoto, etc. 10.4.4's ethernet is broken, as it doesn't
> work on either machine I've tried, so it's useless. 10.4.6 works, but
> doesn't include Iphoto or the dev tools, and IChat crashes on launch.
In other words your hacked versions do not work... OK.
> So I'm running 10.4.1 on this desktop (3.0 Ghz P4, Hyper-threaded, 1 GB
> RAM) and on the ThinkPad T30. It works fine on both (it's blazingly
> fast on this desktop, merely fast on the T30), and everything works -
> audio, network, PS2 mouse, USB ports, FireWire, DVD Burning, etc.
>
> There are *many* versions of OSX86 floating around, and the reports I've
> seen of 10.4.4 and 10.4.6 running fine indicate that the versions I have
> are not the best "distros" to have.
Apple does not release different "distros" of 10.4.6, unless you count the
Server versions and the PPC/x86 versions as "distros".
> But I'm still searching. Check out
>
> http://www.osx86project.org/
Interesting disclaimers they have.
>
> if you're really interested.
>
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
> MIke
C Lund
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> In article <1150904066....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> > Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
> > master stroke by Jobs and company.
> Selling Windows PCs was a "master stroke"? Finally admitting that the
> PPC was not everything he'd been claiming for the last 10 years?
> Throwing in the towel and joining the Intel party?
The Intel Macs aren't a symptom of throwing in the towel; they're the
thin edge of the wedge.
> > I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
> > boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
> I've installed OS X on 2 existing PCs (a Thinkpad laptop and this
> homebrew desktop) of mine in the last month. Will I be one of the few
> or is a trend starting?
Is installing OS X on a non-Mac as easy as installing it on a Mac? If
not, then it won't be a trend.
> Mike
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> It's a not a question of "managing to get running". You just boot the
> DVD and install it. It "just works". :-)
What DVD? Where did you get it?
> 10.4.1 is the most complete version that I have. It includes the dev
> tools, Itunes, Iphoto, etc. 10.4.4's ethernet is broken, as it doesn't
> work on either machine I've tried, so it's useless. 10.4.6 works, but
> doesn't include Iphoto or the dev tools, and IChat crashes on launch.
> So I'm running 10.4.1 on this desktop (3.0 Ghz P4, Hyper-threaded, 1 GB
> RAM) and on the ThinkPad T30. It works fine on both (it's blazingly
> fast on this desktop, merely fast on the T30), and everything works -
> audio, network, PS2 mouse, USB ports, FireWire, DVD Burning, etc.
Do you get the updates from Apple?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Mike
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> The Intel Macs aren't a symptom of throwing in the towel; they're the
> thin edge of the wedge.
Uh huh, sure.
> Is installing OS X on a non-Mac as easy as installing it on a Mac? If
> not, then it won't be a trend.
It certainly was for me. Boot the DVD and install. It's at least as
easy as installing Windows on a Mac!
Is that as easy as buying a Dell or HP or whatever with Windows
pre-installed? If not, then that won't be any trend either.
Mike
Mike
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <no-87CED2.23...@news.supernews.com>,
> Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
>
> > It's a not a question of "managing to get running". You just boot the
> > DVD and install it. It "just works". :-)
>
> What DVD? Where did you get it?
From someone who already has it.
> Do you get the updates from Apple?
You can, but I haven't. No need to, actually.
Mike
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > $2000 for a tower - you know, something with slots and actually
> > expandable/upgradeable is absurd. Apple desperately needs an $800 mini
> > tower configuration.
>
> For what market segment?
Um, for the mass market that buys such machines?
> >>> , still too cutesy,
> >>
> >> Can you explain what you mean?
> >
> > You know exactly what I mean.
>
> Note: you were not able to explain what you mean.
Note: you know exactly what I mean.
> Can you point to any poll that would represent "most PC buyers" that comes
> to this conclusion? I doubt it.
Sales figures?
> In other words your hacked versions do not work... OK.
Well, they are all hacked, obviously. They all work, just 10.4.1 is
the most complete that I personally have.
> Apple does not release different "distros" of 10.4.6, unless you count the
> Server versions and the PPC/x86 versions as "distros".
I'm using the term "distros" to refer to the hacked versions, but you
knew that.
>Interesting disclaimers they have.
Interesting info too.
Mike
Chris Clement
Mike wrote:
> In article <1150904066....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
> > master stroke by Jobs and company.
>
> Selling Windows PCs was a "master stroke"? Finally admitting that the
> PPC was not everything he'd been claiming for the last 10 years?
> Throwing in the towel and joining the Intel party?
>
Doesn't matter how you characterize it. The question is will it work.
I think it will.
> Um, OK. If I had told you 3 years ago that this was going to happen,
> would you have called me a genius or a "wintroll"?
>
Dude, please. I advocated Mac abandoning hardware altogether and
selling Mac OS X on PCs since it originally came out. This is the
next best thing.
> >I see Apple making large market
> > share gains in the future because these calculated changes in
> > architecture and policy.
>
> I don't. Still too expensive, still too cutesy, still too obsessed
> with form over function, still running absurd ads stressing "look how
> cool we are" without actually explaining any real-world benefits.
>
Mac prices are very competitive with the top PC makers, usually within
a couple hundred dollars. Too cutesy? If you think white, black, and
silver are cutesy...I guess. The original iMacs and the multi-colored
clam shell laptops were horribly cutesy, I agree. But the recent
offerings have moved away from translucent neon colored cases.
Basically, your arguments are about 5 years old. I know cuz I used them
5 years ago. :-)
> > I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
> > boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
>
> I've installed OS X on 2 existing PCs (a Thinkpad laptop and this
> homebrew desktop) of mine in the last month. Will I be one of the few
> or is a trend starting?
>
Breaking the law has been a trend for some time.
Chris Clement
So you are saying you just boot an authentic Apple Mac OS X dvd and run
the installation program?
Mike
"Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> Doesn't matter how you characterize it. The question is will it work.
> I think it will.
Yes, it does matter. Jobs and Apple spent the last 10 years preaching
PPC and bashing Intel and Windows. Now Intel and Windows are selling
points. If that's not throwing in the towel - actually joining the
competition - then nothing is.
I still don't think it will work. Nothing has worked for Apple in the
last 20 years. What's different now? "Look at us, we finally run
Windows"?!?!
> Dude, please. I advocated Mac abandoning hardware altogether and
> selling Mac OS X on PCs since it originally came out. This is the
> next best thing.
Then you are one of the *very* few. Most "mac advocates" hated the
idea - until Jobs announced it. Then is was a "master stroke"!
> Mac prices are very competitive with the top PC makers, usually within
> a couple hundred dollars.
Yes - the "top PC makers". Unfortunately, not everyone buys from the
"top PC makers". Apple needs a true low end model if they really wish
to compete.
> Breaking the law has been a trend for some time.
Indeed. Apple has finally joined *that* party too.
Mike
Mike
"Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> So you are saying you just boot an authentic Apple Mac OS X dvd and run
> the installation program?
You boot an Apple Mac OS X DVD and run the installation program.
Mike
Sandman
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
Why did you leave out the word "authentic" from your reply?
--
Sandman[.net]
Chris Clement
Mike wrote:
> In article <1150984734.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter how you characterize it. The question is will it work.
> > I think it will.
>
> Yes, it does matter. Jobs and Apple spent the last 10 years preaching
> PPC and bashing Intel and Windows. Now Intel and Windows are selling
> points. If that's not throwing in the towel - actually joining the
> competition - then nothing is.
>
The average user could give a rip about who bashed who for 10 years.
That's why it doesn't matter.
> I still don't think it will work. Nothing has worked for Apple in the
> last 20 years. What's different now? "Look at us, we finally run
> Windows"?!?!
>
> > Dude, please. I advocated Mac abandoning hardware altogether and
> > selling Mac OS X on PCs since it originally came out. This is the
> > next best thing.
>
> Then you are one of the *very* few. Most "mac advocates" hated the
> idea - until Jobs announced it. Then is was a "master stroke"!
>
I'll give you that. There were very few that advocated the idea of
moving to intel. But I'm not really a "mac advocate" in the strict
sense. Professionally, I'm a .Net developer and have been a staunch
windows user for many years and I doubt I will ever abandon Windows
altogether (guy's gotta make a living). But for me, Apple finally gave
me a reason to buy a Mac when they moved to Intel and supported dual
booting Windows. Now I can develop applications for Windows and Unix
on one box. Granted, that won't be a selling point for the vast
majority, but Apple definitely created an avenue for folks to consider
Mac without having to throw away all their Windows apps. I'm not
expecting a mass exodus to Mac by any means, but Apple definitely
opened the door a bit wider for many.
> > Mac prices are very competitive with the top PC makers, usually within
> > a couple hundred dollars.
>
> Yes - the "top PC makers". Unfortunately, not everyone buys from the
> "top PC makers". Apple needs a true low end model if they really wish
> to compete.
>
Perhaps. If they threw in a monitor, keyboard, and mouse with the Mac
mini then they might achieve that.
Chris Clement
K, I'm following you. ;-) You don't have to do anything special, huh?
I thought there was some process of using Ubuntu or something like that
to actually get it to run. Is the OS X dvd, authentic or otherwise,
unmodified?
Mike
"Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> The average user could give a rip about who bashed who for 10 years.
> That's why it doesn't matter.
Just because not everyone knows about it does not mean it's not a fact.
Apple *has* thrown in the towel!
If Apple didn't switch, and Microsoft switched gears and started selling
PPC Linux, you can imagine what the reaction would be!
> I'm not
> expecting a mass exodus to Mac by any means, but Apple definitely
> opened the door a bit wider for many.
They've definitely removed *one* barrier - but see below for the other!
> Perhaps. If they threw in a monitor, keyboard, and mouse with the Mac
> mini then they might achieve that.
That's *exactly* what they need to do. The mini needs to be a complete
package - at the same price. By the time you buy everything you need,
you may as well buy the 17" imac - with better specs.
Mike
Mike
"Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > In article <1150985890.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So you are saying you just boot an authentic Apple Mac OS X dvd and run
> > > the installation program?
> >
> > You boot an Apple Mac OS X DVD and run the installation program.
> >
>
>
> K, I'm following you. ;-)
I was hoping you would! :-)
>You don't have to do anything special, huh?
> I thought there was some process of using Ubuntu or something like that
> to actually get it to run.
There is a problem with the 10.4.6 DVD I have in that it does not mark
the partition/drive that you install to as "active" or "bootable". So
it will not boot. You can fix this with any "fdisk-type" program that
you might have handy. I personally use a "DOS Boot" CD that I made
that has all kinds of handy utilities on it.
This is only a problem if the machine you are installing to has no other
OS. In a "dual boot" situation, the partition/drive that OS X is on
doesn't need to be "active/bootable". You boot it from the Windows
boot screen via a small utility (Chain0) from Darwin.
>Is the OS X dvd, authentic or otherwise,
> unmodified?
Oh, it's heavily modified. Stuff removed, stuff added, drivers added,
etc. Mostly it's generic Darwin stuff replacing the Apple stuff, so it
runs on a wider range of hardware.
Mike
Mike
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
If you can't figure that out on you own then there's not much hope for
you.
Mike
Sandman
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> > > > So you are saying you just boot an authentic Apple Mac OS X dvd and run
> > > > the installation program?
> > >
> > > You boot an Apple Mac OS X DVD and run the installation program.
> >
> > Why did you leave out the word "authentic" from your reply?
>
> If you can't figure that out on you own then there's not much hope for
> you.
What are you trying to hide, Mike?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> In article <mr-C5CBC3.16...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <no-5DD0AC.10...@news.supernews.com>,
> > Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1150985890.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So you are saying you just boot an authentic Apple Mac OS X dvd and run
> > > > the installation program?
> > >
> > > You boot an Apple Mac OS X DVD and run the installation program.
> >
> > Why did you leave out the word "authentic" from your reply?
>
> If you can't figure that out on you own then there's not much hope for
> you.
Never mind, you admitted to be a criminal in another reply. There goes
any credibility your comments ever had. Have a nice life.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0BF62A2.5286C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>> Technology is not the same now as it was 10 years ago.
>>>>
>>> Actually, it is.
>>>
>> No, it is not. Technology has moved quite rapidly over the last 10 years.
>> Heck, how old is your primary work computer? I bet it is a lot newer than 10
>> years old... heck, how many 10 year old machines would even run modern OSs
>> and software? 10 years ago: that means 1996... not too much after Windows 95
>> came out. Do you really think that the hardware and software technology has
>> not improved greatly since the Windows 95 era?
Note: no comment by Mike.
>>
>>> Intel is still Intel and PPC is still PPC.
>>>
>> Both have chips that are quite different than the ones they had 10 years ago.
>> You really should pay more attention to the CPU industry if you are going to
>> talk about it in public.
Note: no comment by Mike.
>>
>>> Intel has always been faster, rigged "bake offs" and Jobs proclamations
>>> notwithstanding.
>>>
>> I do look forward to your support. For what it is worth, speed is not the
>> only consideration in CPUs and motherboards. Things such as BIOS, power
>> consumption, etc. come into play.
Note: no comment by Mike.
>>
>>>>> Um, OK. If I had told you 3 years ago that this was going to happen,
>>>>> would you have called me a genius or a "wintroll"?
>>>>>
>>>> I will admit that Slade predicted it and I thought he was wrong. He is
>>>> wrong more often than not, though, so it makes sense to not trust things
>>>> based on his word. Still, he *was* right about this and *I* and most
>>>> others were wrong.
>>>>
>>> 3 years ago most "Mac Advocates" would have scoffed at the idea, and proudly
>>> proclaimed the superiority of the PPC. Never mind that everyone else knew
>>> better.
>>>
>> This chips of three years ago are not the chips of today. Where do you think
>> you could have gotten a core duo three years ago?
Note: no comment by Mike.
>>> $2000 for a tower - you know, something with slots and actually
>>> expandable/upgradeable is absurd. Apple desperately needs an $800 mini
>>> tower configuration.
>>
>> For what market segment?
>
> Um, for the mass market that buys such machines?
How can people buy a machine that Apple does not even make? For that
matter, *markets* do not buy anything - people do. So what is the typical
person who might buy such a machine? What segment is Apple not serving
well?
In the past Apple, in my mind, blew it when it came to dual monitors - the
iMac was *crippled* so that it would not do that without third party hacks.
That was absurd of Apple. I am happy they do not do that any longer. Other
than that, what is the benefit for the average consumer to having an box
that opens (and even dual monitors does not need that). There are *some*
circumstances you can describe, but I bet they are fairly uncommon.
>
>>>>> , still too cutesy,
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain what you mean?
>>>
>>> You know exactly what I mean.
>>
>> Note: you were not able to explain what you mean.
>
> Note: you know exactly what I mean.
Your cop-out is noted.
>> And, no, I am not a mind reader. The word "cutesy" implies, incorrectly,
>> that Apple products are focused on looks over function, which is rarely
>> correct (though there have been some models where this may be true).
Note: no response from Mike.
>
>> Can you point to any poll that would represent "most PC buyers" that comes
>> to this conclusion? I doubt it.
>
> Sales figures?
Nope - that clearly is not a poll that shows what most PC buyers view on how
"cutesy" a machine is.
>
>> In other words your hacked versions do not work... OK.
>
> Well, they are all hacked, obviously.
Your copies are. Mine are not. I prefer to act in an honorable and honest
way. Using hacked software generally does not fit that category.
>>>> Most people, I would hope, would follow legal avenues. What version of OS
>>>> X did you manage to get running, though? The older betas?
>>>>
>>> It's a not a question of "managing to get running". You just boot the DVD
>>> and install it. It "just works". :-)
>>>
>> What DVD? I do not see any such DVD being available from Apple or any othe
>> legal source.
Note: no response from Mike.
> They all work, just 10.4.1 is the most complete that I personally have.
>
>> Apple does not release different "distros" of 10.4.6, unless you count the
>> Server versions and the PPC/x86 versions as "distros".
>
> I'm using the term "distros" to refer to the hacked versions, but you
> knew that.
I suspected you were in reference to your illegal activities, yes.
>> Interesting disclaimers they have.
>
> Interesting info too.
In what way? I did not dig through the whole site.
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> How can people buy a machine that Apple does not even make?
Note: the light bulb went on over Snit's head!
Maybe if Apple made one, people might buy it!
> Your cop-out is noted.
Your deliberate obtuseness is noted.
> >> Interesting disclaimers they have.
> >
> > Interesting info too.
>
> In what way? I did not dig through the whole site.
Maybe you should before asking stupid questions.
Mike
GreyCloud
> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
> no-03AA5E.22...@news.supernews.com on 6/21/06 7:29 PM:
>
>
>>In article <1150904066....@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
>>>master stroke by Jobs and company.
>>
>>Selling Windows PCs was a "master stroke"? Finally admitting that the
>>PPC was not everything he'd been claiming for the last 10 years?
>>Throwing in the towel and joining the Intel party?
>
>
> Technology is not the same now as it was 10 years ago.
>
>
>>Um, OK. If I had told you 3 years ago that this was going to happen,
>>would you have called me a genius or a "wintroll"?
>
>
> I will admit that Slade predicted it and I thought he was wrong. He is
> wrong more often than not, though, so it makes sense to not trust things
> based on his word. Still, he *was* right about this and *I* and most others
> were wrong.
When I purchased this iMac, I checked thru the docs in regards to XCode
and found a lot of #ifdef and #defines for both PPC and x86
intermingled. I suspected that Apple was considering a changeover to
Intel as an insurance should IBM make any changes that weren't in Apples
best interests. After all, AIX runs on PPC and THAT was a major point
of contention for IBM and Apple. I also noticed the Itanium ABIs in
XCode, where the future could lay there as well... but so far Intel is
having major problems with that line and may very well disappear.
Unless of course Intel offers Apple a sweet deal.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Snit
You snipped a great deal, Mike, and then above presented some rather bizarre
comments not tied to the discussion at all. Here are the facts:
* You stated that technology is "the same now as it was 10 years ago".
Your claim was absurd, and when this was noted you snipped and ran.
* You claimed that "Intel has always been faster" than PPC chips, but
offered no evidence.
This was noted and you snipped and ran.
* You insinuated that Apple could have switched to the Intel chip they now
use 3 years ago. I asked you where Apple could have gotten core-duals
then.
You snipped and ran.
* You claimed there was a mass market Apple was missing that they could
fill with having low end towers. I asked you what group you thought
was clamoring for this and noted where Apple did cripple machines but
no longer does.
You snipped and ran.
* You claimed Apple computers were "cutesy" and that this lost them sales.
I asked you to explain what you meant.
You snipped and ran.
* You talked about your illegal versions of OS X you have running ... and
noted they do not work well (Ethernet and other problems).
I frankly do not care. Not sure anyone does, really. You sure do focus
on your illegal activities though.
Other than the fact that you can snip and run, Mike, what point were you
trying to make? That you can brag about breaking laws in a public forum?
Lovely... what a fine specimen of humanity you are.
Snit
q6mdnQGOZ8ciRwfZ...@bresnan.com on 6/22/06 11:00 AM:
I would be surprised if the transition was not planned long before it was
publicly announced... at *least* as a contingency and likely as a pretty
solid plan. In part that would explain why Apple has been able to handle
this transition so amazingly well, even if there are some hiccups along the
way. Apple really does handle transitions amazingly well...
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> You snipped a great deal, Mike, and then above presented some rather bizarre
> comments not tied to the discussion at all.
I just snipped the Snit Circus crap.
Mike
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> I would be surprised if the transition was not planned long before it was
> publicly announced... at *least* as a contingency and likely as a pretty
> solid plan.
Well Duh. Obviously OS X has been running on Intel since day 1,
particularly since NextStep ran on Intel.
> In part that would explain why Apple has been able to handle
> this transition so amazingly well, even if there are some hiccups along the
> way. Apple really does handle transitions amazingly well...
Because they do it every 5 years.
Mike
Snit
Here are the facts:
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Here are the facts:
Here is the Snit Circus!
<yawn>
Mike
Snit
Are you trying to engage me in another conversation after you ran so much in
our last one? Why? Here, again, are the facts you ran from:
Snit
Why is it you trolls always run and then blame the person who pointed out
your behavior for your actions? You are *still* running from the following
facts:
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Are you trying to engage me in another conversation after you ran so much in
> our last one? Why? Here, again, are the facts you ran from:
No, this is your verbal diarrhea that I ran from:
> * You stated that technology is "the same now as it was 10 years ago".
> Your claim was absurd, and when this was noted you snipped and ran.
It's the same. There's nothing to respond to hear - I simply disagree
with you, OK?
>
> * You claimed that "Intel has always been faster" than PPC chips, but
> offered no evidence.
They have, you just don't agree, OK?
> This was noted and you snipped and ran.
No, I didn't.
>
> * You insinuated that Apple could have switched to the Intel chip they now
> use 3 years ago. I asked you where Apple could have gotten core-duals
> then.
No, I didn't.
> You snipped and ran.
No, I didn't.
> * You claimed there was a mass market Apple was missing that they could
> fill with having low end towers. I asked you what group you thought
> was clamoring for this and noted where Apple did cripple machines but
> no longer does.
> You snipped and ran.
No, I didn't. You're just a fucking moron, OK?
> Other than the fact that you can snip and run, Mike, what point were you
> trying to make? That you can brag about breaking laws in a public forum?
> Lovely... what a fine specimen of humanity you are.
Other than the fact that you are a complete fuckwad, what point were you
trying to make?
Mike
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Why is it you trolls always run and then blame the person who pointed out
> your behavior for your actions? You are *still* running from the following
> facts:
Why is it trolls like you keep asking the same stupid questions when
they've already been answered?
Mike
Wayne Stuart
> "Wayne Stuart" <m...@privacy.net> stated in post
> 1hhayz1.1bpnfm01owt2bkN%m...@privacy.net on 6/21/06 2:28 PM:
>
> > I don't see mass migration to Macs, no matter what Apple do, or how easy
> > they try to make it. Market share does have the potential to increase
> > to a degree, but many of the reason why most folk - particularly of the
> > not so computer savvy variety - have not bought Macs en masse before,
> > are still in place; some of validity, some of ignorance...
> >
> > How many Joes know what a Mac is? And of those that do, how many knows
> > and understands you can dual boot Windows on one? And of those that do,
> > how many sees a benefit in now owning a Mac? Of of those that do, how
> > many are in the market to buy a new PC now? And of those that are, how
> > many are in the market for a PC that a Mac's limited range meets their
> > (assumed) price/spec/expandability requirements? Answer: Few!
> >
> > Only the Mac curious will care about the potential of 'Boot Camp', and
> > frankly, that's a minority. For the majority, the commonly accepted
> > logic of, "Why should we give a damn about an expensive, incompatible
> > computer that most people obviously can't see the point in either?" is
> > still very much in place.
>
> I work with many novices... it is amazing the "buzz" surrounding Macs these
> days. I suspect that will translate into sales.
But I suspect you're talking about novices who *want* to know about
computers, and hence, actually have an interest in them. I'm talking
about novices are who don't know about computers, and don't particularly
want to know about computers. Only time they'll give a damn is when
they're looking to buy one, and it is then I suspect the vast majority
of the time, a Mac will not be considered, because they just don't know
any better.
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
Wayne Stuart
> In article <1hhayz1.1bpnfm01owt2bkN%m...@privacy.net>, Wayne Stuart
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't see mass migration to Macs,
> It's not about 'mass migration' -- it's a question of how much MORE
> migration there might be.
> Just because we are talking about getting more Mac users doesn't mean
> we are automatically talking about taking over the whole industry.
>
> > no matter what Apple do, or how easy
> > they try to make it. Market share does have the potential to increase
> > to a degree, but many of the reason why most folk - particularly of the
> > not so computer savvy variety - have not bought Macs en masse before,
> > are still in place; some of validity, some of ignorance...
> >
> > How many Joes know what a Mac is? And of those that do, how many knows
> > and understands you can dual boot Windows on one? And of those that do,
> > how many sees a benefit in now owning a Mac? Of of those that do, how
> > many are in the market to buy a new PC now? And of those that are, how
> > many are in the market for a PC that a Mac's limited range meets their
> > (assumed) price/spec/expandability requirements? Answer: Few!
> Expandability is the wrong criterion here. For the few who actually
> know and care about expandability, would certainly know about most of
> the rest of the differences.
But we are talking about Joe Schmoes here. And just so long as they
*perceive* expandability to be an issue, then it's an issue, whether
reality shows it should be viewed as such or not.
> > Only the Mac curious will care about the potential of 'Boot Camp', and
> > frankly, that's a minority. For the majority, the commonly accepted
> > logic of, "Why should we give a damn about an expensive, incompatible
> > computer that most people obviously can't see the point in either?" is
> > still very much in place.
> Sure -- but that assumption of expensive, which is arguably not true
> anyway, and definitely that word 'incompatible,' have to break down
> sometime.
And again, if it's perceived as such, then it's an issue that will
effect potential sales. Apple's dogged refusal to offer 'spec
challenged' cheapo boxes to lure in the Joes to the brand, is always
going to put them on the back foot in gaining significant market share
against their competitors and their, "PCs from $299" advertising
headlines.
> Most people only have a vague idea that it is important, and
> many of those simply invent what it actually refers to.
> In other words, as long as the resistance is about ignorance and people
> who just don't know the difference, there is a lot of good reason to
> have discussions and threads and groups like this.
Perhaps. But more often than not, decisions of what to buy will come
from a friend or acquaintance who is perceived as being knowledgeable,
who may indeed not be so about anything outside of his WinDell world.
By definition, comparatively few know someone (as opposed to know *of*
someone) who is a Mac user.
And as for this group, I'd say this is hardly the kind of place you'll
find newbies hanging out, nor would I suggest they ought. ;)
Chris Clement
Expandibility stopped being perceived as an issue by most ever since
the emergence of USB. System memory is easily expanded on just about
any computer. Storage and peripherals can easily be added through USB.
And your "Joe Schmoe's" aren't going to be replacing CPUs. This is
a non-issue.
> > > Only the Mac curious will care about the potential of 'Boot Camp', and
> > > frankly, that's a minority. For the majority, the commonly accepted
> > > logic of, "Why should we give a damn about an expensive, incompatible
> > > computer that most people obviously can't see the point in either?" is
> > > still very much in place.
> > Sure -- but that assumption of expensive, which is arguably not true
> > anyway, and definitely that word 'incompatible,' have to break down
> > sometime.
>
> And again, if it's perceived as such, then it's an issue that will
> effect potential sales. Apple's dogged refusal to offer 'spec
> challenged' cheapo boxes to lure in the Joes to the brand, is always
> going to put them on the back foot in gaining significant market share
> against their competitors and their, "PCs from $299" advertising
> headlines.
Right. The folks wanting the el cheapo machines won't be coming to
Apple for a computer. But then again the folks that would buy a $299
computer don't really know what the heck they are doing anyway. I
disagree with your premise that only those willing to sell crap will
get significant market share. As I showed, market analysts are already
predicting Apple to make some headway in the computer market.
Wayne Stuart
My observations are slightly different. Yes, I agree that the internal
expandability of the big box PC is not utilised to any significant
degree by the vast majority of people. But there's just that nagging
issue of perception. I've heard it with my own ears. Those who don't
know any better, *assume* a big box PC will offer future proofing with
all that *potential* to expand and upgrade without needing to buy a new
PC. It all more often than not, never comes to fruition of course, but
for someone who doesn't know any better, it sounds logical.
> > > > Only the Mac curious will care about the potential of 'Boot Camp', and
> > > > frankly, that's a minority. For the majority, the commonly accepted
> > > > logic of, "Why should we give a damn about an expensive, incompatible
> > > > computer that most people obviously can't see the point in either?" is
> > > > still very much in place.
> > > Sure -- but that assumption of expensive, which is arguably not true
> > > anyway, and definitely that word 'incompatible,' have to break down
> > > sometime.
> >
> > And again, if it's perceived as such, then it's an issue that will
> > effect potential sales. Apple's dogged refusal to offer 'spec
> > challenged' cheapo boxes to lure in the Joes to the brand, is always
> > going to put them on the back foot in gaining significant market share
> > against their competitors and their, "PCs from $299" advertising
> > headlines.
>
> Right. The folks wanting the el cheapo machines won't be coming to
> Apple for a computer. But then again the folks that would buy a $299
> computer don't really know what the heck they are doing anyway. I
> disagree with your premise that only those willing to sell crap will
> get significant market share. As I showed, market analysts are already
> predicting Apple to make some headway in the computer market.
I'll just re-quote what I said here 3 weeks ago:
<quote>
I do believe their policy of not offering rock bottom spec version
of their models, could potentially be detrimental in the cattle market
that is the PC superstore where the masses go. Cheap "Celeron class"
models are not the biggest sellers, but they do act as a lure into the
more 'useful' spec, higher priced models. I think by having base models
that is higher up the spec range than other brands, it could be leading
the punters into disregarding Macs far too readily and easily before
they get the chance to seriously look at whether they might actually be
worth it.
<...>
it's not about selling boxes in that market.
It is understandable why they don't. There's no money in it, and even
those that do offer those sort of boxes, probably don't sell many of
them. But these boxes are marketing tools more than they are sellable
products. They're a means for the marketing department to say to the
great unwashed, you *could* own one of our products for $300. It's a
powerful message - "*From* $300." It's a message that with Apple's
current lineup, they can't use. Somehow "From $600" doesn't sound
nearly as intriguing. And it's this that I believe is a contributing
factor to the masses *perceiving* that Macs are comparatively and
unnecessarily expensive, and as such, why many of them will never
seriously consider one.
</quote>
Mike
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> it's not about selling boxes in that market.
> It is understandable why they don't. There's no money in it, and even
> those that do offer those sort of boxes, probably don't sell many of
> them. But these boxes are marketing tools more than they are sellable
> products. They're a means for the marketing department to say to the
> great unwashed, you *could* own one of our products for $300. It's a
> powerful message - "*From* $300." It's a message that with Apple's
> current lineup, they can't use. Somehow "From $600" doesn't sound
> nearly as intriguing. And it's this that I believe is a contributing
> factor to the masses *perceiving* that Macs are comparatively and
> unnecessarily expensive, and as such, why many of them will never
> seriously consider one.
What he said!
It's much easier to lure a customer to the store with a "$300" machine
and then upsell them to the $700 model than to lure them with a $700
machine and upsell them to the $1300 model.
Mike
Chris Clement
Ok, assuming your premise is correct, then here is my question:
analysts are predicting Apple to make some strides (not necessarily
large ones) in computer sales in the future and they credit Apple's
move to Intel and Bootcamp for their predictions. What segment of
computer buyers are going to be in that group that will have new
interest in Apple? Obviously, not Joe Schmoe's. But, assuming the
analysts are correct, what demographic is going to buy Macs that
wouldn't otherwise had Apple not made the recent changes.
Snit
> In article <C0C02E26.5295E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Are you trying to engage me in another conversation after you ran so much in
>> our last one? Why? Here, again, are the facts you ran from:
>
> No,
You ran repeatedly. Here are just some of the posts where you did so:
no-CD04C0.14...@news.supernews.com
no-48A353.14...@news.supernews.com
no-2C5D8F.14...@news.supernews.com
no-E818CE.13...@news.supernews.com
no-9F5123.09...@news.supernews.com
no-87CED2.23...@news.supernews.com
And perhaps others. You can deny it all you wish and even belittle it and
call it names (as you do directly below) but that will not change the fact
that you repeatedly ran from the facts. When will you trolls learn the
Google record is not going to just disappear for your convenience?
> this is your verbal diarrhea that I ran from:
>
>> * You stated that technology is "the same now as it was 10 years ago".
>> Your claim was absurd, and when this was noted you snipped and ran.
>
> It's the same. There's nothing to respond to hear - I simply disagree
> with you, OK?
You are welcome to disagree... but if you do so you should support your
view. Your argument largely rests on your absurd notion that technology has
been stagnant for 10 years. As I said before:
-----
No, it is not. Technology has moved quite rapidly over the last 10 years.
Heck, how old is your primary work computer? I bet it is a lot newer than
10 years old... heck, how many 10 year old machines would even run modern
OSs and software? 10 years ago: that means 1996... not too much after
Windows 95 came out. Do you really think that the hardware and software
technology has not improved greatly since the Windows 95 era?
-----
>>
>> * You claimed that "Intel has always been faster" than PPC chips, but
>> offered no evidence.
>
> They have, you just don't agree, OK?
Again you are welcome to your opinion, but that is all it is. Please do not
try to pass it off as fact.
>
>> This was noted and you snipped and ran.
>
> No, I didn't.
As noted above your denial is easily shown to be dishonest. Do you need
help finding the above referenced posts in the Google record?
>>
>> * You insinuated that Apple could have switched to the Intel chip they now
>> use 3 years ago. I asked you where Apple could have gotten core-duals
>> then.
>
> No, I didn't.
In talking about Apple switching to the chips they now use, the core-duals,
you stated: "3 years ago most "Mac Advocates" would have scoffed at the
idea, and proudly proclaimed the superiority of the PPC."
Perhaps you meant the Intel chips of 3 years ago, but Apple is
extraordinarily unlikely to *ever* switch to those chips. Why would they?
Had Apple switched to the then-current Intel chips in favor of the
then-current PPC chips they were using, it need not be the same situation as
what they are doing now.
>
>> You snipped and ran.
>
> No, I didn't.
Again: message IDs are above. You are lying. Period.
>
>> * You claimed there was a mass market Apple was missing that they could
>> fill with having low end towers. I asked you what group you thought
>> was clamoring for this and noted where Apple did cripple machines but
>> no longer does.
>> You snipped and ran.
>
> No, I didn't.
You claimed Macs were "still too expensive". I asked you compared to what
and provided you with evidence that comparable Macs and PCs are priced
similarly. The conversation continued as follows:
Mike: $2000 for a tower - you know, something with slots and actually
expandable/upgradeable is absurd. Apple desperately needs an $800
mini tower configuration.
Snit: For what market segment?
Mike: Um, for the mass market that buys such machines?
If you did not mean that there was a "mass market" that Apple was missing
that they could fill with low end towers, then what did you mean?
I further asked you what group of people would be served by such a machine
that Apple does not serve well now, and noted that there *may* be some
people, but wanted to hear your thoughts. You had none.
> You're just a fucking moron, OK?
Your juvenile insults do not further your claims, to the contrary, they show
you have no faith in it yourself.
>
>> Other than the fact that you can snip and run, Mike, what point were you
>> trying to make? That you can brag about breaking laws in a public forum?
>> Lovely... what a fine specimen of humanity you are.
Note: no relevant response from Mike, just more of his spewing of insults.
Like Carroll, Sandman, and Tim Adams you snip, run, and blame others for
your ignorance as well as show you are willing to repeatedly make claims
about your posting history that the Google record clearly contradicts.
Who do you think you are impressing with the following immature silliness:
>
> Other than the fact that you are a complete fuckwad, what point were you
> trying to make?
Snit
One, you make an insinuation that I am a member of your "trolling" group. I
am not. As for why I ask the same questions repeatedly, I was trying to get
you to respond, preferably in an honest and honorable way. While you
finally did respond in post <no-F9F201.14...@news.supernews.com>,
you did not do so in a way that was either honorable or honest. And, of
course, that was posted *after* my repeated asking you of questions. Now
that you have answered them, if only dishonestly, I will not continue to ask
you again... though I may ask you some of the follow up questions based on
your reply.
Snit
Do you mean the folks who get it and let it sit in a room and whine about
how hard they are? I have seen those folks, too, and they might not be in
my group... in other words I might agree with you to a point, but, still, I
have not heard so much buzz about Apple in many years.
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
> no-BEA1E8.14...@news.supernews.com on 6/22/06 11:32 AM:
>
> > In article <C0C02E69.52960%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is it you trolls always run and then blame the person who pointed out
> >> your behavior for your actions? You are *still* running from the following
> >> facts:
> >
> > Why is it trolls like you keep asking the same stupid questions when
> > they've already been answered?
>
> One, you make an insinuation that I am a member of your "trolling" group.
Right! *I'm* the troll here! LOL!
Mike
Mike Zulauf
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> Mike Zulauf wrote:
>
> > In article <8rOdnfMn_rbiGQTZ...@bresnan.com>,
> > GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It would be great if Apple releases a top notch Fortran compiler. Doubt
> >>it tho.
> >
> >
> > Why does it have to be Apple - why not Intel?
> >
> > <http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/compilers/fmac/ind
> > ex.htm>
>
> Unfortunately, none for PPC. I've got the free Linux version from Intel
> on the IBM tho.
I assumed you were talking about Intel machines, since the topic was
about changing/increasing Apple's market share.
Anyway, what's wrong with the Fortran compilers available for PPC Macs?
On my systems I've got xlc from IBM, the NAG compiler, g95, gfortran,
and g77. There's also Absoft, but I have no experience with that one.
More info at:
http://hpc.sourceforge.net/
Mike
--
Mike Zulauf
mazu...@met.utah.edu
Wayne Stuart
I do go into this a bit on a page on my site if you fancy having a read.
But in summary, I'm thinking people with a certain level of computer
interest. Someone who does actually think about what they're going to
buy, does their research, and - unlike most from my observations -
actually does consider a Mac, but for one reason or another, they've
previously rejected. Maybe for example, they've been slightly fearful
or wary of leaping that huge chasm from Windows to Mac without a safety
net or fall back position. An Intel Mac with 'Boot Camp' is the
potential answer to their fears. That jump is now just a comparative
baby-step away. This is a potential new Apple customer.
The long and short of it is, as I see it, any of these new Mac owners
will have to have been Mac curious to start with. Regardless of these
recent developments, I just don't see anyone who's never considered a
Mac before, doing so now without some heavy external prompting.
Snit
No doubt. You are.
>> I am not. As for why I ask the same questions repeatedly, I was trying to
>> get you to respond, preferably in an honest and honorable way. While you
>> finally did respond in post <no-F9F201.14...@news.supernews.com>,
>> you did not do so in a way that was either honorable or honest. And, of
>> course, that was posted *after* my repeated asking you of questions. Now
>> that you have answered them, if only dishonestly, I will not continue to ask
>> you again... though I may ask you some of the follow up questions based on
>> your reply.
Note: no response from Mike.
--
Chris Clement
Fair response. And actually you pretty much summed up my "conversion"
to Macs. With bootcamp, the conversion has a much softer landing, so
to speak. I don't have to give up Windows, nor would I ever most
likely, unless the unimaginable happens and Microsoft fell from their
lofty perch (not in our lifetime most likely).
C Lund
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> In article <clund-46F83C....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > The Intel Macs aren't a symptom of throwing in the towel; they're the
> > thin edge of the wedge.
> Uh huh, sure.
Yes, sure.
> > Is installing OS X on a non-Mac as easy as installing it on a Mac? If
> > not, then it won't be a trend.
> It certainly was for me. Boot the DVD and install. It's at least as
> easy as installing Windows on a Mac!
> Is that as easy as buying a Dell or HP or whatever with Windows
> pre-installed? If not, then that won't be any trend either.
But where did you get the DVD?
> Mike
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> In article <1150985890.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > So you are saying you just boot an authentic Apple Mac OS X dvd and run
> > the installation program?
>
> You boot an Apple Mac OS X DVD and run the installation program.
So in other words, you can't use a DVD from Apple. That means you have
to go looking for the DVD - and that means it's not going to be a
trend.
C Lund
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> In article <1150984734.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> > Doesn't matter how you characterize it. The question is will it work.
> > I think it will.
> Yes, it does matter. Jobs and Apple spent the last 10 years preaching
> PPC and bashing Intel and Windows. Now Intel and Windows are selling
> points. If that's not throwing in the towel - actually joining the
> competition - then nothing is.
That's what happens when IBM and Motorola decide they don't want to
make PPC processors any more.
> I still don't think it will work. Nothing has worked for Apple in the
> last 20 years.
Eh what?
> What's different now? "Look at us, we finally run
> Windows"?!?!
No, it's more like "you can run windows on it if you decide you don't
like OS X".
> > Mac prices are very competitive with the top PC makers, usually within
> > a couple hundred dollars.
> Yes - the "top PC makers". Unfortunately, not everyone buys from the
> "top PC makers". Apple needs a true low end model if they really wish
> to compete.
You mean like the minimac?
> > Breaking the law has been a trend for some time.
> Indeed. Apple has finally joined *that* party too.
How so?
C Lund
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> That's *exactly* what they need to do. The mini needs to be a complete
> package - at the same price. By the time you buy everything you need,
> you may as well buy the 17" imac - with better specs.
Half the point of the mini was that you wouldn't have to buy that
stuff. Just the mini - and then use the monitors etc that you already
had.
Mitch
<n...@where.man> wrote:
> > Moving to Intel and subsequently supporting dual booting Windows was a
> > master stroke by Jobs and company.
>
> Selling Windows PCs was a "master stroke"? Finally admitting that the
> PPC was not everything he'd been claiming for the last 10 years?
> Throwing in the towel and joining the Intel party?
>
> Um, OK. If I had told you 3 years ago that this was going to happen,
> would you have called me a genius or a "wintroll"?
Well, no -- because that isn't what has happened, not in any way, not
at all.
Apple has not given up on Mac OS and thrown in with Windows and the ret
of the PC world. Apple merely removed a roadblock some perceived about
buying Mac.
And what Apple did by changing to Intel (or away from PPC) is state
that PPC is not now what Apple needed it to be -- and that the Intel
road map looked better for them. There are many reasons for this, but
only the most gravely cynical would ever see it as a rejection of the
entire PPC concept and history.
> without actually explaining any real-world benefits.
Without explaining them, or without actually having any benefits?
Without having any benefit is a real problem -- without explaining the
benefits is eminently solvable and in some ways, simple.
> > I've bought two Macs in the past month because of the ability to dual
> > boot Windows and OS X. Will I be one of the few or is a trend starting?
>
> I've installed OS X on 2 existing PCs (a Thinkpad laptop and this
> homebrew desktop) of mine in the last month. Will I be one of the few
> or is a trend starting?
Both good questions.
Can't we leave them alone until either one of you has some information
to work with? Or will you both insist you can predict it, and to hell
with facts or reality?
Chris Clement
Dude....lighten up. It's a speculative topic. Where's the harm?
Edwin
C Lund wrote:
> In article <no-3393AB.10...@news.supernews.com>,
> Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> > In article <1150984734.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> > > Doesn't matter how you characterize it. The question is will it work.
> > > I think it will.
> > Yes, it does matter. Jobs and Apple spent the last 10 years preaching
> > PPC and bashing Intel and Windows. Now Intel and Windows are selling
> > points. If that's not throwing in the towel - actually joining the
> > competition - then nothing is.
>
> That's what happens when IBM and Motorola decide they don't want to
> make PPC processors any more.
When did IBM and Motorola decide that?
> > I still don't think it will work. Nothing has worked for Apple in the
> > last 20 years.
>
> Eh what?
Apple is in the process of replacing all of their hardware with Wintel
hardware.
> > What's different now? "Look at us, we finally run
> > Windows"?!?!
>
> No, it's more like "you can run windows on it if you decide you don't
> like OS X".
How about I just return the Mac for a refund and use the money to buy a
PC that comes with Windows already installed?
> > > Mac prices are very competitive with the top PC makers, usually within
> > > a couple hundred dollars.
> > Yes - the "top PC makers". Unfortunately, not everyone buys from the
> > "top PC makers". Apple needs a true low end model if they really wish
> > to compete.
>
> You mean like the minimac?
No, he means a whole computer that's a good value.
[snip]
GreyCloud
> In article <QrSdnSU34O6LbQTZ...@bresnan.com>,
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Zulauf wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <8rOdnfMn_rbiGQTZ...@bresnan.com>,
>>> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It would be great if Apple releases a top notch Fortran compiler. Doubt
>>>>it tho.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why does it have to be Apple - why not Intel?
>>>
>>><http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/compilers/fmac/ind
>>>ex.htm>
>>
>>Unfortunately, none for PPC. I've got the free Linux version from Intel
>> on the IBM tho.
>
>
> I assumed you were talking about Intel machines, since the topic was
> about changing/increasing Apple's market share.
>
> Anyway, what's wrong with the Fortran compilers available for PPC Macs?
Too expensive and from what I've read, a bit buggy.
> On my systems I've got xlc from IBM, the NAG compiler, g95, gfortran,
> and g77. There's also Absoft, but I have no experience with that one.
>
The Absoft compiler goes for around $900. And it flunks a few tests.
I've got gfortran, but I've yet to work with it yet. Still using the
vax-fortran on a vlc which is pretty good.
> More info at:
> http://hpc.sourceforge.net/
>
Hmmm... I'll take another look there.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Wayne Stuart
I don't have a problem with the Mini being sold without ancillaries, nor
to any great degree, its pricing of the current models, but what I do
have a problem with... or rather I suspect may be detrimental to
attracting new Apple customers to the brand, is the fact that the bottom
spec Mini is a Core Solo with full wireless chipset. That's completely
over the top for a base level model!
Speculate how much a Mini *could* cost with a super-slow Celeron, and
stripped of its wirelessness. Have that as the base level model, *then*
we might be getting somewhere close to having a model that can attract
the tightwad punters through the Apple Store's doors... and then try and
sell most of them a more useful and expensive box.
The trick is getting them though the door to start with. "Macs from
$599! (doesn't include monitor, keyboard, or mouse)" ain't gonna do it.
Snit
1151084667.2...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com on 6/23/06 10:44 AM:
>>> I still don't think it will work. Nothing has worked for Apple in the
>>> last 20 years.
>>
>> Eh what?
>
> Apple is in the process of replacing all of their hardware with Wintel
> hardware.
They are moving to *Intel* processors, motherboards, and, I am sure, some
other parts. They are not moving to *Wintel* at all... nor is even all of
their hardware from Intel.
Do you understand the distinction?
>
>>> What's different now? "Look at us, we finally run Windows"?!?!
>>
>> No, it's more like "you can run windows on it if you decide you don't
>> like OS X".
>
> How about I just return the Mac for a refund and use the money to buy a
> PC that comes with Windows already installed?
You can if you want. Who do you think is going to try to stop you?
I, on the other hand, look forward to getting the best of both worlds. I
will "live" mostly in the Mac world, but because I teach with Windows there
are times I need it... and I look forward to having it on the same machine.
>>>> Mac prices are very competitive with the top PC makers, usually within
>>>> a couple hundred dollars.
>>> Yes - the "top PC makers". Unfortunately, not everyone buys from the
>>> "top PC makers". Apple needs a true low end model if they really wish
>>> to compete.
>>
>> You mean like the minimac?
>
> No, he means a whole computer that's a good value.
Apple is competing quite well these days...
Mitch
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Eh what?
>
> Apple is in the process of replacing all of their hardware with Wintel
> hardware.
ENTIRELY wrong -- Apple is changing some of the components of their
machines, but not in order to make anything more like a Wintel machine,
and they are intent not to be anything like the other hardware makers.
> > > What's different now? "Look at us, we finally run
> > > Windows"?!?!
> >
> > No, it's more like "you can run windows on it if you decide you don't
> > like OS X".
>
> How about I just return the Mac for a refund and use the money to buy a
> PC that comes with Windows already installed?
Fine -- but then you get only Windows, and the whole point is to avoid
that and get Mac OS X!
Everyone understands that many people will choose that direction.
People in this group are just saying it isn't your only choice, and the
other major options is a good one.
> > > > Mac prices are very competitive with the top PC makers, usually within
> > > > a couple hundred dollars.
> > > Yes - the "top PC makers". Unfortunately, not everyone buys from the
> > > "top PC makers". Apple needs a true low end model if they really wish
> > > to compete.
> >
> > You mean like the minimac?
>
> No, he means a whole computer that's a good value.
Mac Mini is a whole computer.
Mac Mini is a good value. (Well, some of the configurations.)
Mitch
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> is the fact that the bottom
> spec Mini is a Core Solo with full wireless chipset. That's completely
> over the top for a base level model!
A good point -- Apple's intention to provide full sets of features does
hurt them at the low end, no question.
> Speculate how much a Mini *could* cost with a super-slow Celeron
eww.. never liked any Celeron machine I have ever used.
C Lund
> > In article <no-3393AB.10...@news.supernews.com>,
> > Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
> > > In article <1150984734.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Chris Clement" <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > Doesn't matter how you characterize it. The question is will it work.
> > > > I think it will.
> > > Yes, it does matter. Jobs and Apple spent the last 10 years preaching
> > > PPC and bashing Intel and Windows. Now Intel and Windows are selling
> > > points. If that's not throwing in the towel - actually joining the
> > > competition - then nothing is.
> > That's what happens when IBM and Motorola decide they don't want to
> > make PPC processors any more.
> When did IBM and Motorola decide that?
Sorry - make PPC processors for computers. IBM makes PPCs for game
consoles now.
> > > I still don't think it will work. Nothing has worked for Apple in the
> > > last 20 years.
> > Eh what?
> Apple is in the process of replacing all of their hardware with Wintel
> hardware.
No. They're replacing the PPC processor with x86 processors.
> > > What's different now? "Look at us, we finally run
> > > Windows"?!?!
> > No, it's more like "you can run windows on it if you decide you don't
> > like OS X".
> How about I just return the Mac for a refund and use the money to buy a
> PC that comes with Windows already installed?
Tell that to the potential switchers.
> > > Yes - the "top PC makers". Unfortunately, not everyone buys from the
> > > "top PC makers". Apple needs a true low end model if they really wish
> > > to compete.
> > You mean like the minimac?
> No, he means a whole computer that's a good value.
Why isn't the minimac a good value?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Wayne Stuart
You don't have to like it; it would be there merely as a marketing tool.
Mike Zulauf
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> Mike Zulauf wrote:
>
> > Anyway, what's wrong with the Fortran compilers available for PPC Macs?
>
> Too expensive and from what I've read, a bit buggy.
Too expensive - well, I guess that's up to your judgement. I'm not sure
how much xlf is (I got it through work), but NAG is pretty affordable.
I can't remember exactly, but I think it was only a couple hundred.
I'd dispute the buggy comment. I've been very impressed with NAG and
xlf. A couple years ago I came across an issue with NAG, but it turns
out that it was actually a gcc bug (which has since been fixed).
gfortran and g95 had some issues, being new (and free). Lately,
however, g95 has been problem free. gfortran still had some missing
functionality the last time I used it extensively (but nothing
critical). And that was some time ago - I'm sure it's progressed
somewhat. g95 is typically more complete, faster, etc - I'd give it a
try.
You can download the NAG compiler, and give it a free trial for a month.
> The Absoft compiler goes for around $900. And it flunks a few tests.
> I've got gfortran, but I've yet to work with it yet. Still using the
> vax-fortran on a vlc which is pretty good.
I'd recommend g95 over gfortran. I'd also suggest giving NAG a try - at
least for the free trial.
Basically, I've been quite happy with the OS X Fortran compilers I've
used - both free and commercial. My experience with them has been
comparable to any other platform I've ever used (and I've used a lot).
GreyCloud
Thnx. I'll give g95 a go then. Hopefully, it conforms to the complete
standard.
ZnU
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
I suspect Apple has done its homework in terms of market research, and
has determined that selling a $300 computer really wouldn't do that much
for the company.
Or else they just don't like the idea of using NetBurst architecture
chips (which they did, after all, spend the better part of a decade
making fun of), and they'll introduce lower-priced models once the next
generation Core chips come out at the current Core chips are cheap
enough to be used in significantly cheaper systems.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
ZnU
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
The key issue is, computer pros and enthusiasts tend to influence the
purchases of their social networks. If these people are taking a new
interest in Apple today, it's likely to translate into sales to Joe
Schmoe a couple of years down the road.
Wayne Stuart
Well my somewhat smaller sample market research - i.e. the word of
people I've spoken to - suggests otherwise. Number 1 reason expressed
by people I know why they've never considered a Mac: They're too
expensive. Both you and I know that's not exactly a fair criticism, all
things considered, but if the cheapest Mac is $600, and the cheapest
Dell is $300, then the perception of such is the defining factor. It's
hard to advocate Macs to the unwashed with those sort of figures to
fight against: Cheapest Mac? $600, excluding ancillaries... Whoosh!
You've lost 'em, period!
> Or else they just don't like the idea of using NetBurst architecture
> chips (which they did, after all, spend the better part of a decade
> making fun of),
Definitely it's unpalatable to be sure. A Celeron, in a Mac? Ewe! But
unpalatableness aside would they gain anything from it? As an armchair
CEO, I reckon they just might. Obviously others, and they, disagree.
It happens. ;)
> and they'll introduce lower-priced models once the next
> generation Core chips come out at the current Core chips are cheap
> enough to be used in significantly cheaper systems.
Maybe. Until then, Macs will have to continue wearing the 'expensive'
label, and attract sales figures reflective of that.
ZnU
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
I see these dirt cheap PCs advocated regularly in newsgroups, but how
many people actually buy them? Apparently the average price of a
personal computer in Q1 2006 was $734 for a desktop, $1093 for a laptop
in the US market (see http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=10805).
That looks a lot like the price of a Mac mini with a cheap monitor, or a
MacBook. I don't think it's a coincidence that Apple's price points
match up with the average that well.
> > Or else they just don't like the idea of using NetBurst architecture
> > chips (which they did, after all, spend the better part of a decade
> > making fun of),
>
> Definitely it's unpalatable to be sure. A Celeron, in a Mac? Ewe! But
> unpalatableness aside would they gain anything from it? As an armchair
> CEO, I reckon they just might. Obviously others, and they, disagree.
> It happens. ;)
I suspect Apple would make close to nothing on a $300 computer. If they
do it, it'll be part of a long-term plan to grow market share, because
it sure as hell won't bring in a lot of cash.
> > and they'll introduce lower-priced models once the next
> > generation Core chips come out at the current Core chips are cheap
> > enough to be used in significantly cheaper systems.
>
> Maybe. Until then, Macs will have to continue wearing the 'expensive'
> label, and attract sales figures reflective of that.
Macs will continue wearing the 'expensive' label not because they're
actually expensive (see above), but because perception hasn't caught up
with reality. (And with Apple, for some reason, some people's
perceptions never seem to catch up with reality.)
Wayne Stuart
Requote from previous thread:
<quote>
Joe Schmoe goes into computer store. He doesn't know exactly what he
wants, other than he wants a PC. He goes up and down the isles, he sees
a bunch of 'boxes' with some numbers and price tags. He sees the Macs,
they look "nice", he moves onto the next box. He notes the cheaper
boxes. It's at this point that in his mind, he's already disregarded
the pricier makes, of which the likes of Sony and, of course, the Macs
reside. He hovers around a cheap box. He queries the sales droid.
Sales droid gives him the downsides of the cheap box. Sales droid talks
him into a higher spec version of that box. Joe walks out of shop with
box just as expensive as a Mac, but not a Mac.
</quote>
> That looks a lot like the price of a Mac mini with a cheap monitor, or a
> MacBook. I don't think it's a coincidence that Apple's price points
> match up with the average that well.
Now I'll requote again what I requoted elsewhere in this thread:
<quote>
I do believe their policy of not offering rock bottom spec version
of their models, could potentially be detrimental in the cattle market
that is the PC superstore where the masses go. Cheap "Celeron class"
models are not the biggest sellers, but they do act as a lure into the
more 'useful' spec, higher priced models. I think by having base models
that is higher up the spec range than other brands, it could be leading
the punters into disregarding Macs far too readily and easily before
they get the chance to seriously look at whether they might actually be
worth it.
<...>
it's not about selling boxes in that market.
It is understandable why they don't. There's no money in it, and even
those that do offer those sort of boxes, probably don't sell many of
them. But these boxes are marketing tools more than they are sellable
products. They're a means for the marketing department to say to the
great unwashed, you *could* own one of our products for $300. It's a
powerful message - "*From* $300." It's a message that with Apple's
current lineup, they can't use. Somehow "From $600" doesn't sound
nearly as intriguing. And it's this that I believe is a contributing
factor to the masses *perceiving* that Macs are comparatively and
unnecessarily expensive, and as such, why many of them will never
seriously consider one.
</quote>
> > > Or else they just don't like the idea of using NetBurst architecture
> > > chips (which they did, after all, spend the better part of a decade
> > > making fun of),
> >
> > Definitely it's unpalatable to be sure. A Celeron, in a Mac? Ewe! But
> > unpalatableness aside would they gain anything from it? As an armchair
> > CEO, I reckon they just might. Obviously others, and they, disagree.
> > It happens. ;)
>
> I suspect Apple would make close to nothing on a $300 computer. If they
> do it, it'll be part of a long-term plan to grow market share, because
> it sure as hell won't bring in a lot of cash.
Yep. The trick would be to cripple their bottom feeder models so
severely, no-one but the most clueless would even consider buying one
once they know how little they actually get. A model that absolutely
*needs* to to have big bucks spent on it to bring it up to useful
standard. And bundled with nothing as standard. As said, this is not
so much a sellable product, but a marketting tool to lure them through
the door where they can then be convinced into buying a "proper" Mac.
I suspect this is the stumbling block for Apple. They perhaps don't
like the thought of Macs potentially being out there that are... frankly
crap. Could devalue the brand. It's a balancing act I guess. But I
question if right now, Apple have this ballance right.
> > > and they'll introduce lower-priced models once the next
> > > generation Core chips come out at the current Core chips are cheap
> > > enough to be used in significantly cheaper systems.
> >
> > Maybe. Until then, Macs will have to continue wearing the 'expensive'
> > label, and attract sales figures reflective of that.
>
> Macs will continue wearing the 'expensive' label not because they're
> actually expensive (see above), but because perception hasn't caught up
> with reality. (And with Apple, for some reason, some people's
> perceptions never seem to catch up with reality.)
So does it not make sence to do something about it?
ZnU
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hhgrcm.2qok5fxjp61eN%m...@privacy.net>,
> > m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> > I suspect Apple would make close to nothing on a $300 computer. If they
> > do it, it'll be part of a long-term plan to grow market share, because
> > it sure as hell won't bring in a lot of cash.
>
> Yep. The trick would be to cripple their bottom feeder models so
> severely, no-one but the most clueless would even consider buying one
> once they know how little they actually get. A model that absolutely
> *needs* to to have big bucks spent on it to bring it up to useful
> standard. And bundled with nothing as standard. As said, this is not
> so much a sellable product, but a marketting tool to lure them through
> the door where they can then be convinced into buying a "proper" Mac.
>
> I suspect this is the stumbling block for Apple. They perhaps don't
> like the thought of Macs potentially being out there that are... frankly
> crap. Could devalue the brand. It's a balancing act I guess. But I
> question if right now, Apple have this ballance right.
Honestly, one of the things I like about Apple -- and I don't think I'm
alone -- is that they don't play these kinds of idiotic games. I'm not
sure it would benefit them to start doing so. It could hurt public
perception of the company.
> > > > and they'll introduce lower-priced models once the next
> > > > generation Core chips come out at the current Core chips are cheap
> > > > enough to be used in significantly cheaper systems.
> > >
> > > Maybe. Until then, Macs will have to continue wearing the 'expensive'
> > > label, and attract sales figures reflective of that.
> >
> > Macs will continue wearing the 'expensive' label not because they're
> > actually expensive (see above), but because perception hasn't caught up
> > with reality. (And with Apple, for some reason, some people's
> > perceptions never seem to catch up with reality.)
>
> So does it not make sence to do something about it?
The $500 Mac mini didn't have much impact when it was introduced, and
$500 was a good price for a low-end computer then. I doubt a $300 Mac
would make much difference, honestly.
We're been hearing about demand for really low-end Macs for years... it
just don't seem to be there.
Wayne Stuart
You mean the perception that they're excessively expensive computers for
graphic designers? Not sure that's a perception worth clinging to.
> > > > > and they'll introduce lower-priced models once the next
> > > > > generation Core chips come out at the current Core chips are cheap
> > > > > enough to be used in significantly cheaper systems.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe. Until then, Macs will have to continue wearing the 'expensive'
> > > > label, and attract sales figures reflective of that.
> > >
> > > Macs will continue wearing the 'expensive' label not because they're
> > > actually expensive (see above), but because perception hasn't caught up
> > > with reality. (And with Apple, for some reason, some people's
> > > perceptions never seem to catch up with reality.)
> >
> > So does it not make sence to do something about it?
>
> The $500 Mac mini didn't have much impact when it was introduced, and
> $500 was a good price for a low-end computer then. I doubt a $300 Mac
> would make much difference, honestly.
Note I never actually suggested a $300 Mac. I suggested there needs to
be one below $600. Perhaps meeting the old G4 Mini pricepoint of $500
would be a good start.
> We're been hearing about demand for really low-end Macs for years... it
> just don't seem to be there.
Not suggesting cheap Macs is the answer all solution. There's a whole
heap of other 'reasons' why people don't buy Macs that were not answered
by the G4 Mini. And you'd be surprised how many everyday folk had never
even heard of the Mini to know they were less than $500. Apple never
advertised the fact. And of those that did know, they were still
disregarded because of what they were perceived to be...
This is what the only primetime British technology show thought about
the Mini:
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/media/>
Joe Schmoe goes into PC superstore. He sees the tiny little $500 Mini,
price exclusive of ancillaries. Then alongside, he sees a $500 big
beige box PC that comes with all the necessary ancillaries. To someone
like you or I, we might think the Mini is good because it's a fully
featured computer with a great OS in a tiny form factor, and the PC is
an ugly cheap Windows box. But put yourself in the shoes of Joe. What
do you see now? I suspect you see a toy computer in the Mini, and the
PC as something big and substantial that has to be good value because of
how much raw material you get for your money.
People's buying decisons can only be based on what they know, are told,
or perceive, regardless of whether those perceptions are valid or not.
ZnU
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
I mean the perception that they're a classy company that makes
high-quality products.
The other perception is fading away already as a result of the iPod.
So Apple should sell computers with a lot of empty space in them,
because stupid people will think they're more powerful?
Honestly, even if that's true... I don't think it's worth it.
Mitch
Chris Clement <chris....@mac.com> wrote:
> > > I've installed OS X on 2 existing PCs (a Thinkpad laptop and this
> > > homebrew desktop) of mine in the last month. Will I be one of the few
> > > or is a trend starting?
> >
> > Both good questions.
> > Can't we leave them alone until either one of you has some information
> > to work with? Or will you both insist you can predict it, and to hell
> > with facts or reality?
>
>
> Dude....lighten up. It's a speculative topic. Where's the harm?
I wasn't asking angrily.
I'm just saying that since NO ONE has any meaningful facts, and the
people posting have strong opinions that are pissing each other off,
it's better left dropped until later.
I'm saying that what these people are writing isn't so much
'speculation' as it is 'imagination.'
Please?
Paweł Wójciak
> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
> no-9DBC93.17...@news.supernews.com on 6/22/06 2:39 PM:
>
>
>>In article <C0C05B10.5299E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
>>>no-BEA1E8.14...@news.supernews.com on 6/22/06 11:32 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <C0C02E69.52960%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why is it you trolls always run and then blame the person who pointed out
>>>>>your behavior for your actions? You are *still* running from the following
>>>>>facts:
>>>>
>>>>Why is it trolls like you keep asking the same stupid questions when
>>>>they've already been answered?
>>>
>>>One, you make an insinuation that I am a member of your "trolling" group.
>>
>>Right! *I'm* the troll here! LOL!
>
>
> No doubt. You are.
>
LOL
Mike addressed all the questions asked. Maybe sometimes he just wasn't
precise. You knew what he meant all the way, yet you trolled on.
That's eristics, not discussion.
Pablo
Paweł Wójciak
> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
>
>
>>In article <C0C02E26.5295E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are you trying to engage me in another conversation after you ran so much in
>>>our last one? Why? Here, again, are the facts you ran from:
>>
>>No,
>
>
> You ran repeatedly. Here are just some of the posts where you did so:
>
> no-CD04C0.14...@news.supernews.com
> no-48A353.14...@news.supernews.com
> no-2C5D8F.14...@news.supernews.com
> no-E818CE.13...@news.supernews.com
> no-9F5123.09...@news.supernews.com
> no-87CED2.23...@news.supernews.com
>
> And perhaps others. You can deny it all you wish and even belittle it and
> call it names (as you do directly below) but that will not change the fact
> that you repeatedly ran from the facts. When will you trolls learn the
> Google record is not going to just disappear for your convenience?
>
>
>>this is your verbal diarrhea that I ran from:
>>
>>
>>>* You stated that technology is "the same now as it was 10 years ago".
>>> Your claim was absurd, and when this was noted you snipped and ran.
>>
>>It's the same. There's nothing to respond to hear - I simply disagree
>>with you, OK?
>
>
> You are welcome to disagree... but if you do so you should support your
> view. Your argument largely rests on your absurd notion that technology has
> been stagnant for 10 years. As I said before:
>
> -----
> No, it is not. Technology has moved quite rapidly over the last 10 years.
> Heck, how old is your primary work computer? I bet it is a lot newer than
> 10 years old... heck, how many 10 year old machines would even run modern
> OSs and software? 10 years ago: that means 1996... not too much after
> Windows 95 came out. Do you really think that the hardware and software
> technology has not improved greatly since the Windows 95 era?
> -----
>
>>>* You claimed that "Intel has always been faster" than PPC chips, but
>>> offered no evidence.
>>
>>They have, you just don't agree, OK?
>
>
> Again you are welcome to your opinion, but that is all it is. Please do not
> try to pass it off as fact.
>
>>> This was noted and you snipped and ran.
>>
>>No, I didn't.
>
>
> As noted above your denial is easily shown to be dishonest. Do you need
> help finding the above referenced posts in the Google record?
>
>>>* You insinuated that Apple could have switched to the Intel chip they now
>>> use 3 years ago. I asked you where Apple could have gotten core-duals
>>> then.
>>
>>No, I didn't.
>
>
> In talking about Apple switching to the chips they now use, the core-duals,
> you stated: "3 years ago most "Mac Advocates" would have scoffed at the
> idea, and proudly proclaimed the superiority of the PPC."
>
> Perhaps you meant the Intel chips of 3 years ago, but Apple is
> extraordinarily unlikely to *ever* switch to those chips. Why would they?
>
> Had Apple switched to the then-current Intel chips in favor of the
> then-current PPC chips they were using, it need not be the same situation as
> what they are doing now.
>
>>> You snipped and ran.
>>
>>No, I didn't.
>
>
> Again: message IDs are above. You are lying. Period.
>
>>>* You claimed there was a mass market Apple was missing that they could
>>> fill with having low end towers. I asked you what group you thought
>>> was clamoring for this and noted where Apple did cripple machines but
>>> no longer does.
>>> You snipped and ran.
>>
>>No, I didn't.
>
>
> You claimed Macs were "still too expensive". I asked you compared to what
> and provided you with evidence that comparable Macs and PCs are priced
> similarly. The conversation continued as follows:
>
> Mike: $2000 for a tower - you know, something with slots and actually
> expandable/upgradeable is absurd. Apple desperately needs an $800
> mini tower configuration.
>
> Snit: For what market segment?
>
> Mike: Um, for the mass market that buys such machines?
>
> If you did not mean that there was a "mass market" that Apple was missing
> that they could fill with low end towers, then what did you mean?
>
> I further asked you what group of people would be served by such a machine
> that Apple does not serve well now, and noted that there *may* be some
> people, but wanted to hear your thoughts. You had none.
>
>
>>You're just a fucking moron, OK?
>
>
> Your juvenile insults do not further your claims, to the contrary, they show
> you have no faith in it yourself.
>
>>>Other than the fact that you can snip and run, Mike, what point were you
>>>trying to make? That you can brag about breaking laws in a public forum?
>>>Lovely... what a fine specimen of humanity you are.
>
>
> Note: no relevant response from Mike, just more of his spewing of insults.
> Like Carroll, Sandman, and Tim Adams you snip, run, and blame others for
> your ignorance as well as show you are willing to repeatedly make claims
> about your posting history that the Google record clearly contradicts.
>
> Who do you think you are impressing with the following immature silliness:
>
>>Other than the fact that you are a complete fuckwad, what point were you
>>trying to make?
>
>
>
Jesus Christ, snit...
<plonk>
Pablo
Snit
e7r006$6sf$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl on 6/27/06 3:04 AM:
> LOL
> Mike addressed all the questions asked. Maybe sometimes he just wasn't
> precise. You knew what he meant all the way, yet you trolled on.
> That's eristics, not discussion.
>
> Pablo
Here, for the record, are the comments he will never give an honest response
to (from a previous post, "you" refers to Mike):
-----
* You stated that technology is "the same now as it was 10 years ago".
Your claim was absurd, and when this was noted you snipped and ran.
* You claimed that "Intel has always been faster" than PPC chips, but
offered no evidence.
This was noted and you snipped and ran.
* You insinuated that Apple could have switched to the Intel chip they now
use 3 years ago. I asked you where Apple could have gotten core-duals
then.
You snipped and ran.
* You claimed there was a mass market Apple was missing that they could
fill with having low end towers. I asked you what group you thought
was clamoring for this and noted where Apple did cripple machines but
no longer does.
You snipped and ran.
* You claimed Apple computers were "cutesy" and that this lost them sales.
I asked you to explain what you meant.
You snipped and ran.
* You talked about your illegal versions of OS X you have running ... and
noted they do not work well (Ethernet and other problems).
I frankly do not care. Not sure anyone does, really. You sure do focus
on your illegal activities though.
-----
Your claim that he has addressed these things, if you mean in an honest and
honorable way, is simply incorrect.
--
? Things which are not the same are not "identical"
? Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
? OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Steve Carroll
Hey, it's Snit you're talking to... whad'ya expect.
> That's eristics, not discussion.
Despite the fact that he does it a helluva lot...Snit really isn't very good at arguing.
> Pablo
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Snit
noone-AFD3D5....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 2:35 PM:
> Despite the fact that he does it a helluva lot...Snit really isn't very good
> at arguing.
How do you explain then, by your own admission, that you are very often
scared you would be ripped to shreds so you dishonestly snip and run
instead?
Come on, Steve, why do you think you so rarely, if ever, win *any* debate
you have with me - assuming the criteria for "winning" is to actually
support a claim and not just have a group of trolls hop up and down and slap
your back.
I suspect we each get what we want: you get to have trolls congratulate you,
I get to watch you run away in fear. Rinse. Repeat.
For example, how many times will you outright run from the fact that you
have repeated the same lie about me more than 10 times a day on average for
almost 4 months?
You cannot offer a reasoned explanation for that, so you run. Don't worry,
the likes of Tim Adams and Sandman will slap your back and tell you what a
grand job you did with your trolling. Just as you did for Sandman when he
spewed his ignorant crap about Dreamweaver being used only by beginners and
how a trained monkey could teach it.
Face it: if you had a backbone you would not have to form gangs of idiotic
trolls, you would be able to stand by yourself. You can't. You never will.
You are simply too much of a bigoted ignorant troll.
Don't forget to run as fast as you can from the above, Steve, either by
snipping and running from it or pretending you do not know what actions of
yours I am in reference to. Yeah, you are *that* predictable.
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-AFD3D5....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 2:35 PM:
>
> > Despite the fact that he does it a helluva lot...Snit really isn't very good
> > at arguing.
>
> How do you explain
Well, personally... I think the main thing is your monumental reading
comprehension problem. Of course, your persistent, medication induced
delusions don't help much.
Wayne Stuart
I'm not suggesting that at all. Reacquaint yourself with the purpose of
this thread; How much will Apple's changes effect their market share?
The circles I move in are of everyday folk - quite a large demographic
it has to be said, which if you could woo them, they could have a
significant impact on this said market share. I have a bit of an
insight into the kind of things they think when it comes to computers.
This point is just one of the many that contributes to why I believe
mass migration to Macs by the everyday folk, will not happen in huge
numbers. This should not be interpreted as a suggestion Apple should
abandon all their 'Mac-ness' in favour of cheap beige boxes. That would
be... bad. It's merely an observation, not a criticism.
And I think it's a rather harsh of you referring to these everyday folk
as stupid. As hard as it is for computer geeks to understand, most
people are not particularly interested in computers, and uneducated
assumptions and snippets of misinformation and hearsay relayed from the
metaphorical 'man in the pub', can easily become their common knowledge
when they don't know any better.
Snit
> In article <C0C6F893.532A1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-AFD3D5....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 2:35 PM:
>>
>>> Despite the fact that he does it a helluva lot...Snit really isn't very good
>>> at arguing.
>>
>> How do you explain
>
> Well
No, Steve, you explain very few things well. You do, however, snip and run
in the most dishonest of ways. Here is what you snipped and ran from:
-----
How do you explain then, by your own admission, that you are very often
scared you would be ripped to shreds so you dishonestly snip and run
instead?
Come on, Steve, why do you think you so rarely, if ever, win *any* debate
you have with me - assuming the criteria for "winning" is to actually
support a claim and not just have a group of trolls hop up and down and slap
your back.
I suspect we each get what we want: you get to have trolls congratulate you,
I get to watch you run away in fear. Rinse. Repeat.
For example, how many times will you outright run from the fact that you
have repeated the same lie about me more than 10 times a day on average for
almost 4 months?
You cannot offer a reasoned explanation for that, so you run. Don't worry,
the likes of Tim Adams and Sandman will slap your back and tell you what a
grand job you did with your trolling. Just as you did for Sandman when he
spewed his ignorant crap about Dreamweaver being used only by beginners and
how a trained monkey could teach it.
Face it: if you had a backbone you would not have to form gangs of idiotic
trolls, you would be able to stand by yourself. You can't. You never will.
You are simply too much of a bigoted ignorant troll.
Don't forget to run as fast as you can from the above, Steve, either by
snipping and running from it or pretending you do not know what actions of
yours I am in reference to. Yeah, you are *that* predictable.
--
€ Dreamweaver, being a pro web design tool, is not used by just beginners
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
Mitch
<n...@where.man> wrote:
> It's much easier to lure a customer to the store with a "$300" machine
> and then upsell them to the $700 model than to lure them with a $700
> machine and upsell them to the $1300 model.
If we accept that, all you have done is say that you think there is a
better sales strategy than Apple's.
So what?
What do we care about sales strategy? We're talking about the products
here, aren't we?