Apple just can't compete
Mac2001
What does Apple have to compete with this? 900 mhz Celeron, 20G HDD,
17" monitor, 56k modem, 128MB, Windows XP, 48X CD, and Lexmark color
printer.
There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this. The
nearest thing is TWICE as much, significantly slower, and has a
smaller monitor and no printer. The Mac is 100% more and comes with
significantly less 'stuff'.
Patrick Nihill
I'm rather more impressed with the 1.3GHz Compaq to its immediate right.
In pure hardware terms, it's clearly better value than the iMac. Still,
pity about the OS though...
--
Pa Nihill
Seeker1
> What does Apple have to compete with this? 900 mhz Celeron,
Intel's crappiest processor of the Px family, running at its current
lowest speed.
> 48X CD,
No CD-R, no DVD? Disappointing.
> and Lexmark color
> printer.
*yawn*
Wake me if there's something interesting about this machine.
> There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this.
There's a good reason for that. They don't aim that low.
Lawrence A. Krupp
Mac2001 <mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
So how do you explain Apple's continued existence and profitability? How
does Apple prosper when Gateway, Dell, and the other PC makers are
circling the drain? I mean Apple's been doing this for over twenty years
now with no sign of stopping. Apple had been selling computers for five
years when the PC was just a dribble of semen on IBM's groin. And who
says Apple has to compete against such crap anyway? Hmmmmm...
--
But what a fool believes
No wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing
The Doobie Brothers (1978)
Jeffrey Bruss
"Lawrence A. Krupp" <lkr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lkrupp-DC4A92....@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <9jpmst8pk6661tebt...@4ax.com>,
> Mac2001 <mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
http://216.33.84.100/BestBuyInserts/WeeklyFiles/PDFs/1014_18AL0P1_19AL0P1.PD
F
> >
> > What does Apple have to compete with this? 900 mhz Celeron, 20G HDD,
> > 17" monitor, 56k modem, 128MB, Windows XP, 48X CD, and Lexmark color
> > printer.
> >
> > There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this. The
> > nearest thing is TWICE as much, significantly slower, and has a
> > smaller monitor and no printer. The Mac is 100% more and comes with
> > significantly less 'stuff'.
>
> So how do you explain Apple's continued existence and profitability? How
> does Apple prosper when Gateway, Dell, and the other PC makers are
> circling the drain?
Check your facts - Dell's a far bigger company than Apple. More profitable,
too.
Jeff
<snip>
Craig Koller
Then go ahead and buy one. Nobody's stopping you.
Oddly enough, people keep piling into the Apple stores...
--
--
Craig Koller <cwko...@earthlink.net>
Sandman
Yes, but with transparent plastic and Mac OS X! :)
Seriously, finding cheap PC's must be the easiest task a person can
endeavour upon. This newsgroup has seen them all and no Maccie thinks that
Macs are cheaper than PC's or even simlarly priced except around release
dates of new macs.
Yet most Maccies still feel Macs are better, apparently this isn't related
to tech spech's solely. :)
If you ask me, I wouldn't want that PC if it was thrown at me. With that
said, I might tell you that I have ordered a 2Ghz, 80GB, 512MB, DVD-R PC
AND a TiBook recently (none has been shipped to me yet).
Guess which one I am anticipating the most? Guess which one cost the most :)
--
Sandman[.net]
C Lund
> http://216.33.84.100/BestBuyInserts/WeeklyFiles/PDFs/1014_18AL0P1_19AL0P1.PDF
>
> What does Apple have to compete with this?
They have computers that run the MacOS and OS X (natively, edlose).
> 900 mhz Celeron, 20G HDD,
The celeri processor, which afaik is the lowliest of the MHz-inflated
processors the PC has to offer. What are those 900MHz worth in PPC terms?
400MHz?
> 17" monitor,
You can't get a 17" monitor for the mac?
> 56k modem,
I'd rather have ethernet - like the mac.
> 128MB,
RAM? The mac has that too.
> Windows XP,
Uck. I don't want *anything* from M$ on my computer.
> 48X CD,
Yeah? How about a CDR, or even better, DVDR?
> and Lexmark color
> printer.
BFD.
> There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this.
To the contrary, it would seem that everything Apple has *surpasses* it.
You can keep your el cheapo celery.
> The
> nearest thing is TWICE as much, significantly slower, and has a
> smaller monitor and no printer. The Mac is 100% more and comes with
> significantly less 'stuff'.
You can't be serious. That celery doesn't have ethernet. It doesn't have
firewire. It doesn't have CDR or DVDR. It comes with a crappy OS made by a
crappy company. It does NOT come with OS X.
You'd probably think a Lada is better than a BMW.
--
C Lund, Oslo
C Lund
<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> If you ask me, I wouldn't want that PC if it was thrown at me.
Actually... I'd take that POS and sell it to the highest bidder - assuming
I could find any bidders. Alternatly, I could remove all the M$ crap from
it and install Linux. It could make an interesting toy.
--
C Lund, Oslo
Sandman
I like the fact that the Sony LCD monitor costs more than the entire PC
package. :)
And that you can upgrade the processor from 900 to 1000 Mhz and the monitor
from 17" to...17" for another $100. That's one dollar per Mhz actually. Why
was the first 900Mhz such a bargain? :)
The offer seems to use a combination of six (6) mail-in rebates, amazing :)
Without the mail-in rebates, the package seems to be $734. This goes to
show that mail-in rebates would be nice if they were as frequent on Macs as
they are for PCs (if they exist at all, that is, I wouldn't know).
Anyway, probably a rather good machine for a rather good price. Naturally I
would never buy it instead of an iMac, but that's me. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Gav
wrote:
>> What does Apple have to compete with this? 900 mhz Celeron,
>
>Intel's crappiest processor of the Px family, running at its current
>lowest speed.
And it still beats the pants off of a 500MHz G3 (which is hardly the
epitome of Power PC chips either) as found in the Mac competition.
Hello McFly - thats a BAD point for Apple, not a good one :-)
>> 48X CD,
>
>No CD-R, no DVD? Disappointing.
CD-RW drives cost from something like $60 these days. You could
add one and the machine would still be hundreds of dollars cheaper
than the cheapest iMac and now ever better comparitively specced (two
drives are way more useful that one).
Hell, spend $103 on a combo 8x DVD/CDRW and you've got a DVD
reading, CD burning machine for just over half the cost of _any_
currently shipping new Mac. Plus you have an additional CD drive for
day to day use (saves wear and tear on the combo and makes copying CDs
easier).
>> and Lexmark color
>> printer.
>
>*yawn*
LOL! I remember Joe Ragosta jumping up and down with glee over the
fact that you got a free $69 dollar Lexmark with a $2500 top of the
line Mac Dual G4/800 ... a free (cheap) colour printer is of much more
comparitive value to a rock bottom cheapie home PC.
>Wake me if there's something interesting about this machine.
Theres nothing particularly interesting - just great value for the
consumer on a budget, or maybe someone looking for a second machine
for the spouse/ kids/ parents.
>> There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this.
>
>There's a good reason for that. They don't aim that low.
Yet this machine will suit the needs of a lot of people. Boasting
that Apple can't/ won't/ don't cater for this segment of the market
isn't really a clever way to answer the point..........
Gav
--
Real email is gavan(hyphen)martin(dot)moran(at)ubs(dot)com
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are solely my own, not my employers
"Du musst Amboss oder Hammer sein"
Gav
wrote:
>In article <9jpmst8pk6661tebt...@4ax.com>, Mac2001
><mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> http://216.33.84.100/BestBuyInserts/WeeklyFiles/PDFs/1014_18AL0P1_19AL0P1.PDF
>>
>> What does Apple have to compete with this?
>
>They have computers that run the MacOS and OS X (natively, edlose).
XP is more than a match for OS X. Don't even TRY to compare MacOS
9.
>> 900 mhz Celeron, 20G HDD,
>
>The celeri processor, which afaik is the lowliest of the MHz-inflated
>processors the PC has to offer. What are those 900MHz worth in PPC terms?
>400MHz?
Try something like a 700-750MHz G3.
You can't even pull the traditional 'Altivec makes it twice as
fast' BS on this one.......
>> 17" monitor,
>
>You can't get a 17" monitor for the mac?
Sure - if you don't mind having to pay extra over the cost of the
iMac and then having to find somewhere to hide the bulky iMac unit
with the integral 15" screen.
>> 56k modem,
>
>I'd rather have ethernet - like the mac.
An Ethernet card will cost a whole $30 if the user wants one. The
PC is still hundreds of bucks cheaper and way better specced.
>> 128MB,
>
>RAM? The mac has that too.
I thought the $800 iMac only had 64 megs?
>> Windows XP,
>
>Uck. I don't want *anything* from M$ on my computer.
Too bad something like 97% of the market think the OTHER way, eh?
>
>> 48X CD,
>
>Yeah? How about a CDR, or even better, DVDR?
What does the Mac competition have? Surprise - a CD drive ($800
iMac).
>> and Lexmark color
>> printer.
>
>BFD.
It was apparently a very big deal when Apple shipped a $69 Lexmark
with a $2500 Dual G4/800 G4. :-)
>> There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this.
>
>To the contrary, it would seem that everything Apple has *surpasses* it.
The bottom of the range iMac doesn't even come close to this
machine, and costs twice as much.
>You can keep your el cheapo celery.
And most people will think that Apple can keap their expensive iMac
with its bottom of the line 500MHz G3.
>
>> The
>> nearest thing is TWICE as much, significantly slower, and has a
>> smaller monitor and no printer. The Mac is 100% more and comes with
>> significantly less 'stuff'.
>
>You can't be serious. That celery doesn't have ethernet. It doesn't have
>firewire.
$60 to add them both IF YOU WANT THEM.
> It doesn't have CDR or DVDR.
Nor does the peer iMac. $103 to add a combo 8x DVD/CDRW. How much
to add something similar to the peer iMac?
> It comes with a crappy OS made by a
>crappy company.
XP is actually pretty good and MUCH better supported hardware and
software wise than OS X.
> It does NOT come with OS X.
The peer iMac can't even run OS X properly (it only has 64 megs)
without an upgrade.
>You'd probably think a Lada is better than a BMW.
You'd probably argue that black was white.
You can take this machine, add ethernet, firewire and a combo
DVD/CDRW unit and its STILL hundreds of bucks less than the lowend
iMac but with a much faster CPU, bigger screen, more memory, DVD
capablity, CD burning capability and a colour printer.
Gav
>> There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this. The
>> nearest thing is TWICE as much, significantly slower, and has a
>> smaller monitor and no printer. The Mac is 100% more and comes with
>> significantly less 'stuff'.
>
>I like the fact that the Sony LCD monitor costs more than the entire PC
>package. :)
>
>And that you can upgrade the processor from 900 to 1000 Mhz and the monitor
>from 17" to...17" for another $100. That's one dollar per Mhz actually. Why
>was the first 900Mhz such a bargain? :)
>
>The offer seems to use a combination of six (6) mail-in rebates, amazing :)
>Without the mail-in rebates, the package seems to be $734. This goes to
>show that mail-in rebates would be nice if they were as frequent on Macs as
>they are for PCs (if they exist at all, that is, I wouldn't know).
Yes, I've never liked rebates myself. But this is a newsgroup
where selling the supplied mouse is sometimes seriously put forward
as being equivalent to some sort of effective discount in arguments
over pricing - so mail in rebates look positively legitimate in that
context.
>Anyway, probably a rather good machine for a rather good price. Naturally I
>would never buy it instead of an iMac, but that's me. :)
How about the machine coupled with a nice LCD monitor? For around
$1000? You may not like the look of the case, but it could sit on
the floor with just a nice LCD screen and keyboard/mouse on the desk.
I use a couple of LCDs at work and the more I use them, the more I
like them. They are superb for desktop work and really impressive for
displaying static images like digital photographs.
gav
Sandman
gavan-martin...@remove.ubs.this.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> >The offer seems to use a combination of six (6) mail-in rebates, amazing :)
> >Without the mail-in rebates, the package seems to be $734. This goes to
> >show that mail-in rebates would be nice if they were as frequent on Macs as
> >they are for PCs (if they exist at all, that is, I wouldn't know).
>
> Yes, I've never liked rebates myself. But this is a newsgroup
> where selling the supplied mouse is sometimes seriously put forward
> as being equivalent to some sort of effective discount in arguments
> over pricing - so mail in rebates look positively legitimate in that
> context.
Absolutely, and I think anyone wanting to compare prices should benefit
from that feature. It should also be important that the recipients of the
comparison be told that it is indeed a price that is due to such rebates
(and because if that, is time limited). This doesn't change the effect of
comparison, of course.
> >Anyway, probably a rather good machine for a rather good price. Naturally I
> >would never buy it instead of an iMac, but that's me. :)
>
> How about the machine coupled with a nice LCD monitor? For around
> $1000? You may not like the look of the case, but it could sit on
> the floor with just a nice LCD screen and keyboard/mouse on the desk.
Indeed a good solution for lots of people. And I'll have you know that I
have two PCs in my home and a third is ordered. I am no stranger to having
PCs around, but if you ask if I'd buy the iMac or this cheap PC, I'd choose
the iMac, even if you throw in the LCD screen.
> I use a couple of LCDs at work and the more I use them, the more I
> like them. They are superb for desktop work and really impressive for
> displaying static images like digital photographs.
Indeed they are. I am using CRT displays at work and I would dearly like to
switch to LCD. But I currently use two 21" radius screens, and the only
LCDs I would use is dual 22" Cinema, and it's a bit costy... Too bad, but
some day. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Macman
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <3bcc0d4f...@news.ubs.com>,
> gavan-martin...@remove.ubs.this.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
>
> > >The offer seems to use a combination of six (6) mail-in rebates, amazing
> > >:)
> > >Without the mail-in rebates, the package seems to be $734. This goes to
> > >show that mail-in rebates would be nice if they were as frequent on Macs
> > >as
> > >they are for PCs (if they exist at all, that is, I wouldn't know).
> >
> > Yes, I've never liked rebates myself. But this is a newsgroup
> > where selling the supplied mouse is sometimes seriously put forward
> > as being equivalent to some sort of effective discount in arguments
> > over pricing - so mail in rebates look positively legitimate in that
> > context.
>
> Absolutely, and I think anyone wanting to compare prices should benefit
> from that feature. It should also be important that the recipients of the
> comparison be told that it is indeed a price that is due to such rebates
> (and because if that, is time limited). This doesn't change the effect of
> comparison, of course.
Discounted, of course, for the percentage of rebates that are never
issued. My experience has been that only about 60% of rebates are ever
paid. Sure, you can spend weeks fighting with a vendor and sometimes
straighten it out, but for a $20 rebate, it's not worth the effort.
There's also the fact that very few people ever apply for their rebates
- even on big ticket items like computers. Odd, but true.
Jan Sacharuk
>>> What does Apple have to compete with this? 900 mhz Celeron,
>>
>>Intel's crappiest processor of the Px family, running at its current
>>lowest speed.
>
> And it still beats the pants off of a 500MHz G3 (which is hardly the
> epitome of Power PC chips either) as found in the Mac competition.
Argh. Don't be so caught up in the clock speed. A 500Mhz G3 isn't so
bad, and a 900MHz Celeron isn't so good.
Jan
--
======================= j...@cs.ualberta.ca ======================
Jan Sacharuk Member in Good Standing of The Discordian Solidarity
Turn on viewing of the X-Geek-Code header to see my Geek Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"You call down the thunder, and I'll reap the whirlwind."
- Terran Ghost Unit, Starcraft
Richard K. McPike
<gavan-martin...@remove.ubs.this.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> I use a couple of LCDs at work and the more I use them, the more I
> like them. They are superb for desktop work and really impressive for
> displaying static images like digital photographs.
>
> gav
Of course, LCDs are not great when it comes to color purity. For
anything involving color photography work, you should go with a CRT.
Kirk
C Lund
gavan-martin...@remove.ubs.this.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:34:26 GMT, cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund)
> wrote:
> >In article <9jpmst8pk6661tebt...@4ax.com>, Mac2001
> ><mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
http://216.33.84.100/BestBuyInserts/WeeklyFiles/PDFs/1014_18AL0P1_19AL0P1.PDF
> >> What does Apple have to compete with this?
> >They have computers that run the MacOS and OS X (natively, edlose).
> XP is more than a match for OS X.
It is? How so? Please be specific.
> Don't even TRY to compare MacOS 9.
Why not? Be specific. (I fully expect a barraige of Sacred Buzzwords that
mean little to the end user here).
> >> 900 mhz Celeron, 20G HDD,
> >The celeri processor, which afaik is the lowliest of the MHz-inflated
> >processors the PC has to offer. What are those 900MHz worth in PPC terms?
> >400MHz?
> Try something like a 700-750MHz G3.
Why?
> You can't even pull the traditional 'Altivec makes it twice as
> fast' BS on this one.......
So?
> >> 17" monitor,
> >You can't get a 17" monitor for the mac?
> Sure - if you don't mind having to pay extra over the cost of the
> iMac and then having to find somewhere to hide the bulky iMac unit
> with the integral 15" screen.
Then don't buy an iMac.
> >> 56k modem,
> >I'd rather have ethernet - like the mac.
> An Ethernet card will cost a whole $30 if the user wants one. The
> PC is still hundreds of bucks cheaper and way better specced.
Then why list that modem as if it mattered?
> >> 128MB,
> >RAM? The mac has that too.
> I thought the $800 iMac only had 64 megs?
Sorry. You're right. I was thinking of the G4. But the iMac can be
upgraded. (iirc)
> >> Windows XP,
> >Uck. I don't want *anything* from M$ on my computer.
> Too bad something like 97% of the market think the OTHER way, eh?
Actually, they don't. They're just going with the herd. No thinking involved.
> >> 48X CD,
> >Yeah? How about a CDR, or even better, DVDR?
> What does the Mac competition have? Surprise - a CD drive ($800 iMac).
Once again, I was thinking of the G4. But what's so impressibve about the
48x CD that it's worth mention?
> >> and Lexmark color
> >> printer.
> >BFD.
> It was apparently a very big deal when Apple shipped a $69 Lexmark
with a $2500 Dual G4/800 G4. :-)
It was?
> >> There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this.
> >To the contrary, it would seem that everything Apple has *surpasses* it.
> The bottom of the range iMac doesn't even come close to this
> machine, and costs twice as much.
It runs the right OS (MacOS and OS X). That makes it infinitly more worth
than any PC on the face of the earth.
> >You can keep your el cheapo celery.
> And most people will think that Apple can keap their expensive iMac
> with its bottom of the line 500MHz G3.
So? 1 million billion flies can't be wrong; eat shit.
> > It comes with a crappy OS made by a
> >crappy company.
> XP is actually pretty good
Only if you don't care about stuff like privacy, time, money, legacy
hardware and software.. etc.
> and MUCH better supported hardware and
> software wise than OS X.
Then why all the complaints about stuff breaking when one upgrades to XP?
> > It does NOT come with OS X.
> The peer iMac can't even run OS X properly (it only has 64 megs)
> without an upgrade.
So? Do the upgrade.
> >You'd probably think a Lada is better than a BMW.
> You'd probably argue that black was white.
>
> You can take this machine, add ethernet, firewire and a combo
> DVD/CDRW unit and its STILL hundreds of bucks less than the lowend
> iMac but with a much faster CPU, bigger screen, more memory, DVD
> capablity, CD burning capability and a colour printer.
And it STILL won't run the MacOS or OS X. And that makes it a POS as far
as I'm concerned.
> Gav
--
C Lund, Oslo
Seeker1
> And it still beats the pants off of a 500MHz G3 (which is hardly the
> epitome of Power PC chips either) as found in the Mac competition.
I'll believe it when I see it, considering that a 500 MHz G3 beats a 1
GHz P3 without the Celeron's lack of cache. I await yet another Quake
test to prove your position.
> Yet this machine will suit the needs of a lot of people. Boasting
> that Apple can't/ won't/ don't cater for this segment of the market
> isn't really a clever way to answer the point..........
Well, if they also want ease of use - and many of them do - and don't
care much about expandability - and many don't - that segment will
probably take a serious look at the iMac.
In fact, most of that segment also wouldn't miss 2" width on a monitor,
either.
If they can't afford a $994 machine, which from MacZone will also throw
in a free cheapie Lexmark too and give 'em 256 MB of RAM to boot; and
are willing to fill out six different rebate forms, and wait 2-8 months
for each rebate, more power to 'em.
Mac2001
wrote:
>
>> And it still beats the pants off of a 500MHz G3 (which is hardly the
>> epitome of Power PC chips either) as found in the Mac competition.
>
>I'll believe it when I see it, considering that a 500 MHz G3 beats a 1
>GHz P3 without the Celeron's lack of cache. I await yet another Quake
>test to prove your position.
In what test, exactly?
dc
wrote:
>In article <3bcc0923...@news.ubs.com>,
>gavan-martin...@remove.ubs.this.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:34:26 GMT, cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund)
>> wrote:
>> >In article <9jpmst8pk6661tebt...@4ax.com>, Mac2001
>> ><mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>http://216.33.84.100/BestBuyInserts/WeeklyFiles/PDFs/1014_18AL0P1_19AL0P1.PDF
>> >> What does Apple have to compete with this?
>> >They have computers that run the MacOS and OS X (natively, edlose).
>> XP is more than a match for OS X.
>
>It is? How so? Please be specific.
Applications, for one thing. Speed, for another. I find OS X 10.1 to
be slow - boot into 9.2.1, and then boot into 10.1 -- the changes and
the slowdown is obvious.
>> Don't even TRY to compare MacOS 9.
>
>Why not? Be specific. (I fully expect a barraige of Sacred Buzzwords that
>mean little to the end user here).
OS9 crashes too easily and too much.
>> >> 900 mhz Celeron, 20G HDD,
>> >The celeri processor, which afaik is the lowliest of the MHz-inflated
>> >processors the PC has to offer. What are those 900MHz worth in PPC terms?
>> >400MHz?
>> Try something like a 700-750MHz G3.
>
>Why?
Speed reasons.
>> You can't even pull the traditional 'Altivec makes it twice as
>> fast' BS on this one.......
>
>So?
So the Mac is slow.
>> >> 17" monitor,
>> >You can't get a 17" monitor for the mac?
>> Sure - if you don't mind having to pay extra over the cost of the
>> iMac and then having to find somewhere to hide the bulky iMac unit
>> with the integral 15" screen.
>
>Then don't buy an iMac.
Right - that's the point - there is no competition in this market
segment. Apple has no competition anywhere under $800.
>> >> 56k modem,
>> >I'd rather have ethernet - like the mac.
>> An Ethernet card will cost a whole $30 if the user wants one. The
>> PC is still hundreds of bucks cheaper and way better specced.
>
>Then why list that modem as if it mattered?
Just listing features, Joe. Relax.
>> >> 128MB,
>> >RAM? The mac has that too.
>> I thought the $800 iMac only had 64 megs?
>
>Sorry. You're right. I was thinking of the G4. But the iMac can be
>upgraded. (iirc)
Isn't it just amazing how much Apple charges for just basic stuff and
small monitors?
>> >> Windows XP,
>> >Uck. I don't want *anything* from M$ on my computer.
>> Too bad something like 97% of the market think the OTHER way, eh?
>
>Actually, they don't. They're just going with the herd. No thinking involved.
Why do you say that?
>> >> 48X CD,
>> >Yeah? How about a CDR, or even better, DVDR?
>> What does the Mac competition have? Surprise - a CD drive ($800 iMac).
>
>Once again, I was thinking of the G4. But what's so impressibve about the
>48x CD that it's worth mention?
It's HALF as much as the iMac - and comes with a big thing (the 17"
monitor) that will immediately get a buyer interested in it over the
iMac.
>> >> and Lexmark color
>> >> printer.
>> >BFD.
>> It was apparently a very big deal when Apple shipped a $69 Lexmark
>with a $2500 Dual G4/800 G4. :-)
>
>It was?
Well..to borrow a phrase from you - why else would you mention it?
>> >> There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this.
>> >To the contrary, it would seem that everything Apple has *surpasses* it.
>> The bottom of the range iMac doesn't even come close to this
>> machine, and costs twice as much.
>
>It runs the right OS (MacOS and OS X). That makes it infinitly more worth
>than any PC on the face of the earth.
Regardless of price. You go, Joe!
>> >You can keep your el cheapo celery.
>> And most people will think that Apple can keap their expensive iMac
>> with its bottom of the line 500MHz G3.
>
>So? 1 million billion flies can't be wrong; eat shit.
This is your entire argument lately, Joe - totally worthless.
>> > It comes with a crappy OS made by a
>> >crappy company.
>> XP is actually pretty good
>
>Only if you don't care about stuff like privacy, time, money, legacy
>hardware and software.. etc.
Since it handles that better than MacOS X 10.1, what's your point,
Joe?
>> and MUCH better supported hardware and
>> software wise than OS X.
>
>Then why all the complaints about stuff breaking when one upgrades to XP?
That's -nothing- compared to all the stuff that breaks going to OS X,
Joe.
>> > It does NOT come with OS X.
>> The peer iMac can't even run OS X properly (it only has 64 megs)
>> without an upgrade.
>
>So? Do the upgrade.
I think it's a bit on the funny side.
>> >You'd probably think a Lada is better than a BMW.
>> You'd probably argue that black was white.
>>
>> You can take this machine, add ethernet, firewire and a combo
>> DVD/CDRW unit and its STILL hundreds of bucks less than the lowend
>> iMac but with a much faster CPU, bigger screen, more memory, DVD
>> capablity, CD burning capability and a colour printer.
>
>And it STILL won't run the MacOS or OS X. And that makes it a POS as far
>as I'm concerned.
You may think that, but most people don't - they want the OS for which
they can get software and for which they can work on programs from
their jobs - which means they need a PC. And $400 vs. $800 means the
PC is a no-brainer - a better system with a bigger monitor for 1/2 the
money.
dc
wrote:
>
>> And it still beats the pants off of a 500MHz G3 (which is hardly the
>> epitome of Power PC chips either) as found in the Mac competition.
>
>I'll believe it when I see it, considering that a 500 MHz G3 beats a 1
>GHz P3 without the Celeron's lack of cache. I await yet another Quake
>test to prove your position.
Did you fall asleep the last time we talked about Apple's marketing
lies and their nonsense about beating P2s that were twice as fast?
They were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
>> Yet this machine will suit the needs of a lot of people. Boasting
>> that Apple can't/ won't/ don't cater for this segment of the market
>> isn't really a clever way to answer the point..........
>
>Well, if they also want ease of use - and many of them do - and don't
>care much about expandability - and many don't - that segment will
>probably take a serious look at the iMac.
Nah - for 1/2 the price, the PC is the obvious and superior choice.
>In fact, most of that segment also wouldn't miss 2" width on a monitor,
>either.
No? My mom notices it immediately (in fact, she went to 19" and 20"
monitors...sounds to me like she'd miss the larger monitor.) Admit it
- you're talking nonsense.
>If they can't afford a $994 machine, which from MacZone will also throw
>in a free cheapie Lexmark too and give 'em 256 MB of RAM to boot; and
>are willing to fill out six different rebate forms, and wait 2-8 months
>for each rebate, more power to 'em.
2-8 months? Try 1-2 months, and realize that you've just enticed a
LOT of people to the PC side - and Apple has lost
buyers...yet...*AGAIN*.
Apple *really* should offer something in this market segment.
dc
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:44:58 GMT, cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund)
>wrote:
>
>>Then why list that modem as if it mattered?
>
>Just listing features, Joe. Relax.
Ack! CLund, I mean. Oops...
>>> And most people will think that Apple can keap their expensive iMac
>>> with its bottom of the line 500MHz G3.
>>
>>So? 1 million billion flies can't be wrong; eat shit.
>
>This is your entire argument lately, Joe - totally worthless.
CLund, I mean.....
C Lund
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:44:58 GMT, cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund)
> wrote:
> >http://216.33.84.100/BestBuyInserts/WeeklyFiles/PDFs/1014_18AL0P1_19AL0P1.PDF
> >> >> What does Apple have to compete with this?
> >> >They have computers that run the MacOS and OS X (natively, edlose).
> >> XP is more than a match for OS X.
> >It is? How so? Please be specific.
> Applications, for one thing.
Quantity is not the same as quality. As Edlose demonstrated some time ago
(in an attempt at demonstrating the opposite), the mac does not lack
software.
> Speed, for another. I find OS X 10.1 to
> be slow - boot into 9.2.1, and then boot into 10.1 -- the changes and
> the slowdown is obvious.
Computers are always getting faster. And speed isn't everything.
> >> Don't even TRY to compare MacOS 9.
> >Why not? Be specific. (I fully expect a barraige of Sacred Buzzwords that
> >mean little to the end user here).
> OS9 crashes too easily and too much.
Thus OS X. Not that OS 9 is that unstable. In fact, unless you're using
mission critical apps, MacOS 9 is stable enough for most uses.
> >> You can't even pull the traditional 'Altivec makes it twice as
> >> fast' BS on this one......
> >So?
> So the Mac is slow.
No, it is not. The iMac might not be as fast as the fastest PC, but it's
not slow. Any mac made today is fast enough for the average user (all the
average user wants is email, www, spreadsheets, wordcrunchers, and a game
or two).
> >> >> 17" monitor,
> >> >You can't get a 17" monitor for the mac?
> >> Sure - if you don't mind having to pay extra over the cost of the
> >> iMac and then having to find somewhere to hide the bulky iMac unit
> >> with the integral 15" screen.
> >Then don't buy an iMac.
> Right - that's the point - there is no competition in this market
> segment. Apple has no competition anywhere under $800.
Yet people buy them. Why is that do you think? Could it be the OS? Could
it be that people think the package is worth the money anyway?
> >> >> 56k modem,
> >> >I'd rather have ethernet - like the mac.
> >> An Ethernet card will cost a whole $30 if the user wants one. The
> >> PC is still hundreds of bucks cheaper and way better specced.
> >Then why list that modem as if it mattered?
> Just listing features, Joe. Relax.
"Joe"?
> >> >> 128MB,
> >> >RAM? The mac has that too.
> >> I thought the $800 iMac only had 64 megs?
> >Sorry. You're right. I was thinking of the G4. But the iMac can be
> >upgraded. (iirc)
> Isn't it just amazing how much Apple charges for just basic stuff and
> small monitors?
That's why Apple is one of the few computer manufacturers around with a
sound economy.
> >> >> Windows XP,
> >> >Uck. I don't want *anything* from M$ on my computer.
> >> Too bad something like 97% of the market think the OTHER way, eh?
> >Actually, they don't. They're just going with the herd. No thinking involved.
> Why do you say that?
Because that's the way it is. The average Windows user didn't decide to
buy Windows, he/she decided to buy a computer and Windows was what it came
with - or Windows was what was on the PC his/her boss plopped on his/her
desk.
> >> >> 48X CD,
> >> >Yeah? How about a CDR, or even better, DVDR?
> >> What does the Mac competition have? Surprise - a CD drive ($800 iMac).
> >Once again, I was thinking of the G4. But what's so impressibve about the
> >48x CD that it's worth mention?
> It's HALF as much as the iMac - and comes with a big thing (the 17"
> monitor) that will immediately get a buyer interested in it over the
> iMac.
And why does that make the x48 CD player interesting? Besides, a customer
thinking seriously about buying a mac wouldn't decide to buy a POS PC just
because it comes with a *huge* monitor.
> >> >> and Lexmark color
> >> >> printer.
> >> >BFD.
> >> It was apparently a very big deal when Apple shipped a $69 Lexmark
> >with a $2500 Dual G4/800 G4. :-)
> >It was?
> Well..to borrow a phrase from you - why else would you mention it?
What? You were the one who mentioned the printer. Not me.
> >> >> There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this.
> >> >To the contrary, it would seem that everything Apple has *surpasses* it.
> >> The bottom of the range iMac doesn't even come close to this
> >> machine, and costs twice as much.
> >It runs the right OS (MacOS and OS X). That makes it infinitly more worth
> >than any PC on the face of the earth.
> Regardless of price. You go, Joe!
"Joe"?
And yes, it does. For someone not interested in 1x10^100 virii, dll hell,
wasting valuable time just getting the thing to work, incompatible HW,
M$'s increasingly draconian "anti-piracy" schemes and their increasing
hidden price tags, yes it is worth the higher initial price.
> >> >You can keep your el cheapo celery.
> >> And most people will think that Apple can keap their expensive iMac
> >> with its bottom of the line 500MHz G3.
> >So? 1 million billion flies can't be wrong; eat shit.
> This is your entire argument lately, Joe - totally worthless.
"Joe"?
> >> > It comes with a crappy OS made by a
> >> >crappy company.
> >> XP is actually pretty good
> >Only if you don't care about stuff like privacy, time, money, legacy
> >hardware and software.. etc.
> Since it handles that better than MacOS X 10.1, what's your point,
> Joe?
"Joe"?
OS X.1 doesn't come with the M$ drawbacks, and I doubt it handles better
than OS X (I haven't tried either of the two OSes yet, but I find it hard
to believe M$ can come up with anything that "handles better" than
anything out of Apple).
> >> and MUCH better supported hardware and
> >> software wise than OS X.
> >Then why all the complaints about stuff breaking when one upgrades to XP?
> That's -nothing- compared to all the stuff that breaks going to OS X,
> Joe.
And exactly what is it that breaks when going to OS X?
"Joe"?
> >> You can take this machine, add ethernet, firewire and a combo
> >> DVD/CDRW unit and its STILL hundreds of bucks less than the lowend
> >> iMac but with a much faster CPU, bigger screen, more memory, DVD
> >> capablity, CD burning capability and a colour printer.
> >And it STILL won't run the MacOS or OS X. And that makes it a POS as far
> >as I'm concerned.
> You may think that, but most people don't - they want the OS for which
> they can get software and for which they can work on programs from
> their jobs - which means they need a PC.
No. Most people use whatever their boss plonks on their desk - or they
just use whatever OS their home computer was delivered with - and in both
cases, that's Windows. Hardly anybody deliberately chooses Windows over
other OSes. Outside CSMA anyway.
> And $400 vs. $800 means the
> PC is a no-brainer - a better system with a bigger monitor for 1/2 the
> money.
Yeah, the PC is for no-brainers. Better system? Pah.
--
C Lund, Oslo
C Lund
> Ack! CLund, I mean. Oops...
Late night out, dc?
--
C Lund, Oslo
Mac2001
wrote:
>In article <ifjpst4frdne5b65k...@4ax.com>, dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:44:58 GMT, cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund)
>> wrote:
>> >http://216.33.84.100/BestBuyInserts/WeeklyFiles/PDFs/1014_18AL0P1_19AL0P1.PDF
>> >> >> What does Apple have to compete with this?
>> >> >They have computers that run the MacOS and OS X (natively, edlose).
>> >> XP is more than a match for OS X.
>> >It is? How so? Please be specific.
>> Applications, for one thing.
>
>Quantity is not the same as quality. As Edlose demonstrated some time ago
>(in an attempt at demonstrating the opposite), the mac does not lack
>software.
OS X certainly lacks applications, and *I* find Mac applications to
frequently be a step under/below what's available on the PC. YMMV and
all that...
>> Speed, for another. I find OS X 10.1 to
>> be slow - boot into 9.2.1, and then boot into 10.1 -- the changes and
>> the slowdown is obvious.
>
>Computers are always getting faster. And speed isn't everything.
The Mac is significantly slower - that isn't good.
>> >> Don't even TRY to compare MacOS 9.
>> >Why not? Be specific. (I fully expect a barraige of Sacred Buzzwords that
>> >mean little to the end user here).
>> OS9 crashes too easily and too much.
>
>Thus OS X.
Then we're back to "few apps" and "slow".
>Not that OS 9 is that unstable.
Yes, actually, it is.
>In fact, unless you're using
>mission critical apps, MacOS 9 is stable enough for most uses.
Ah...no.
>> >> You can't even pull the traditional 'Altivec makes it twice as
>> >> fast' BS on this one......
>> >So?
>> So the Mac is slow.
>
>No, it is not. The iMac might not be as fast as the fastest PC, but it's
>not slow. Any mac made today is fast enough for the average user (all the
>average user wants is email, www, spreadsheets, wordcrunchers, and a game
>or two).
For the money spent, the Mac is significantly slower than the
competition. And given that OS X is still fairly slow, compounding
the problem ... that isn't good.
>> >> >> 17" monitor,
>> >> >You can't get a 17" monitor for the mac?
>> >> Sure - if you don't mind having to pay extra over the cost of the
>> >> iMac and then having to find somewhere to hide the bulky iMac unit
>> >> with the integral 15" screen.
>> >Then don't buy an iMac.
>> Right - that's the point - there is no competition in this market
>> segment. Apple has no competition anywhere under $800.
>
>Yet people buy them. Why is that do you think? Could it be the OS? Could
>it be that people think the package is worth the money anyway?
Very few people buy them, so that's a fairly weak point.
>> >> >> 56k modem,
>> >> >I'd rather have ethernet - like the mac.
>> >> An Ethernet card will cost a whole $30 if the user wants one. The
>> >> PC is still hundreds of bucks cheaper and way better specced.
>> >Then why list that modem as if it mattered?
>> Just listing features, Joe. Relax.
>
>"Joe"?
Already corrected in another post.
>> >> >> 128MB,
>> >> >RAM? The mac has that too.
>> >> I thought the $800 iMac only had 64 megs?
>> >Sorry. You're right. I was thinking of the G4. But the iMac can be
>> >upgraded. (iirc)
>> Isn't it just amazing how much Apple charges for just basic stuff and
>> small monitors?
>
>That's why Apple is one of the few computer manufacturers around with a
>sound economy.
"balance sheet", I think you mean. Here you sound more like an Apple
stockholder than a customer.
>> >> >> Windows XP,
>> >> >Uck. I don't want *anything* from M$ on my computer.
>> >> Too bad something like 97% of the market think the OTHER way, eh?
>> >Actually, they don't. They're just going with the herd. No thinking involved.
>> Why do you say that?
>
>Because that's the way it is. The average Windows user didn't decide to
>buy Windows, he/she decided to buy a computer and Windows was what it came
>with - or Windows was what was on the PC his/her boss plopped on his/her
>desk.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. For business that's obviously correct -
the PC is the obvious choice for business. For the home, I think most
people have the opportunity to buy a Mac, but they choose not to for
the normal obvious reasons.
>> >> >> 48X CD,
>> >> >Yeah? How about a CDR, or even better, DVDR?
>> >> What does the Mac competition have? Surprise - a CD drive ($800 iMac).
>> >Once again, I was thinking of the G4. But what's so impressibve about the
>> >48x CD that it's worth mention?
>> It's HALF as much as the iMac - and comes with a big thing (the 17"
>> monitor) that will immediately get a buyer interested in it over the
>> iMac.
>
>And why does that make the x48 CD player interesting? Besides, a customer
>thinking seriously about buying a mac wouldn't decide to buy a POS PC just
>because it comes with a *huge* monitor.
It isn't a POS PC - it's faster than the Mac, and it comes with a
better monitor, and it's got more software. Why *would* anyone choose
a Mac? People (most normal ones, anyway) buy a box for cost and for
software reasons, not for OS reasons.
>> >> >> There is _NOTHING_ the Apple has that even comes close to this.
>> >> >To the contrary, it would seem that everything Apple has *surpasses* it.
>> >> The bottom of the range iMac doesn't even come close to this
>> >> machine, and costs twice as much.
>> >It runs the right OS (MacOS and OS X). That makes it infinitly more worth
>> >than any PC on the face of the earth.
>> Regardless of price. You go, Joe!
>
>"Joe"?
Corrected...already...
>And yes, it does. For someone not interested in 1x10^100 virii, dll hell,
>wasting valuable time just getting the thing to work, incompatible HW,
>M$'s increasingly draconian "anti-piracy" schemes and their increasing
>hidden price tags, yes it is worth the higher initial price.
Except that most people don't worry about those techy things. They
turn it on, and it works.
>> >> >You can keep your el cheapo celery.
>> >> And most people will think that Apple can keap their expensive iMac
>> >> with its bottom of the line 500MHz G3.
>> >So? 1 million billion flies can't be wrong; eat shit.
>> This is your entire argument lately, Joe - totally worthless.
>
>"Joe"?
>
>> >> > It comes with a crappy OS made by a
>> >> >crappy company.
>> >> XP is actually pretty good
>> >Only if you don't care about stuff like privacy, time, money, legacy
>> >hardware and software.. etc.
>> Since it handles that better than MacOS X 10.1, what's your point,
>> Joe?
>
>"Joe"?
Already corrected x2....
>OS X.1 doesn't come with the M$ drawbacks, and I doubt it handles better
>than OS X (I haven't tried either of the two OSes yet, but I find it hard
>to believe M$ can come up with anything that "handles better" than
>anything out of Apple).
You haven't even *TRIED* OS X? You're kidding!
>> >> and MUCH better supported hardware and
>> >> software wise than OS X.
>> >Then why all the complaints about stuff breaking when one upgrades to XP?
>> That's -nothing- compared to all the stuff that breaks going to OS X,
>> Joe.
>
>And exactly what is it that breaks when going to OS X?
Haven't you been paying attention on this forum?
>"Joe"?
>
>> >> You can take this machine, add ethernet, firewire and a combo
>> >> DVD/CDRW unit and its STILL hundreds of bucks less than the lowend
>> >> iMac but with a much faster CPU, bigger screen, more memory, DVD
>> >> capablity, CD burning capability and a colour printer.
>> >And it STILL won't run the MacOS or OS X. And that makes it a POS as far
>> >as I'm concerned.
>> You may think that, but most people don't - they want the OS for which
>> they can get software and for which they can work on programs from
>> their jobs - which means they need a PC.
>
>No. Most people use whatever their boss plonks on their desk - or they
>just use whatever OS their home computer was delivered with - and in both
>cases, that's Windows. Hardly anybody deliberately chooses Windows over
>other OSes. Outside CSMA anyway.
I addressed this a few paragraphs up.
>> And $400 vs. $800 means the
>> PC is a no-brainer - a better system with a bigger monitor for 1/2 the
>> money.
>
>Yeah, the PC is for no-brainers. Better system? Pah.
The PC "IS" a no-brainer better system.
Macman
cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund) wrote:
> In article <ifjpst4frdne5b65k...@4ax.com>, dc <d...@foo.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:44:58 GMT, cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund)
> > wrote:
> > >Then why list that modem as if it mattered?
> > Just listing features, Joe. Relax.
>
> "Joe"?
>
> > >It runs the right OS (MacOS and OS X). That makes it infinitly more worth
> > >than any PC on the face of the earth.
> > Regardless of price. You go, Joe!
>
> "Joe"?
>
> > >So? 1 million billion flies can't be wrong; eat shit.
> > This is your entire argument lately, Joe - totally worthless.
>
> "Joe"?
>
> > Since it handles that better than MacOS X 10.1, what's your point,
> > Joe?
>
> "Joe"?
>
You have to forgive DC. He has some kind of mental obsession with me and
seems to see me everywhere.
pookoopookoo
> as I'm concerned.
This means of course that clund just sits at his computer, never using any
apps, staring at the "purty pill buttons" with dribble leaking from the
corner of his mouth. (clund, this means you are an idiot. You'd probably buy
a piece of shit in a shoebox if it had an apple logo on it, then use the
shit for fondue.)
Once you open a cross-platform app, it's 99% similar from one platform to
the next. People don't use operating systems, they use applications the OS
doesn't matter as long as it doesn't crash (and win2k doesn't crash...unless
you don't know how to set it up correctly, the machines I build never crash,
period).
I have NO trouble using Photoshop (mac/pc), Illustrator (mac/pc), Quark
Xpress (mac/pc), StarOffice 5.2 (win2k/linux), Abiword (win2k/Linux) and
FlexiSign pro (mac/pc).
Apps I hate:
THE CHOOSER. I can't think of a WORSE way to connect to a network resource.
I think the win2k "Network Places" is light years ahead of this monstrosity.
What I do mind is:
Copying files to zip/cdr drive, where the MacOS is frozen solid while the
copy completes and the PC just keeps humming right along.
If you want to work *slower* then I guess that's your choice. Maybe one day
you'll actually use your machine to do real work, where minutes spent
copying data to disk could be better used continuing to work on what you
were doing.
Oh yeah, OSX without native photoshop/illustrator/quark is useless to me, so
looking at pretty pictures is about all you can do on it from a
design/presswork point of view.
Seeker1
> lies and their nonsense about beating P2s that were twice as fast?
> They were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
I didn't fall asleep, I did something that few Windroids seem to be
able to do -- I examined contrary evidence. Apple's claims of
overperformance are exaggerated; Windroid's claims of underperformance
are also widely exaggerated; as usual, the truth lies in between.
I still believe, based on all data that I've seen, that in most
real-word tasks that matter to users,
a G3 performs around the same as a P3 at double the clock speed
(same for the G4 and the P4)
a Celeron performs worse than a P3, which has better cache and FPU, at
most tasks.
Ergo, I hardly would consider a 900 MHz Celeron and 750 MHz G3
equivalent. A 400 MHz G3 would be more comparable. Which you can now
find in a used iMac, probably for around $400. Shocking.
> Nah - for 1/2 the price, the PC is the obvious and superior choice.
Only with lots of rebates, and there are many Mac resellers that offer
rebates also. I don't usually count rebates in my price assessment of
machines, because they are reseller-dependent.
> No? My mom notices it immediately (in fact, she went to 19" and 20"
> monitors...sounds to me like she'd miss the larger monitor.) Admit it
> - you're talking nonsense.
Extra screen space is useful for people who:
a) run lots of applications.
b) do design and need lots of windows open.
c) seem to think Quake is a better experience when it fills a larger
screen.
I wasn't saying I don't find it useful, or that your mom wouldn't, but
for most people in your market segment (computing neophytes and
non-power users), 15" is fine.
> and
> >are willing to fill out six different rebate forms, and wait 2-8 months
> >for each rebate, more power to 'em.
>
> 2-8 months? Try 1-2 months,
Not with most rebates I've applied for. Six months is average. Some
have taken up to 8 months. Remember, the longer they hold your money
before rebating it to you, the more they earn on it.
Just remember what a "rebate" is: it's a discount on the machine that
they make you jump through hoops to get, knowing that many people
aren't willing to go to the effort to do it, and knowing that they get
to hold on to your money for an extra length of time.
> Apple *really* should offer something in this market segment.
I don't necessarily disagree, but this doesn't affect my attitude
toward the machines that *I* purchase from them.
Seeker1
> the next.
Depending on whether they use true cross-platform code development, or
do a piss-poor sub-par port of Windows code to the Mac or Linux. The
number of developers who still do the latter is appalling.
> THE CHOOSER. I can't think of a WORSE way to connect to a network resource.
> I think the win2k "Network Places" is light years ahead of this monstrosity.
I hate it too. Good thing it was replaced in OS 9 with the Network
Browser and Printer Services. And no longer exists in OS X.
> Copying files to zip/cdr drive, where the MacOS is frozen solid while the
> copy completes and the PC just keeps humming right along.
Me too, unlike some others, I think "pre-emptive multitasking" is more
than a "buzzword," and like it as much as you. And it's in OS X.
> If you want to work *slower* then I guess that's your choice. Maybe one day
> you'll actually use your machine to do real work, where minutes spent
> copying data to disk could be better used continuing to work on what you
> were doing.
You can do it on a PC running a member of the NT family (NT, 2K, XP),
not the 9x family (98, ME).
Although many Windroids love to tout the virtues of Microsoft's better
OS "family," the truth is that more consumer machines up until recently
were shipped with 9x "home" OSen than NT "professional" OSen. Which
meant the vast majority of x86 PC home users weren't enjoying these
benefits.
XP Home will, admittedly, change this equation.
ZnU
"pookoopookoo" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > And it STILL won't run the MacOS or OS X. And that makes it a POS as far
> > as I'm concerned.
>
> This means of course that clund just sits at his computer, never using any
> apps, staring at the "purty pill buttons" with dribble leaking from the
> corner of his mouth. (clund, this means you are an idiot. You'd probably buy
> a piece of shit in a shoebox if it had an apple logo on it, then use the
> shit for fondue.)
>
> Once you open a cross-platform app, it's 99% similar from one platform to
> the next.
Except for things like windowing, menu placement (Windows continues to
ignore Fitt's law), widget behavior, and in the case of graphics app,
accurate color.
> People don't use operating systems, they use applications the OS
> doesn't matter as long as it doesn't crash (and win2k doesn't
> crash...unless you don't know how to set it up correctly, the
> machines I build never crash, period).
"Correctly" here is defined as "such that everything works perfectly".
So the response of the Wintrolls if everything doesn't work perfectly is
always "You must not have done it correctly". Of course, there's never
any way to know what the correct way is before you do it....
> I have NO trouble using Photoshop (mac/pc), Illustrator (mac/pc), Quark
> Xpress (mac/pc), StarOffice 5.2 (win2k/linux), Abiword (win2k/Linux) and
> FlexiSign pro (mac/pc).
>
> Apps I hate:
>
> THE CHOOSER. I can't think of a WORSE way to connect to a network resource.
> I think the win2k "Network Places" is light years ahead of this monstrosity.
You may have noticed that the chooser no longer exists in OS X, and that
there has been an alternative (Network Browser) since 8.5.
> What I do mind is:
>
> Copying files to zip/cdr drive, where the MacOS is frozen solid while the
> copy completes and the PC just keeps humming right along.
>
> If you want to work *slower* then I guess that's your choice. Maybe one day
> you'll actually use your machine to do real work, where minutes spent
> copying data to disk could be better used continuing to work on what you
> were doing.
Have you used a Mac since 7.6? Apparently not. You certainly haven't
used OS X.
> Oh yeah, OSX without native photoshop/illustrator/quark is useless to me, so
> looking at pretty pictures is about all you can do on it from a
> design/presswork point of view.
Illustrator is showing up in stores already. Quark, I've heard, is due
before the end of the year, and Photoshop should make it by early next
year.
--
Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it
to?
-- Clarence Darrow
C Lund
<z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote:
> (Windows continues to
> ignore Fitt's law)
What's "Fitt's Law"?
--
C Lund, Oslo
ZnU
cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund) wrote:
> In article <znu-983CA7.1...@news.acedsl.com>, ZnU
> <z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote:
>
> > (Windows continues to
> > ignore Fitt's law)
>
> What's "Fitt's Law"?
http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html
C Lund
> > And it STILL won't run the MacOS or OS X. And that makes it a POS as far
> > as I'm concerned.
> This means of course that clund just sits at his computer, never using any
> apps,
Why not?
>staring at the "purty pill buttons" with dribble leaking from the
> corner of his mouth.
What leads you to this conclusion?
> (clund, this means you are an idiot. You'd probably buy
> a piece of shit in a shoebox if it had an apple logo on it, then use the
> shit for fondue.)
How old are you? Fourteen?
> Once you open a cross-platform app, it's 99% similar from one platform to
> the next.
Except apps like PS that won't let you copy text paths (or whatever
they're called) in the Windows version, and generally seem... slower
somehow.
> People don't use operating systems, they use applications the OS
> doesn't matter as long as it doesn't crash
But they still have to start the apps, install the apps, shut down the
apps, uninstall the apps, copy files, compress files, move files, send
files, switch between various apps, copy between apps (does this work
properly in W2K?), find files, and so on. An OS is more than a desktop you
know.
> (and win2k doesn't crash...unless
> you don't know how to set it up correctly, the machines I build never crash,
> period).
Few people build their own machines for the same reason they don't build
their own cars.
Your machines *never* crash, period? I find that hard to believe. Do you
actually run programs on them?
> Copying files to zip/cdr drive, where the MacOS is frozen solid while the
> copy completes and the PC just keeps humming right along.
When was the last time you used a mac anyway?
> If you want to work *slower* then I guess that's your choice. Maybe one day
> you'll actually use your machine to do real work, where minutes spent
> copying data to disk could be better used continuing to work on what you
> were doing.
I'd rather work than fiddle with my files, like I had to do in win98.
--
C Lund, Oslo
C Lund
<mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >Quantity is not the same as quality. As Edlose demonstrated some time ago
> >(in an attempt at demonstrating the opposite), the mac does not lack
> >software.
> OS X certainly lacks applications, and *I* find Mac applications to
> frequently be a step under/below what's available on the PC. YMMV and
> all that...
You're free to have your opinion.
> >> Speed, for another. I find OS X 10.1 to
> >> be slow - boot into 9.2.1, and then boot into 10.1 -- the changes and
> >> the slowdown is obvious.
> >Computers are always getting faster. And speed isn't everything.
> The Mac is significantly slower - that isn't good.
The mac runs on a significantly lower clockrate. No, that isn't good for sales.
> >> >> Don't even TRY to compare MacOS 9.
> >> >Why not? Be specific. (I fully expect a barraige of Sacred Buzzwords that
> >> >mean little to the end user here).
> >> OS9 crashes too easily and too much.
> >Thus OS X.
> Then we're back to "few apps" and "slow".
Classic fixes the "few apps" problem, which is temporary anyway. Slow?
Well.. it's getting faster.
> >Not that OS 9 is that unstable.
> Yes, actually, it is.
No, it is not.
> >In fact, unless you're using
> >mission critical apps, MacOS 9 is stable enough for most uses.
> Ah...no.
Examples?
> >Yet people buy them. Why is that do you think? Could it be the OS? Could
> >it be that people think the package is worth the money anyway?
> Very few people buy them, so that's a fairly weak point.
No, very many people buy iMacs, so that point isn't really all that weak.
> >Because that's the way it is. The average Windows user didn't decide to
> >buy Windows, he/she decided to buy a computer and Windows was what it came
> >with - or Windows was what was on the PC his/her boss plopped on his/her
> >desk.
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. For business that's obviously correct -
> the PC is the obvious choice for business. For the home, I think most
> people have the opportunity to buy a Mac, but they choose not to for
> the normal obvious reasons.
No, they don't choose not to - the thought just never crosses their mind.
The average consumer just wants a computer, so they go pick up a wintel
box at Walmart or someplace similar. We've got shops like that here in
Norway, where you can buy freezers, toasters, ovens, refridgerators,
shaving machines - and Wintel boxes.
> >And why does that make the x48 CD player interesting? Besides, a customer
> >thinking seriously about buying a mac wouldn't decide to buy a POS PC just
> >because it comes with a *huge* monitor.
> It isn't a POS PC - it's faster than the Mac,
It's got a higher clockrate. Not the same as being faster. Particularily
when you're comparing a celery to a G3.
> and it comes with a
> better monitor,
It isn't necessarily better just because it's bigger. Particularily when
the size diff is only 2".
> and it's got more software.
But does it have more *good* software?
> Why *would* anyone choose
> a Mac?
Stable, good software, fast enough, looks good, easy to use, easy to fix,
and it "just works".
> People (most normal ones, anyway) buy a box for cost and for
> software reasons, not for OS reasons.
That's because most people just go with the herd. If you're shopping for a
car, do you just go for horsepower and low cost? Or do you also want a
radio/CD player, cupholders, comfortable seats, doors that close properly,
upholstry that doesn't smell of the previous owner, heaters in the seats,
and so on?
> >And yes, it does. For someone not interested in 1x10^100 virii, dll hell,
> >wasting valuable time just getting the thing to work, incompatible HW,
> >M$'s increasingly draconian "anti-piracy" schemes and their increasing
> >hidden price tags, yes it is worth the higher initial price.
> Except that most people don't worry about those techy things. They
> turn it on, and it works.
If it's a mac...
> >OS X.1 doesn't come with the M$ drawbacks, and I doubt it handles better
> >than OS X (I haven't tried either of the two OSes yet, but I find it hard
> >to believe M$ can come up with anything that "handles better" than
> >anything out of Apple).
> You haven't even *TRIED* OS X? You're kidding!
Not for long, unfortunatly. I only gave it a brief spin in a store. Not
really enough to judge.
> >> >> and MUCH better supported hardware and
> >> >> software wise than OS X.
> >> >Then why all the complaints about stuff breaking when one upgrades to XP?
> >> That's -nothing- compared to all the stuff that breaks going to OS X,
> >> Joe.
> >And exactly what is it that breaks when going to OS X?
> Haven't you been paying attention on this forum?
Yes I have. Now what is it that breaks in OS X?
> >No. Most people use whatever their boss plonks on their desk - or they
> >just use whatever OS their home computer was delivered with - and in both
> >cases, that's Windows. Hardly anybody deliberately chooses Windows over
> >other OSes. Outside CSMA anyway.
> I addressed this a few paragraphs up.
You tried, anyway.
> >> And $400 vs. $800 means the
> >> PC is a no-brainer - a better system with a bigger monitor for 1/2 the
> >> money.
> >Yeah, the PC is for no-brainers. Better system? Pah.
> The PC "IS" a no-brainer better system.
I still don't see what makes it "better".
--
C Lund, Oslo
dc
<som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>THE CHOOSER. I can't think of a WORSE way to connect to a network resource.
>I think the win2k "Network Places" is light years ahead of this monstrosity.
Agreed. In OS X, somehow they expect you to memorize all SMB shares
you want to mount.
>What I do mind is:
>
>Copying files to zip/cdr drive, where the MacOS is frozen solid while the
>copy completes and the PC just keeps humming right along.
Fixed in OS X.
>Oh yeah, OSX without native photoshop/illustrator/quark is useless to me, so
>looking at pretty pictures is about all you can do on it from a
>design/presswork point of view.
Well, you can run those apps in Classic, right?
dc
wrote:
>> Did you fall asleep the last time we talked about Apple's marketing
>> lies and their nonsense about beating P2s that were twice as fast?
>> They were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
>
>I didn't fall asleep, I did something that few Windroids seem to be
>able to do -- I examined contrary evidence. Apple's claims of
>overperformance are exaggerated; Windroid's claims of underperformance
>are also widely exaggerated; as usual, the truth lies in between.
Yet you still claim the P2/1000 isn't as fast as the G3/500.
>I still believe, based on all data that I've seen, that in most
>real-word tasks that matter to users,
Hmm...
>a G3 performs around the same as a P3 at double the clock speed
>(same for the G4 and the P4)
Nonsense; I -might- buy that it takes a P4 running at 1.4 to equal a
G4/733, but the G3 comment is nonsense. Unfortunately for your
argument, though, everyone agrees the P4 runs slower at a given
clock...which you either don't know about or haven't taken into
consideration (or you believe a G4 is slower than a G3 per clock, for
some odd reason). In either case, it makes your logic terribly
flawed.
>a Celeron performs worse than a P3, which has better cache and FPU, at
>most tasks.
That's a given - I'm most interested in comparing across platforms.
The G4/800 DUAL system ($2500 or so, minimum), for example, is similar
(at least in BareFeats tests) to the P4/1.6, a $975 or so (Dell, GF3
equipped) PC. That's nothing for Apple to brag about.
>Ergo, I hardly would consider a 900 MHz Celeron and 750 MHz G3
>equivalent. A 400 MHz G3 would be more comparable. Which you can now
>find in a used iMac, probably for around $400. Shocking.
The $800 iMac includes a G3/500. The $400 PC includes a Celeron 900
(which is faster than the G3 IMHO) in most things - and includes a 17"
monitor and printer. 1/2 the price!
>> Nah - for 1/2 the price, the PC is the obvious and superior choice.
>
>Only with lots of rebates, and there are many Mac resellers that offer
>rebates also.
Name a few that will bring it down to $400.
> I don't usually count rebates in my price assessment of
>machines, because they are reseller-dependent.
Fine. Show me an iMac/500, new, for $400. Heck - don't even worry
about the monitor - just show me a new iMac/500 for $400.
>> No? My mom notices it immediately (in fact, she went to 19" and 20"
>> monitors...sounds to me like she'd miss the larger monitor.) Admit it
>> - you're talking nonsense.
>
>Extra screen space is useful for people who:
>
>a) run lots of applications.
>b) do design and need lots of windows open.
>c) seem to think Quake is a better experience when it fills a larger
>screen.
Or who have poor eyesight and need it - which at one time or other
will include almost everyone.
>I wasn't saying I don't find it useful, or that your mom wouldn't, but
>for most people in your market segment (computing neophytes and
>non-power users), 15" is fine.
LOL. You're kidding, right? I couldn't put a 15" monitor on a
customer's desk around here if I tried. 17" is now the standard.
>> and
>> >are willing to fill out six different rebate forms, and wait 2-8 months
>> >for each rebate, more power to 'em.
>>
>> 2-8 months? Try 1-2 months,
>
>Not with most rebates I've applied for. Six months is average. Some
>have taken up to 8 months. Remember, the longer they hold your money
>before rebating it to you, the more they earn on it.
Not with most rebates I've gotten, but YMMV.
>Just remember what a "rebate" is: it's a discount on the machine that
>they make you jump through hoops to get, knowing that many people
>aren't willing to go to the effort to do it, and knowing that they get
>to hold on to your money for an extra length of time.
Yep. So?
>> Apple *really* should offer something in this market segment.
>
>I don't necessarily disagree, but this doesn't affect my attitude
>toward the machines that *I* purchase from them.
Too bad; imagine all of the software that might be released if Apple
had more than 5% of the market.
ZnU
dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:44:38 -0400, "pookoopookoo"
> <som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >THE CHOOSER. I can't think of a WORSE way to connect to a network resource.
> >I think the win2k "Network Places" is light years ahead of this monstrosity.
>
> Agreed. In OS X, somehow they expect you to memorize all SMB shares
> you want to mount.
Can't you make aliases of them?
> >What I do mind is:
> >
> >Copying files to zip/cdr drive, where the MacOS is frozen solid while the
> >copy completes and the PC just keeps humming right along.
>
> Fixed in OS X.
>
> >Oh yeah, OSX without native photoshop/illustrator/quark is useless to me, so
> >looking at pretty pictures is about all you can do on it from a
> >design/presswork point of view.
>
> Well, you can run those apps in Classic, right?
They all seem to run pretty well for me. Quark has some redraw issues in
Classic, but it's still quite usable.
dc
>In article <h14sstg824l5fcsko...@4ax.com>,
> dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:44:38 -0400, "pookoopookoo"
>> <som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >THE CHOOSER. I can't think of a WORSE way to connect to a network resource.
>> >I think the win2k "Network Places" is light years ahead of this monstrosity.
>>
>> Agreed. In OS X, somehow they expect you to memorize all SMB shares
>> you want to mount.
>
>Can't you make aliases of them?
Should I need to?
(Yes, of course I can. That isn't the point. Another thing for Apple
to fix in ServicePack 10.2)
dc
wrote:
>In article <inpqstsmrunufak3m...@4ax.com>, Mac2001
><mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Quantity is not the same as quality. As Edlose demonstrated some time ago
>> >(in an attempt at demonstrating the opposite), the mac does not lack
>> >software.
>> OS X certainly lacks applications, and *I* find Mac applications to
>> frequently be a step under/below what's available on the PC. YMMV and
>> all that...
>
>You're free to have your opinion.
>
>> >> Speed, for another. I find OS X 10.1 to
>> >> be slow - boot into 9.2.1, and then boot into 10.1 -- the changes and
>> >> the slowdown is obvious.
>> >Computers are always getting faster. And speed isn't everything.
>> The Mac is significantly slower - that isn't good.
>
>The mac runs on a significantly lower clockrate. No, that isn't good for sales.
And on top of that, it's significantly slower. Not good. You can't
use 10.1 and tell me it isn't -significantly- slower, CLund.
>> >> >> Don't even TRY to compare MacOS 9.
>> >> >Why not? Be specific. (I fully expect a barraige of Sacred Buzzwords that
>> >> >mean little to the end user here).
>> >> OS9 crashes too easily and too much.
>> >Thus OS X.
>> Then we're back to "few apps" and "slow".
>
>Classic fixes the "few apps" problem, which is temporary anyway.
IYO. In mine, it's still got too few apps.
>Slow?
>Well.. it's getting faster.
Slowly. :)
>> >Not that OS 9 is that unstable.
>> Yes, actually, it is.
>
>No, it is not.
Oh, please. It's a crashfest if you do anything more than a game or
two on it.
>> >In fact, unless you're using
>> >mission critical apps, MacOS 9 is stable enough for most uses.
>> Ah...no.
>
>Examples?
Yeah - my Mac crashes all the time. C'mon - how many OS X articles
have commentary on that very fact?
>> >Yet people buy them. Why is that do you think? Could it be the OS? Could
>> >it be that people think the package is worth the money anyway?
>> Very few people buy them, so that's a fairly weak point.
>
>No, very many people buy iMacs, so that point isn't really all that weak.
It's 5% of the population; how can that be "very many"?
>> >Because that's the way it is. The average Windows user didn't decide to
>> >buy Windows, he/she decided to buy a computer and Windows was what it came
>> >with - or Windows was what was on the PC his/her boss plopped on his/her
>> >desk.
>> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. For business that's obviously correct -
>> the PC is the obvious choice for business. For the home, I think most
>> people have the opportunity to buy a Mac, but they choose not to for
>> the normal obvious reasons.
>
>No, they don't choose not to - the thought just never crosses their mind.
>The average consumer just wants a computer, so they go pick up a wintel
>box at Walmart or someplace similar. We've got shops like that here in
>Norway, where you can buy freezers, toasters, ovens, refridgerators,
>shaving machines - and Wintel boxes.
OK; what's the problem besides the fact that Apple can't market
products and costs too much?
>> >And why does that make the x48 CD player interesting? Besides, a customer
>> >thinking seriously about buying a mac wouldn't decide to buy a POS PC just
>> >because it comes with a *huge* monitor.
>> It isn't a POS PC - it's faster than the Mac,
>
>It's got a higher clockrate. Not the same as being faster. Particularily
>when you're comparing a celery to a G3.
Usually there's an amazingly high correlation between speed and
clockrate, and I really don't think the C900 has anything to worry
about against a fairly old G3/500.
>> and it comes with a
>> better monitor,
>
>It isn't necessarily better just because it's bigger. Particularily when
>the size diff is only 2".
Only 2"? The difference between 800x600 being comfortable and
1024x768 being comfortable - at least.
>> and it's got more software.
>
>But does it have more *good* software?
Of course - the good stuff comes out on MS platforms first and then
gets ported - sometimes, and with varying results - to the Mac.
Sometimes. Not always....
>> Why *would* anyone choose
>> a Mac?
>
>Stable,
In OS X.
>good software,
Sometimes.
> fast enough,
If you're not interested in high speed.
>looks good,
Granted.
> easy to use, easy to fix,
>and it "just works".
Not so much anymore - that difference is disappearing.
>> People (most normal ones, anyway) buy a box for cost and for
>> software reasons, not for OS reasons.
>
>That's because most people just go with the herd. If you're shopping for a
>car, do you just go for horsepower and low cost? Or do you also want a
>radio/CD player, cupholders, comfortable seats, doors that close properly,
>upholstry that doesn't smell of the previous owner, heaters in the seats,
>and so on?
But all of that is guaranteed these days, no matter where you buy your
new car from. The bottom of the barrel has improved to the point that
Apple no longer offers a significant advantage over it.
>> >And yes, it does. For someone not interested in 1x10^100 virii, dll hell,
>> >wasting valuable time just getting the thing to work, incompatible HW,
>> >M$'s increasingly draconian "anti-piracy" schemes and their increasing
>> >hidden price tags, yes it is worth the higher initial price.
>> Except that most people don't worry about those techy things. They
>> turn it on, and it works.
>
>If it's a mac...
then that's still true, but they paid twice as much for it and got
less stuff.
>> >OS X.1 doesn't come with the M$ drawbacks, and I doubt it handles better
>> >than OS X (I haven't tried either of the two OSes yet, but I find it hard
>> >to believe M$ can come up with anything that "handles better" than
>> >anything out of Apple).
>> You haven't even *TRIED* OS X? You're kidding!
>
>Not for long, unfortunatly. I only gave it a brief spin in a store. Not
>really enough to judge.
<Gasp!> Why ?? Heck - run, don't walk, and go buy it. Geez....
>> >> >> and MUCH better supported hardware and
>> >> >> software wise than OS X.
>> >> >Then why all the complaints about stuff breaking when one upgrades to XP?
>> >> That's -nothing- compared to all the stuff that breaks going to OS X,
>> >> Joe.
>> >And exactly what is it that breaks when going to OS X?
>> Haven't you been paying attention on this forum?
>
>Yes I have. Now what is it that breaks in OS X?
You haven't been paying attention in this forum.
>> >No. Most people use whatever their boss plonks on their desk - or they
>> >just use whatever OS their home computer was delivered with - and in both
>> >cases, that's Windows. Hardly anybody deliberately chooses Windows over
>> >other OSes. Outside CSMA anyway.
>> I addressed this a few paragraphs up.
>
>You tried, anyway.
It was addressed; if you didn't understand it, re-read it.
>> >> And $400 vs. $800 means the
>> >> PC is a no-brainer - a better system with a bigger monitor for 1/2 the
>> >> money.
>> >Yeah, the PC is for no-brainers. Better system? Pah.
>> The PC "IS" a no-brainer better system.
>
>I still don't see what makes it "better".
More speed, better monitor, printer, all for HALF AS MUCH. If money
means nothing to you, more power to you - but for most of the people
out there, it's a big deal, so spending HALF AS MUCH is a significant
incentive.
Seeker1
> >rebates also.
>
> Name a few that will bring it down to $400.
See, the problem I have with specialized offers is they are
specialized. Right now, you can get a free PC if you sign up for 3
years of overpriced Internet service from FreePC.com. Nobody makes the
same offer for Macs.
So why not claim that you can get it for free from FreePC.com, and stop
talking up that it only costs $400 with 6 rebates?
> >Just remember what a "rebate" is: it's a discount on the machine that
> >they make you jump through hoops to get, knowing that many people
> >aren't willing to go to the effort to do it, and knowing that they get
> >to hold on to your money for an extra length of time.
>
> Yep. So?
So, why not just give you the discount upfront?
dc
wrote:
>> >Only with lots of rebates, and there are many Mac resellers that offer
>> >rebates also.
>>
>> Name a few that will bring it down to $400.
>
>See, the problem I have with specialized offers is they are
>specialized. Right now, you can get a free PC if you sign up for 3
>years of overpriced Internet service from FreePC.com. Nobody makes the
>same offer for Macs.
C'mon - just answer the question. You said you could get rebates on
Macs - so put up or shut up.
>So why not claim that you can get it for free from FreePC.com, and stop
>talking up that it only costs $400 with 6 rebates?
$400 for a C900 / 17" / printer. Give me an iMac/500, new, at that
pricepoint. Or just admit it - you can't even get -close- to there.
>> >Just remember what a "rebate" is: it's a discount on the machine that
>> >they make you jump through hoops to get, knowing that many people
>> >aren't willing to go to the effort to do it, and knowing that they get
>> >to hold on to your money for an extra length of time.
>>
>> Yep. So?
>
>So, why not just give you the discount upfront?
Too easy.
Now, answer the question - how and where can I get a new iMac/500 for
$400?
Richard K. McPike
<d...@foo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 23:20:14 GMT, cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <inpqstsmrunufak3m...@4ax.com>, Mac2001
> ><mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >Quantity is not the same as quality. As Edlose demonstrated some time ago
> >> >(in an attempt at demonstrating the opposite), the mac does not lack
> >> >software.
> >> OS X certainly lacks applications, and *I* find Mac applications to
> >> frequently be a step under/below what's available on the PC. YMMV and
> >> all that...
> >
> >You're free to have your opinion.
> >
> >> >> Speed, for another. I find OS X 10.1 to
> >> >> be slow - boot into 9.2.1, and then boot into 10.1 -- the changes and
> >> >> the slowdown is obvious.
> >> >Computers are always getting faster. And speed isn't everything.
> >> The Mac is significantly slower - that isn't good.
> >
> >The mac runs on a significantly lower clockrate. No, that isn't good for
> >sales.
>
> And on top of that, it's significantly slower. Not good. You can't
> use 10.1 and tell me it isn't -significantly- slower, CLund.
I'm using Mac OS X 10.1 on the iMac 500 that I'm setting up for my mom.
OS 10.1 is not slow. No, the Finder is not as fast as the Windows UI in
Windows XP on my 800 MHz P3 Dell, but the Dell has a faster hard disk
drive and 3 times the RAM. Regardless, fast/slow is an arbitrary
distinction not a comparative one. And Mac OS 10.1 is not slow.
If it's this fast on a G3 500, then OS X 10.1 should scream on the 667
TiBook I ordered yesterday.
> >> >> >> Don't even TRY to compare MacOS 9.
> >> >> >Why not? Be specific. (I fully expect a barraige of Sacred Buzzwords
> >> >> >that
> >> >> >mean little to the end user here).
> >> >> OS9 crashes too easily and too much.
> >> >Thus OS X.
> >> Then we're back to "few apps" and "slow".
> >
> >Classic fixes the "few apps" problem, which is temporary anyway.
>
> IYO. In mine, it's still got too few apps.
I can think of nothing, aside from wasting my valuable time on stupid
games, that I can do on my Windows machine that I won't be able to do
on my TiBook. Plus, just judging by the preview release versus the XP
edition on my PC, Word v.X for the Mac is a much nicer app than Word
2002.
> >> >Not that OS 9 is that unstable.
> >> Yes, actually, it is.
> >
> >No, it is not.
>
> Oh, please. It's a crashfest if you do anything more than a game or
> two on it.
That is bullshit. The Southern Methodist University Daily Campus, which
I am layout editor for, produces its entire paper on Macs... the
writers and copy editors work on iMacs, the editors, graphics,
production and web people on G3 and G4 towers. None of the machines
crashes or hangs at anything approaching regularity (one of the iMacs
hung pretty badly a week ago), and if it does the likely culprit is
QuarkXPress, perhaps the worst piece of software ever written. With any
luck, we'll switch over to inDesign 2.0 as part of our OS X roll out
next year.
> >> >In fact, unless you're using
> >> >mission critical apps, MacOS 9 is stable enough for most uses.
> >> Ah...no.
> >
> >Examples?
>
> Yeah - my Mac crashes all the time.
My Windows XP has crashed far more often this week than the iMac
running Mac OS X v. 10.1, despite the fact that I use almost all
Microsoft software on my PC (ie, it should all work together), whereas
my Mac is running programs from disparate sources, much of which is
still beta.
So I suppose by your stupid measure, Windows XP isn't stable, either.
> >> >Yet people buy them. Why is that do you think? Could it be the OS? Could
> >> >it be that people think the package is worth the money anyway?
> >> Very few people buy them, so that's a fairly weak point.
> >
> >No, very many people buy iMacs, so that point isn't really all that weak.
>
> It's 5% of the population; how can that be "very many"?
Five percent of a large number is still a large number. The largeness
of a number is subjective, not relative. Five percent of the world's
population, for example, is a large number, despite the fact that it is
a relatively small portion. Likewise, Apple sold 850,000 Macs in the
last three months. That's a large number (roughly 3 million machines
per anum), regardless of the percentage it is of the total PC market.
> >No, they don't choose not to - the thought just never crosses their mind.
> >The average consumer just wants a computer, so they go pick up a wintel
> >box at Walmart or someplace similar. We've got shops like that here in
> >Norway, where you can buy freezers, toasters, ovens, refridgerators,
> >shaving machines - and Wintel boxes.
>
> OK; what's the problem besides the fact that Apple can't market
> products and costs too much?
The iMac sells quite well, and is well marketed.
And now you're offering up as subjective a concept that is relative.
What costs too much for you may be chump change for me. Therefore, it
doesn't really cost too much, its just out of your league. Since I can
afford Macs, I can't say that I care that you can't.
> >
> >It's got a higher clockrate. Not the same as being faster. Particularily
> >when you're comparing a celery to a G3.
>
> Usually there's an amazingly high correlation between speed and
> clockrate, and I really don't think the C900 has anything to worry
> about against a fairly old G3/500.
You cannot compare clockrates for different processors (or even in this
case, different processor families) as though they are 1:1. That is
absurd.
> Only 2"? The difference between 800x600 being comfortable and
> 1024x768 being comfortable - at least.
Hmmm... running an iMac at 1024x768... text is large and visible, icons
easy to hit, screen not flickering... tell me, what's uncomfortable
here?
> >
> >Stable,
>
> In OS X.
>
> >good software,
>
> Sometimes.
>
> > fast enough,
>
> If you're not interested in high speed.
>
> >looks good,
>
> Granted.
>
> > easy to use, easy to fix,
> >and it "just works".
>
> Not so much anymore - that difference is disappearing.
Then buy a PC and live life happily. Why the obsession with trying to
convince other people you're choice is right? You do realize, in the
long and wide of things, the computer platform you use counts for
exactly JACK SHIT.
> More speed, better monitor, printer, all for HALF AS MUCH.
More speed: debatable. Better monitor: can't say for certain, the
importance is image quality, not screen size. Printer: big woop, Apple
Store Website is handng out free printers like they were Halloween
candy. And half as much? Who cares. There's more to buying a product
than price. Yeah, we could have bought my mom a Ford Taurus for 1/8 the
cost of her new Jaguar. But my mom deserves a Jaguar. And a Mac.
Kirk
dc
<DoNotSpa...@airmail.net> wrote:
>In article <l97sstgcdbp6dbj0a...@4ax.com>,
> dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
>
>@It's 5% of the population; how can that be "very many"?
>
>
> Well, you didn't specify what population, so I'll just assume earth.
>
> 6,000,000,000+
> ------------- > many So we can safely conclude==>very many
> 20
You know what happens when you assume...
>@Usually there's an amazingly high correlation between speed and
>@clockrate, and I really don't think the C900 has anything to worry
>@about against a fairly old G3/500.
>
> I have a 900MHz phone, but I doubt it's faster than my 400MHz mac.
>Sure, it's specious, but it illustrates that clockrate has no direct
>bearing on speed; making any assumptions based on clockrate relating to
>speed is just stupid.
Except to those of us familiar with clockspeed (the computer type) and
its' correlation with speed; perhaps that "those" group doesn't
include you.
>@Of course - the good stuff comes out on MS platforms first and then
>@gets ported - sometimes, and with varying results - to the Mac.
>@Sometimes. Not always....
>
> Marathon was Mac first. I believe Mathematica was too.
Marathon was crap when it was made, and it was still crap when
Marathon Infinity was released.
Mathematica is good, but is one application worth being proud of? My
statement stands true - Windows gets the good stuff first, and the Mac
might - sometimes - and sometimes gets nothing.
>@> fast enough,
>@
>@If you're not interested in high speed.
>
> How much speed do you need? What are you doing that requires it?
Why wait? Why have you ever upgraded? Are you still running your
first Mac?
>@> easy to use, easy to fix,
>@>and it "just works".
>@
>@Not so much anymore - that difference is disappearing.
>
> Explain.
Windows 95 (and later versions) made most of those issues go away.
Sure, in Win3.x days there were a few differences, but for the most
part most non-computer techs don't see big differences anymore - and
I'd even argue that NT/2k/XP have moved the balance of use and
usability (at least until OS X got here) tilted in MS's direction.
>@>I still don't see what makes it "better".
>@
>@More speed,
>
> clockrate, what about actual speed?
No, actual speed.
>@better monitor,
>
> bigger, what about picture quality?
Similar - and it's bigger, too (did I mention that?). The iMac
monitor (among independent tests) has never been known for super high
quality.
>@printer,
>
> is it a good one? does it do ps?
It's an inexpensive, basic printer. Contrary to popular belief, not
everyone needs a $1500 PS color laser printer.
>@all for HALF AS MUCH.
>
> you get what you pay for.
In the case of the PC. In the case of the Mac, you get far less than
what you pay for --- the rest goes into Apple NeverNever Land.
>@If money
>@means nothing to you, more power to you - but for most of the people
>@out there, it's a big deal, so spending HALF AS MUCH is a significant
>@incentive.
>
> I tend to buy things very rarely. That's because I take the time to
>find a quality item that will last and retain value. A wintel doesn't
>cut it--especially one off the bottom of the barrel.
Please tell me why, for a computeritem, that's good. For example, an
Amiga 4000 (a 68040 computer last made in the very early 1990s) is
still "worth" $500-800 these days, yet anyone can easily see that only
a nutcase would pay that much for such an old and obsolete computer.
So, aside from the obvious argument that Maccies must be nutcases to
pay big money for obsolete computers (which actually isn't that far
wrong) and the obvious argument that Apple/Amiga doesn't rev up
computers nearly as much as Wintel does, just what is good about that?
As a *consumer* I want you to tell me how paying a huge premium for
your computers - and not being able to easily upgrade the computers
you already have to the latest technology - is somehow "good".
pookoopookoo
The fact that any machine without MacOS is automatically a POS to you.
> How old are you? Fourteen?
26.
> Except apps like PS that won't let you copy text paths (or whatever
> they're called) in the Windows version, and generally seem... slower
> somehow.
Really? works fine here (XP, Photoshop 6.0, pasting text-as-paths from
Illustrator 9.0)
> But they still have to start the apps, install the apps, shut down the
> apps, uninstall the apps, copy files, compress files, move files, send
> files, switch between various apps, copy between apps (does this work
> properly in W2K?), find files, and so on. An OS is more than a desktop you
> know.
Copying between apps? Do you know what Windows 2000 professional is? Of
course it works! What kind of silly question is that??
> Few people build their own machines for the same reason they don't build
> their own cars.
Correct. Which is why most people should ask me to build their machines, I
know what I'm doing. Not many people know how to build machines for
stability as opposed to building them for raw speed.
> Your machines *never* crash, period? I find that hard to believe. Do you
> actually run programs on them?
Absolutely. I just know how to build a machine that won't crash I can't
remember the last time win2k crashed on me...I installed it just over a year
ago, then upgraded to XP.
> > Copying files to zip/cdr drive, where the MacOS is frozen solid while
the
> > copy completes and the PC just keeps humming right along.
>
> When was the last time you used a mac anyway?
What time is it where you are? I dropped by the Mac Lab today around noon to
see if the splash was working (it wasn't). I tweaked my project on an old
G3/300 Beige box for about an hour. Yes, I use Macs every day. I still find
the stability and security of Win2k MUCH better.
pookoopookoo
resource.
> >I think the win2k "Network Places" is light years ahead of this
monstrosity.
>
> Agreed. In OS X, somehow they expect you to memorize all SMB shares
> you want to mount.
try xsmbclient. It emulates a bit of network neiborhood's behaviour (you
need xwindows and samba installed to use it) I use it on RH7.1 and I love
it.
> Fixed in OS X.
I know. About bloody time.
> Well, you can run those apps in Classic, right?
I could also try to open my car door with my elbow alone...=) But I think it
would be a fairly laborious and unpleasant task yes?
pookoopookoo
> crashes or hangs at anything approaching regularity (one of the iMacs
> hung pretty badly a week ago), and if it does the likely culprit is
> QuarkXPress, perhaps the worst piece of software ever written. With any
> luck, we'll switch over to inDesign 2.0 as part of our OS X roll out
> next year.
Wow...hehehe, someone's been having too much radon with his cornflakes in
the morning...
Quark Inc. may be a shithole full of greedy infidels, Xpress may be satan's
own app in user un-friendlyness, but it's NOT unstable. In fact it's one of
the most STABLE apps I've ever worked with (on a mac). Compare with
Illustrator 9.0 (before the service pack), Illustrator is a skank of an app,
saving files is like russian roulette in illustrator as it has an AMAZING
knack for corrupting it's own files when you save and then never
opening/importing them again. Gotta LOVE illustrator, I was lucky enough to
be able to save some of my buddies files by taking them home to my PC and
importing the files into coreldraw and saving out again as illustrator 7.0.
My comments however are aimed exclusively at the MacOS version of
Illustrator, I find Illustrator 9 on PC a MUCH more well behaved beast (it
crashes from time to time, but nowhere near the frequency with which the
MacOS version decides to call it quits).
C Lund
> >> Yes, actually, it is.
> >No, it is not.
> Oh, please. It's a crashfest if you do anything more than a game or
> two on it.
Eh. No it isn't. If your's is crashing as much as you claim, then you're
doing something wrong. Tried zapping the PRAM lately? It doesn't crash for
me *except* when I play games. Even Netshit hasn't managed to crash it.
> >> >In fact, unless you're using
> >> >mission critical apps, MacOS 9 is stable enough for most uses.
> >> Ah...no.
> >Examples?
> Yeah - my Mac crashes all the time.
Which is not an example. You aren't following Edlos's advice and smashing
it on a concrete floor or something, are you?
> C'mon - how many OS X articles
> have commentary on that very fact?
I hven't see na single one. Doesn't mean none comment on that, but I
haven't seen one. Could you give me a link?
> >> >Yet people buy them. Why is that do you think? Could it be the OS? Could
> >> >it be that people think the package is worth the money anyway?
> >> Very few people buy them, so that's a fairly weak point.
> >No, very many people buy iMacs, so that point isn't really all that weak.
> It's 5% of the population; how can that be "very many"?
5% of a large population is very many, like it or not.
> >No, they don't choose not to - the thought just never crosses their mind.
> >The average consumer just wants a computer, so they go pick up a wintel
> >box at Walmart or someplace similar. We've got shops like that here in
> >Norway, where you can buy freezers, toasters, ovens, refridgerators,
> >shaving machines - and Wintel boxes.
>
> OK; what's the problem besides the fact that Apple can't market
> products and costs too much?
Microsoft's market dominion. There's no room for anybody else.
> >> >And why does that make the x48 CD player interesting? Besides, a customer
> >> >thinking seriously about buying a mac wouldn't decide to buy a POS PC just
> >> >because it comes with a *huge* monitor.
> >> It isn't a POS PC - it's faster than the Mac,
> >
> >It's got a higher clockrate. Not the same as being faster. Particularily
> >when you're comparing a celery to a G3.
>
> Usually there's an amazingly high correlation between speed and
> clockrate,
Only when comparing processors of the same kind.
> and I really don't think the C900 has anything to worry
> about against a fairly old G3/500.
So?
> >> and it's got more software.
> >But does it have more *good* software?
> Of course - the good stuff comes out on MS platforms first and then
> gets ported - sometimes, and with varying results - to the Mac.
> Sometimes. Not always....
So what it is you find lacking? Keep in mind that Edwin posted a series of
"Windows-only" stuff here some time ago, and just about every single item
he listed either had a Mac counterpart, was ported or in port, or was
crap.
> >> Why *would* anyone choose
> >> a Mac?
> >Stable,
> In OS X.
And in OS 7.5.5, OS 8.1, and OS 9.2. Not mission-critical stable, but good
enough for anything else.
> >good software,
> Sometimes.
Usually.
> > fast enough,
> If you're not interested in high speed.
Depends what you're doing. Where is it you find the mac lacking in speed?
> > easy to use, easy to fix,
> >and it "just works".
> Not so much anymore - that difference is disappearing.
Sez you. I hear otherwise from others.
> >That's because most people just go with the herd. If you're shopping for a
> >car, do you just go for horsepower and low cost? Or do you also want a
> >radio/CD player, cupholders, comfortable seats, doors that close properly,
> >upholstry that doesn't smell of the previous owner, heaters in the seats,
> >and so on?
> But all of that is guaranteed these days,
Not on that el cheapo PC you were talking about.
> >> >> >> and MUCH better supported hardware and
> >> >> >> software wise than OS X.
> >> >> >Then why all the complaints about stuff breaking when one
upgrades to XP?
> >> >> That's -nothing- compared to all the stuff that breaks going to OS X,
> >> >> Joe.
> >> >And exactly what is it that breaks when going to OS X?
> >> Haven't you been paying attention on this forum?
> >Yes I have. Now what is it that breaks in OS X?
> You haven't been paying attention in this forum.
Yes I have. Your inability to give examples is noted.
> >> >> And $400 vs. $800 means the
> >> >> PC is a no-brainer - a better system with a bigger monitor for 1/2 the
> >> >> money.
> >> >Yeah, the PC is for no-brainers. Better system? Pah.
> >> The PC "IS" a no-brainer better system.
> >I still don't see what makes it "better".
> More speed,
Doubtful.
> better monitor,
Doubtful.
> printer, all for HALF AS MUCH.
But no decent OS.
--
C Lund, Oslo
C Lund
> > Marathon was Mac first. I believe Mathematica was too.
> Marathon was crap when it was made, and it was still crap when
> Marathon Infinity was released.
Sounds like sour grapes to me. The Marathon trilogy was the best game of
it's time.
> >@Not so much anymore - that difference is disappearing.
> > Explain.
> Windows 95 (and later versions) made most of those issues go away.
Absolutely not. I've used Win3, Win95, and Win98. They are unstable,
buggy, crashprone, user-hostile POS oses. Even M$ says this in their
attempts at getting you guys to buy the *next* version of it's OS. MacOS
7.5.5 beeats the stuffing out of all those three OSes on all counts expect
software proliference.
And according to your fellow wintrolls on this forum, the changes
introduced in W2K were mainly "under the hood", which means W2K has the
same crappy GUI as it's predecessors. XP looks like an ugly version of OS
X, just like WinX looks like ugly versions of the MacOS.
--
C Lund, Oslo
C Lund
<som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > What leads you to this conclusion?
> The fact that any machine without MacOS is automatically a POS to you.
Any machine with an M$ OS anyway.
> > How old are you? Fourteen?
> 26.
Then why are you acting like you're fourteen?
> > Except apps like PS that won't let you copy text paths (or whatever
> > they're called) in the Windows version, and generally seem... slower
> > somehow.
> Really? works fine here (XP, Photoshop 6.0, pasting text-as-paths from
> Illustrator 9.0)
So they finally implemented that. Good for you.
> > But they still have to start the apps, install the apps, shut down the
> > apps, uninstall the apps, copy files, compress files, move files, send
> > files, switch between various apps, copy between apps (does this work
> > properly in W2K?), find files, and so on. An OS is more than a desktop you
> > know.
> Copying between apps? Do you know what Windows 2000 professional is? Of
> course it works! What kind of silly question is that??
So M$ has been playing catch-up to Apple. Does it really work?
Consistantly? It didn't back in win98.
--
C Lund, Oslo
C Lund
<z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote:
> > What's "Fitt's Law"?
>
> http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html
"Fitts's Law: The time to acquire a target is a
function of the distance to and size of the
target. "
Ok. Thanks.
--
C Lund, Oslo
Mac2001
<mcpik...@home.com> wrote:
>> And on top of that, it's significantly slower. Not good. You can't
>> use 10.1 and tell me it isn't -significantly- slower, CLund.
>
>I'm using Mac OS X 10.1 on the iMac 500 that I'm setting up for my mom.
>OS 10.1 is not slow.
Now boot the machine with 9.2.1 and you'll amaze yourself at how fast
the Mac is, suddenly (at least compared with 10.1)
>No, the Finder is not as fast as the Windows UI in
>Windows XP on my 800 MHz P3 Dell, but the Dell has a faster hard disk
>drive and 3 times the RAM.
I can't even buy a P3/800 Dell anymore - their slowest P3 in the DT is
a 1.13 - so you're comparing an old PC to a new (Apple sells the
G3/500 iMac still) iMac - and the PC *still* wins.
>Regardless, fast/slow is an arbitrary
>distinction not a comparative one.
Agreed.
>And Mac OS 10.1 is not slow.
I disagree.
>> >> >Not that OS 9 is that unstable.
>> >> Yes, actually, it is.
>> >
>> >No, it is not.
>>
>> Oh, please. It's a crashfest if you do anything more than a game or
>> two on it.
>
>That is bullshit. The Southern Methodist University Daily Campus, which
>I am layout editor for, produces its entire paper on Macs... the
>writers and copy editors work on iMacs, the editors, graphics,
>production and web people on G3 and G4 towers. None of the machines
>crashes or hangs at anything approaching regularity (one of the iMacs
>hung pretty badly a week ago), and if it does the likely culprit is
>QuarkXPress, perhaps the worst piece of software ever written. With any
>luck, we'll switch over to inDesign 2.0 as part of our OS X roll out
>next year.
That's fine; I disagree. So do many others.
>> >> >In fact, unless you're using
>> >> >mission critical apps, MacOS 9 is stable enough for most uses.
>> >> Ah...no.
>> >
>> >Examples?
>>
>> Yeah - my Mac crashes all the time.
>
>My Windows XP has crashed far more often this week than the iMac
>running Mac OS X v. 10.1, despite the fact that I use almost all
>Microsoft software on my PC (ie, it should all work together), whereas
>my Mac is running programs from disparate sources, much of which is
>still beta.
>
>So I suppose by your stupid measure, Windows XP isn't stable, either.
It isn't just myself that believes Macs aren't stable until 10.x.
No one is; I'm merely stating it's faster because I think it is.
>> Only 2"? The difference between 800x600 being comfortable and
>> 1024x768 being comfortable - at least.
>
>Hmmm... running an iMac at 1024x768... text is large and visible, icons
>easy to hit, screen not flickering... tell me, what's uncomfortable
>here?
A 15" monitor at 1024x768 is too small. Granted, you can fiddle with
icon size and such (resolution is always good!) but it's still a very,
very small screen in this day and age.
>> >
>> >Stable,
>>
>> In OS X.
>>
>> >good software,
>>
>> Sometimes.
>>
>> > fast enough,
>>
>> If you're not interested in high speed.
>>
>> >looks good,
>>
>> Granted.
>>
>> > easy to use, easy to fix,
>> >and it "just works".
>>
>> Not so much anymore - that difference is disappearing.
>
>Then buy a PC and live life happily. Why the obsession with trying to
>convince other people you're choice is right? You do realize, in the
>long and wide of things, the computer platform you use counts for
>exactly JACK SHIT.
So why, exactly, are YOU in c.s.m.a?
Sandman
Mac2001 <mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >I'm using Mac OS X 10.1 on the iMac 500 that I'm setting up for my mom.
> >OS 10.1 is not slow.
>
> Now boot the machine with 9.2.1 and you'll amaze yourself at how fast
> the Mac is, suddenly (at least compared with 10.1)
Been there, done that. OSX is NOT slower than OS9. Perhaps you don't have
enough RAM?
Actually, you seem to have a LOT of problems with OS X that none of us
have, could it be your bias doing most the talking?
--
Sandman[.net]
Richard K. McPike
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:14:26 GMT, "Richard K. McPike"
> <mcpik...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> And on top of that, it's significantly slower. Not good. You can't
> >> use 10.1 and tell me it isn't -significantly- slower, CLund.
> >
> >I'm using Mac OS X 10.1 on the iMac 500 that I'm setting up for my mom.
> >OS 10.1 is not slow.
>
> Now boot the machine with 9.2.1 and you'll amaze yourself at how fast
> the Mac is, suddenly (at least compared with 10.1)
>
> >No, the Finder is not as fast as the Windows UI in
> >Windows XP on my 800 MHz P3 Dell, but the Dell has a faster hard disk
> >drive and 3 times the RAM.
>
> I can't even buy a P3/800 Dell anymore - their slowest P3 in the DT is
> a 1.13 - so you're comparing an old PC to a new (Apple sells the
> G3/500 iMac still) iMac - and the PC *still* wins.
>
> >Regardless, fast/slow is an arbitrary
> >distinction not a comparative one.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >And Mac OS 10.1 is not slow.
>
> I disagree.
that's your opinion. Which, since you are a Windows trroll with a stick
up your ass about Macs, is worth exactly nothing.
And the same for the rest of your posts. Get a life and stop worrying
about the types of computers other people are using.
Kirk
Macman
dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:22:16 -0400, Seeker1 <smiz...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Only with lots of rebates, and there are many Mac resellers that offer
> >> >rebates also.
> >>
> >> Name a few that will bring it down to $400.
> >
> >See, the problem I have with specialized offers is they are
> >specialized. Right now, you can get a free PC if you sign up for 3
> >years of overpriced Internet service from FreePC.com. Nobody makes the
> >same offer for Macs.
>
> C'mon - just answer the question. You said you could get rebates on
> Macs - so put up or shut up.
Actually, I believe the MSN $300 rebate applies to Macs.
Macman
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Actually, when you look at Finder responsiveness, OS X 10.1 does still
feel very slightly slower than 9.x. For anything else, the two run at
about the same speed.
Mac2001
wrote:
>In article <pljsstcl8167enedi...@4ax.com>, dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
>> > Marathon was Mac first. I believe Mathematica was too.
>> Marathon was crap when it was made, and it was still crap when
>> Marathon Infinity was released.
>
>Sounds like sour grapes to me. The Marathon trilogy was the best game of
>it's time.
It was a cheesy hack of Doom - which didn't even compare to Doom. I
remember it coming out about 8 months or a year after, and it just
didn't compare. Especially when Quake hit, the Mac just didn't have
anything comparable.
>> >@Not so much anymore - that difference is disappearing.
>> > Explain.
>> Windows 95 (and later versions) made most of those issues go away.
>
>Absolutely not. I've used Win3, Win95, and Win98. They are unstable,
>buggy, crashprone, user-hostile POS oses.
Right - but so is MacOS. I'm talking about the UI.
>Even M$ says this in their
>attempts at getting you guys to buy the *next* version of it's OS. MacOS
>7.5.5 beeats the stuffing out of all those three OSes on all counts expect
>software proliference.
Not even close. Say, which OS do you run?
>And according to your fellow wintrolls on this forum, the changes
>introduced in W2K were mainly "under the hood", which means W2K has the
>same crappy GUI as it's predecessors.
I think the GUI is great - certainly far better than of Apple's so
far.
>XP looks like an ugly version of OS
>X, just like WinX looks like ugly versions of the MacOS.
IYO. IMO, it's far better, has far more features (real context menus,
without OS X's bevvy of bugs in them), for one thing.
Mac2001
wrote:
>In article <l97sstgcdbp6dbj0a...@4ax.com>, dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
>> >> >Not that OS 9 is that unstable.
>> >> Yes, actually, it is.
>> >No, it is not.
>> Oh, please. It's a crashfest if you do anything more than a game or
>> two on it.
>
>Eh. No it isn't. If your's is crashing as much as you claim, then you're
>doing something wrong. Tried zapping the PRAM lately? It doesn't crash for
>me *except* when I play games. Even Netshit hasn't managed to crash it.
In OS X it's rock solid - 2 crashes so far, call it 3 if you want to
be picky. In OS 9 it was a POS. That leads me to believe OS 9 is a
POS.
>> >> >In fact, unless you're using
>> >> >mission critical apps, MacOS 9 is stable enough for most uses.
>> >> Ah...no.
>> >Examples?
>> Yeah - my Mac crashes all the time.
>
>Which is not an example. You aren't following Edlos's advice and smashing
>it on a concrete floor or something, are you?
What example could I give you? It crashes a hell of a lot in 9, and
not a hell of a lot in 10.1.
>> C'mon - how many OS X articles
>> have commentary on that very fact?
>
>I hven't see na single one. Doesn't mean none comment on that, but I
>haven't seen one. Could you give me a link?
Next time I see one I'll post it.
>> >> >Yet people buy them. Why is that do you think? Could it be the OS? Could
>> >> >it be that people think the package is worth the money anyway?
>> >> Very few people buy them, so that's a fairly weak point.
>> >No, very many people buy iMacs, so that point isn't really all that weak.
>> It's 5% of the population; how can that be "very many"?
>
>5% of a large population is very many, like it or not.
>
>> >No, they don't choose not to - the thought just never crosses their mind.
>> >The average consumer just wants a computer, so they go pick up a wintel
>> >box at Walmart or someplace similar. We've got shops like that here in
>> >Norway, where you can buy freezers, toasters, ovens, refridgerators,
>> >shaving machines - and Wintel boxes.
>>
>> OK; what's the problem besides the fact that Apple can't market
>> products and costs too much?
>
>Microsoft's market dominion. There's no room for anybody else.
Why? Didn't you get through telling me about how large of a market it
is?
I disagree - and so do many Maccies. Not everyone is happy running
obsolete System software on obsolete Macs.
>> >good software,
>> Sometimes.
>
>Usually.
>
>> > fast enough,
>> If you're not interested in high speed.
>
>Depends what you're doing. Where is it you find the mac lacking in speed?
Just day to day things. Compared to my PCs it crawls.
>> > easy to use, easy to fix,
>> >and it "just works".
>> Not so much anymore - that difference is disappearing.
>
>Sez you. I hear otherwise from others.
That's fine - opinions vary.
>> >That's because most people just go with the herd. If you're shopping for a
>> >car, do you just go for horsepower and low cost? Or do you also want a
>> >radio/CD player, cupholders, comfortable seats, doors that close properly,
>> >upholstry that doesn't smell of the previous owner, heaters in the seats,
>> >and so on?
>> But all of that is guaranteed these days,
>
>Not on that el cheapo PC you were talking about.
Yes, frankly, it is. Unless you can find some issues with it?
>> >> >> >> and MUCH better supported hardware and
>> >> >> >> software wise than OS X.
>> >> >> >Then why all the complaints about stuff breaking when one
>upgrades to XP?
>> >> >> That's -nothing- compared to all the stuff that breaks going to OS X,
>> >> >> Joe.
>> >> >And exactly what is it that breaks when going to OS X?
>> >> Haven't you been paying attention on this forum?
>> >Yes I have. Now what is it that breaks in OS X?
>> You haven't been paying attention in this forum.
>
>Yes I have. Your inability to give examples is noted.
Unlike you, I've *run* (well, walked) OS X. Why haven't YOU
upgraded!?
>> >> >> And $400 vs. $800 means the
>> >> >> PC is a no-brainer - a better system with a bigger monitor for 1/2 the
>> >> >> money.
>> >> >Yeah, the PC is for no-brainers. Better system? Pah.
>> >> The PC "IS" a no-brainer better system.
>> >I still don't see what makes it "better".
>> More speed,
>
>Doubtful.
Fact.
>> better monitor,
>
>Doubtful.
Fact.
>> printer, all for HALF AS MUCH.
>
>But no decent OS.
Opinion.
Mac2001
>In article <beftsts1ccnaqtecs...@4ax.com>,
> Mac2001 <mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >I'm using Mac OS X 10.1 on the iMac 500 that I'm setting up for my mom.
>> >OS 10.1 is not slow.
>>
>> Now boot the machine with 9.2.1 and you'll amaze yourself at how fast
>> the Mac is, suddenly (at least compared with 10.1)
>
>Been there, done that. OSX is NOT slower than OS9. Perhaps you don't have
>enough RAM?
288M.
You've *got* to be kidding. It's obviously slower.
>Actually, you seem to have a LOT of problems with OS X that none of us
>have, could it be your bias doing most the talking?
I do? Such as what, exactly? Folders that don't remember settings
(Woofie's had that), slowness (I just booted 9.2.1 after installing
it; I'm not mistaken)...
Mac2001
If you aren't here to debate, just why are you here?
Mac2001
I want a rebate taking the iMac G3/500 down to $400 - without any
other commitments. Is that so hard? Just get it down to $400 like
the PC - he said he could; where's the beef?
Steve Hix
> > Usually there's an amazingly high correlation between speed and
> > clockrate,
>
> Only when comparing processors of the same kind.
And running on systems with similar architectures.
Steve Hix
> @Of course - the good stuff comes out on MS platforms first and then
> @gets ported - sometimes, and with varying results - to the Mac.
> @Sometimes. Not always....
>
> Marathon was Mac first. I believe Mathematica was too.
And Photoshop, Illustrator, ...
Steve Hix
> > >Only with lots of rebates, and there are many Mac resellers that offer
> > >rebates also.
> >
> > Name a few that will bring it down to $400.
>
> See, the problem I have with specialized offers is they are
> specialized. Right now, you can get a free PC if you sign up for 3
> years of overpriced Internet service from FreePC.com. Nobody makes the
> same offer for Macs.
>
> So why not claim that you can get it for free from FreePC.com, and stop
> talking up that it only costs $400 with 6 rebates?
FreePC whose website seems to no longer exist?
FreePC who was acquired by eMachines, who seems to have no mention of
FreePC on *their* website?
That FreePC?
pookoopookoo
Even if it works fine... (shit fondue?)
> > Really? works fine here (XP, Photoshop 6.0, pasting text-as-paths from
> > Illustrator 9.0)
>
> So they finally implemented that. Good for you.
Dude, copying and pasting between apps has worked since I can remember (win
3.1). You gotta get out of the reality distortion field a little more often,
you're starting to believe Apple's own fud / revisionist history.
> So M$ has been playing catch-up to Apple. Does it really work?
> Consistantly? It didn't back in win98.
??? Does it work consistently...hmmm...
Well, I can't paste vector data into notepad...
It works where you don't ask it to do something silly/impossible. If you do,
it just does nothing. Copying text / pictures from one app to another is a
drag-and-drop procedure from one app window to the other. It has been this
way since I remember.
So is this the end of the thread? Do I win?
Richard K. McPike
<mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Because people like you who are wasting thier lives caring about
platform wars and what type of computers other people are using are
absolutley hilarious. I find humor in the pathetic.
Kirk
Sandman
Macman <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > >I'm using Mac OS X 10.1 on the iMac 500 that I'm setting up for my mom.
> > > >OS 10.1 is not slow.
> > >
> > > Now boot the machine with 9.2.1 and you'll amaze yourself at how fast
> > > the Mac is, suddenly (at least compared with 10.1)
> >
> > Been there, done that. OSX is NOT slower than OS9. Perhaps you don't have
> > enough RAM?
> >
> > Actually, you seem to have a LOT of problems with OS X that none of us
> > have, could it be your bias doing most the talking?
>
> Actually, when you look at Finder responsiveness, OS X 10.1 does still
> feel very slightly slower than 9.x. For anything else, the two run at
> about the same speed.
I am running it on a 500Mhz G4 (Desktop and TiBook) and a 400Mhz G3 iMac,
the Finder isn't slow in any of these. On what occasions do you experience
this sluggishness? Because here, it's even faster than classic finder in
many ways. See my posts about listing 2000 mp3 files.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Mac2001 <mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >I'm using Mac OS X 10.1 on the iMac 500 that I'm setting up for my mom.
> >> >OS 10.1 is not slow.
> >>
> >> Now boot the machine with 9.2.1 and you'll amaze yourself at how fast
> >> the Mac is, suddenly (at least compared with 10.1)
> >
> >Been there, done that. OSX is NOT slower than OS9. Perhaps you don't have
> >enough RAM?
>
> 288M.
Odd then, I've got 256.
> You've *got* to be kidding. It's obviously slower.
I disagree, it's even apparently FASTER in some areas (listing folders with
lots of files for instance)
> >Actually, you seem to have a LOT of problems with OS X that none of us
> >have, could it be your bias doing most the talking?
>
> I do? Such as what, exactly? Folders that don't remember settings
> (Woofie's had that),
I haven't. I mostly just use column view though.
> slowness (I just booted 9.2.1 after installing
> it; I'm not mistaken)...
I have booted to 9.2 also (once) and there was no difference what so ever.
What kind of Mac do you use?
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Baker
Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
Freehand, Quark Xpress, Pagemaker.
Excel.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
C Lund
<mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >> OK; what's the problem besides the fact that Apple can't market
> >> products and costs too much?
> >Microsoft's market dominion. There's no room for anybody else.
> Why? Didn't you get through telling me about how large of a market it
> is?
5% of the market is a lot of people, but when M$ has the other 95%,
there's no room for newcomers. And when the other 95% don't even know that
it's possible to run someting other than Windows, then there's no room for
anybody else (other than Apple's 5%).
> >And in OS 7.5.5, OS 8.1, and OS 9.2. Not mission-critical stable, but good
> >enough for anything else.
> I disagree - and so do many Maccies. Not everyone is happy running
> obsolete System software on obsolete Macs.
So?
> >> > fast enough,
> >> If you're not interested in high speed.
> >Depends what you're doing. Where is it you find the mac lacking in speed?
> Just day to day things. Compared to my PCs it crawls.
As in doing what? Reading news? Writing stuff? Loading a few websites?
That's what the average home user does. Even an old 6100/66 can do that
(well.. netshit might choke on some of those webpages).
> >> >That's because most people just go with the herd. If you're shopping for a
> >> >car, do you just go for horsepower and low cost? Or do you also want a
> >> >radio/CD player, cupholders, comfortable seats, doors that close properly,
> >> >upholstry that doesn't smell of the previous owner, heaters in the seats,
> >> >and so on?
> >> But all of that is guaranteed these days,
> >Not on that el cheapo PC you were talking about.
> Yes, frankly, it is. Unless you can find some issues with it?
"But all of that is guaranteed these days,"... doesn't fit right with a
low-end PC that doesn't even have a CDR now does it?
> >> >> >> And $400 vs. $800 means the
> >> >> >> PC is a no-brainer - a better system with a bigger monitor for
1/2 the
> >> >> >> money.
> >> >> >Yeah, the PC is for no-brainers. Better system? Pah.
> >> >> The PC "IS" a no-brainer better system.
> >> >I still don't see what makes it "better".
> >> More speed,
> >Doubtful.
> Fact.
Sez you.
> >> better monitor,
> >Doubtful.
> Fact.
Sez you.
> >> printer, all for HALF AS MUCH.
> >But no decent OS.
> Opinion.
Fact.
I can play that game too, see? ;)
--
C Lund, Oslo
C Lund
<mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:24:58 GMT, cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund)
> wrote:
> >In article <pljsstcl8167enedi...@4ax.com>, dc
<d...@foo.com> wrote:
> >> > Marathon was Mac first. I believe Mathematica was too.
> >> Marathon was crap when it was made, and it was still crap when
> >> Marathon Infinity was released.
> >Sounds like sour grapes to me. The Marathon trilogy was the best game of
> >it's time.
> It was a cheesy hack of Doom -
No. It was a 2.5d game, which was the best computers could do back then.
> which didn't even compare to Doom. I
> remember it coming out about 8 months or a year after, and it just
> didn't compare.
Of corse not. Doom was mindless "kill it if it moves" (but still fun),
while marathon had a storyline and made you think.
> Especially when Quake hit, the Mac just didn't have
> anything comparable.
Quake came quite a bit later, and the only part of Quake that's any fun is
Team Fortress. The rest is dull as dishwater. Any Marathon game blows
Quake out of the water when played solo - despite the crappy mouse support
in M1. The marathon trilogy had mood, color, and story. Quake had "256
shades of shit and puke" and somebody once put it. When I first got Quake,
I was amazed at the 3d architecture and how smooth it ran on my 6400, but
once the "wow" factor ran out I got bored.
> >> >@Not so much anymore - that difference is disappearing.
> >> > Explain.
> >> Windows 95 (and later versions) made most of those issues go away.
> >Absolutely not. I've used Win3, Win95, and Win98. They are unstable,
> >buggy, crashprone, user-hostile POS oses.
> Right - but so is MacOS.
No, it is not. Win98 crashed 1-2 times pr day. MacOS 7.5.5 crashed 1-2
times pr week, and 8.1 and 92 are even more stable.
> I'm talking about the UI.
In which case you're talking abot a cheesy ripoff of the mac GUI.
> >Even M$ says this in their
> >attempts at getting you guys to buy the *next* version of it's OS. MacOS
> >7.5.5 beeats the stuffing out of all those three OSes on all counts expect
> >software proliference.
> Not even close. Say, which OS do you run?
OS 9.2. Why?
> >XP looks like an ugly version of OS
> >X, just like WinX looks like ugly versions of the MacOS.
> IYO. IMO, it's far better, has far more features (real context menus,
> without OS X's bevvy of bugs in them), for one thing.
And more virii for another.
--
C Lund, Oslo
C Lund
<som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Any machine with an M$ OS anyway.
> Even if it works fine... (shit fondue?)
I can't remember using a winX machine that was stable enough to be said to
be working "fine". I remember losing *days* of work (cumulative, that is)
to a buggy crash-prone OS called win98 though.
> > > Really? works fine here (XP, Photoshop 6.0, pasting text-as-paths from
> > > Illustrator 9.0)
> > So they finally implemented that. Good for you.
> Dude, copying and pasting between apps has worked since I can remember (win
> 3.1).
Really? I can remember it NOT working in win98. Not consistantly, anyway.
>You gotta get out of the reality distortion field a little more often,
> you're starting to believe Apple's own fud / revisionist history.
FUD? I'm talking from experience.
> > So M$ has been playing catch-up to Apple. Does it really work?
> > Consistantly? It didn't back in win98.
> It works where you don't ask it to do something silly/impossible.
You mean like copy and past the same kind of date from one app into
another? (vector data, text, images, etc)
> If you do,
> it just does nothing. Copying text / pictures from one app to another is a
> drag-and-drop procedure from one app window to the other. It has been this
> way since I remember.
Then your memory doesn't extend back to win98.
> So is this the end of the thread?
Dunno.
> Do I win?
Nope.
--
C Lund, Oslo
Mac2001
wrote:
>> >> > fast enough,
>> >> If you're not interested in high speed.
>> >Depends what you're doing. Where is it you find the mac lacking in speed?
>> Just day to day things. Compared to my PCs it crawls.
>
>As in doing what? Reading news? Writing stuff? Loading a few websites?
>That's what the average home user does. Even an old 6100/66 can do that
>(well.. netshit might choke on some of those webpages).
No, frankly, it can't. People expect far more speed than what that
machine can deliver.
>> >> >That's because most people just go with the herd. If you're shopping for a
>> >> >car, do you just go for horsepower and low cost? Or do you also want a
>> >> >radio/CD player, cupholders, comfortable seats, doors that close properly,
>> >> >upholstry that doesn't smell of the previous owner, heaters in the seats,
>> >> >and so on?
>> >> But all of that is guaranteed these days,
>> >Not on that el cheapo PC you were talking about.
>> Yes, frankly, it is. Unless you can find some issues with it?
>
>"But all of that is guaranteed these days,"... doesn't fit right with a
>low-end PC that doesn't even have a CDR now does it?
Where is the CDR mentioned as a now-default device, and where is it on
the iMac G3/500 that we're comparing against?
Mac2001
B&W 450.
Macman
Excel, Word, FileMaker, SuperCard (Hypercard), Quark, Retrospect
Macman
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
I'd have a hard time quantifying it. As I said, it's a matter of
responsiveness--on things like opening windows. Not bad enough to be a
problem (even on my G3/400), but it doesn't fee quite as snappy as 9.2.
On some things, 10.1 is faster - switching apps for instance.
On virtually everything else, I can't feel any difference.
Macman
Mac2001 <mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
I never claimed that you could get an iMac for $400. I was merely
pointing out that you _can_ get some rebates for Macs.
BTW, I wouldn't count that rebate until the check is safely cashed. A
_promise_ of a rebate from a company that's out of money (and perhaps
already out of business) doesn't seem like something I'd count on.
Remote
<AlanG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <sehix-0CEDD0....@news.dsldesigns.com>,
> Steve Hix <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><7CAF47D6E193666C.DFEEEBA5...@lp.airnews.net>,
> >"B.B."
> ><DoNotSpa...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >> @Of course - the good stuff comes out on MS platforms first and then
> >> @gets ported - sometimes, and with varying results - to the Mac.
> >> @Sometimes. Not always....
> >> Marathon was Mac first. I believe Mathematica was too.
> >
> >And Photoshop, Illustrator, ...
>
> Freehand, Quark Xpress, Pagemaker.
>
> Excel.
Have you seen the XP commercial demoing its iMovie seem-alike? How sad that people will
buy into that thinking it will work like iMovie.
r
C Lund
<mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >As in doing what? Reading news? Writing stuff? Loading a few websites?
> >That's what the average home user does. Even an old 6100/66 can do that
> >(well.. netshit might choke on some of those webpages).
> No, frankly, it can't. People expect far more speed than what that
> machine can deliver.
Of course. The 6100/66 is an *old* machine. But it can still do what most
users need; do some word processing, browse some websites, read news. It's
a bit pokey in the games dept though.
> >> >> >That's because most people just go with the herd. If you're
shopping for a
> >> >> >car, do you just go for horsepower and low cost? Or do you also want a
> >> >> >radio/CD player, cupholders, comfortable seats, doors that close
properly,
> >> >> >upholstry that doesn't smell of the previous owner, heaters in
the seats,
> >> >> >and so on?
> >> >> But all of that is guaranteed these days,
> >> >Not on that el cheapo PC you were talking about.
> >> Yes, frankly, it is. Unless you can find some issues with it?
> >"But all of that is guaranteed these days,"... doesn't fit right with a
> >low-end PC that doesn't even have a CDR now does it?
> Where is the CDR mentioned as a now-default device, and where is it on
> the iMac G3/500 that we're comparing against?
"But all of that is guaranteed these days," you said. I didn't say it.
--
C Lund, Oslo
Macman
cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund) wrote:
> In article <sg20tto0s6tupuqoo...@4ax.com>, Mac2001
> <mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > >As in doing what? Reading news? Writing stuff? Loading a few websites?
> > >That's what the average home user does. Even an old 6100/66 can do that
> > >(well.. netshit might choke on some of those webpages).
> > No, frankly, it can't. People expect far more speed than what that
> > machine can deliver.
>
> Of course. The 6100/66 is an *old* machine. But it can still do what most
> users need; do some word processing, browse some websites, read news. It's
> a bit pokey in the games dept though.
DC seems to forget that the vast majority of computer useres on the
Internet are using a dialup modem. A 6100 can readily keep up with that.
pookoopookoo
Hmmm...I have 2 windows 98 machines here and when I paste text as paths from
illustrator into photoshop, it works fine...what's inconsistent about that?
> Then your memory doesn't extend back to win98.
Specific grievances please...
Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about. As a designer my
experience has been that once I open the application, I couldn't care less
whether it's windows or a mac, but I prefer windows due to buzzword
compliance + rock-solid stability. OSX _should_ change all that, but in
their infinite wisdom all users of OSX run as administrators so I don't know
how they're going to idiot-proof the OS. I know my WinXP and 2000
installations are idiot proof.
I can't write to the system folder. I can't load/change drivers. By
extension of this, no process that I spawn can do it, so I can't install
spyware and I can't break windows (unless I run in admin mode, which I
almost never do unless actually doing administration)...cool huh?
I'll have to come to terms with the idea that I may never need to reinstall
windows again...
pookoopookoo
> users need; do some word processing, browse some websites, read news. It's
> a bit pokey in the games dept though.
A PPC6100/66 is a POS. Sorry to break it to ya kid... It might be good as a
router or an answering machine, but there's no way I would subject myself to
using a piece of crap like that when I'm spoiled by 512MB RAM and a 1200
Athlon proc.
Some of us have higher standards.
ZnU
Macman <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
And the first web browser was written for NeXTStep, which should count
for something, given the NeXT takeover of Apple ;-)
--
Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it
to?
-- Clarence Darrow
ZnU
Macman <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
No, not for web browsing. HTML rendering on modern web pages is a
CPU-intensive task for a system that old, and things like scrolling and
loading cached pages are painfully slow.
Sandman
"pookoopookoo" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Then your memory doesn't extend back to win98.
>
> Specific grievances please...
>
> Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about. As a designer my
> experience has been that once I open the application, I couldn't care less
> whether it's windows or a mac, but I prefer windows due to buzzword
> compliance + rock-solid stability. OSX _should_ change all that, but in
> their infinite wisdom all users of OSX run as administrators so I don't know
> how they're going to idiot-proof the OS. I know my WinXP and 2000
> installations are idiot proof.
>
> I can't write to the system folder. I can't load/change drivers. By
> extension of this, no process that I spawn can do it, so I can't install
> spyware and I can't break windows (unless I run in admin mode, which I
> almost never do unless actually doing administration)...cool huh?
You are describing Mac OS X just as well as W2K and XP.
admin != root
--
Sandman[.net]
pookoopookoo
> admin != root
Not quite, in Win2k / XP Admin does equal root. Admin mode = BAD.
You'd have to create a separate class of user to match OSX's admin mode :) I
don't know what specific permisisons you guys have. Suffice it to say I
think anyone running day to day with admin mode is a pubic menace (esp. if
he thinks he/she can handle it)
I probably could, but power user is good enough for me.
(
aside from the cd burning kludge: shift-right-click > run as... >
administrator
)
C Lund
<som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> A PPC6100/66 is a POS.
It's a POS because it's old? It wasn't a POS when it was new, and it's not
a POS now. It's just old and dated. The same goes for even older machines,
like the IIsi and the Apple ][. Both were/are great machines, even though
they aren't up to today's standards.
> Some of us have higher standards.
Those who do stay away from M$ and their products.
--
C Lund, Oslo
C Lund
> Specific grievances please...
It's been a couple of years now, and I haven't exactly put in much of an
effort t oremember. But if you really really want the specifics, try
searching for a thread I started back in.. august 1999 or thereabouts
dealing with the shortcomings of Windows98.
> I'll have to come to terms with the idea that I may never need to reinstall
> windows again...
You'd better hope you don't, because M$ seems to have put in some rather
interesting anti-piracy stuff there...
--
C Lund, Oslo
dc
Joe gets hosed on the technical arguments...yet *again*....
dc
No, frankly, it can't - which you'd immediately realize if you went
from a 56k modem on your dual 800 to a 6100, both running 9.x and IE5.
dc
wrote:
>In article <sg20tto0s6tupuqoo...@4ax.com>, Mac2001
><mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >As in doing what? Reading news? Writing stuff? Loading a few websites?
>> >That's what the average home user does. Even an old 6100/66 can do that
>> >(well.. netshit might choke on some of those webpages).
>> No, frankly, it can't. People expect far more speed than what that
>> machine can deliver.
>
>Of course. The 6100/66 is an *old* machine.
OK.
> But it can still do what most
>users need; do some word processing, browse some websites, read news. It's
>a bit pokey in the games dept though.
Right - but the speed at which it works is unacceptable for any but
old grandmas with slow reactions and third world nations. Face it -
the cheapest PC I could buy today would just walk all over the 6100 -
at some people, people just buy new PCs. The 6100 isn't viable.
>> >> >> >That's because most people just go with the herd. If you're
>shopping for a
>> >> >> >car, do you just go for horsepower and low cost? Or do you also want a
>> >> >> >radio/CD player, cupholders, comfortable seats, doors that close
>properly,
>> >> >> >upholstry that doesn't smell of the previous owner, heaters in
>the seats,
>> >> >> >and so on?
>> >> >> But all of that is guaranteed these days,
>> >> >Not on that el cheapo PC you were talking about.
>> >> Yes, frankly, it is. Unless you can find some issues with it?
>> >"But all of that is guaranteed these days,"... doesn't fit right with a
>> >low-end PC that doesn't even have a CDR now does it?
>> Where is the CDR mentioned as a now-default device, and where is it on
>> the iMac G3/500 that we're comparing against?
>
>"But all of that is guaranteed these days," you said. I didn't say it.
Right - and where is the CDR mentioned!?
dc
>In article <AlanGBaker-97777...@clgrps10.telusplanet.net>, Alan Baker
>
>Have you seen the XP commercial demoing its iMovie seem-alike? How sad that people will
>buy into that thinking it will work like iMovie.
One of these days I'll plug in my FW card and try it on my Toshiba.
dc
>In article <aslust8h5if7k0r84...@4ax.com>,
> Mac2001 <mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:42:51 GMT, Macman <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <lcesst8t58f98p41o...@4ax.com>,
>> > dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:22:16 -0400, Seeker1 <smiz...@bellsouth.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >Only with lots of rebates, and there are many Mac resellers that offer
>> >> >> >rebates also.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Name a few that will bring it down to $400.
>> >> >
>> >> >See, the problem I have with specialized offers is they are
>> >> >specialized. Right now, you can get a free PC if you sign up for 3
>> >> >years of overpriced Internet service from FreePC.com. Nobody makes the
>> >> >same offer for Macs.
>> >>
>> >> C'mon - just answer the question. You said you could get rebates on
>> >> Macs - so put up or shut up.
>> >
>> >Actually, I believe the MSN $300 rebate applies to Macs.
>>
>> I want a rebate taking the iMac G3/500 down to $400 - without any
>> other commitments. Is that so hard? Just get it down to $400 like
>> the PC - he said he could; where's the beef?
>
>I never claimed that you could get an iMac for $400. I was merely
>pointing out that you _can_ get some rebates for Macs.
OK, so you can get useless rebates for the Macs. Why even raise the
point then?
>BTW, I wouldn't count that rebate until the check is safely cashed. A
>_promise_ of a rebate from a company that's out of money (and perhaps
>already out of business) doesn't seem like something I'd count on.
I've not had any problems getting my rebates. You?
dc
Its saving grace is that it consistently doesn't crash - or so
infrequently that it isn't a significant concern. Given that, I can
live with a LOT of other issues.
dc
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:43:47 GMT, cl...@NOSPAM.notam.uio.no (C Lund)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <sg20tto0s6tupuqoo...@4ax.com>, Mac2001
>><mac...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >As in doing what? Reading news? Writing stuff? Loading a few websites?
>>> >That's what the average home user does. Even an old 6100/66 can do that
>>> >(well.. netshit might choke on some of those webpages).
>>> No, frankly, it can't. People expect far more speed than what that
>>> machine can deliver.
>>
>>Of course. The 6100/66 is an *old* machine.
>
>OK.
>
>> But it can still do what most
>>users need; do some word processing, browse some websites, read news. It's
>>a bit pokey in the games dept though.
>
>Right - but the speed at which it works is unacceptable for any but
>old grandmas with slow reactions and third world nations. Face it -
>the cheapest PC I could buy today would just walk all over the 6100 -
>at some people, people just buy new PCs. The 6100 isn't viable.
That's ... at some *time*, people just ...
ZnU
dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
Have you tried the real deal on your G3?
Macman
dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
Hardly.
A 6100 is quite sufficient for what most users do.
Sure, some of the MS bloatware web pages will be slow, but that doesn't
mean the computer is useless.
It's only in PC land that computers are useless after 6 years.
Macman
dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
Why is an MSN rebate useless for Macs but valid for PCs?
Your hypocrisy is showing. Again.
>
> >BTW, I wouldn't count that rebate until the check is safely cashed. A
> >_promise_ of a rebate from a company that's out of money (and perhaps
> >already out of business) doesn't seem like something I'd count on.
>
> I've not had any problems getting my rebates. You?
Sure. Lots of times.
For example, I bought a Sony Vaio and docking station. Each was supposed
to have a $100 rebate. I got one, but not the other. Still trying to
sort it out.
More importantly, the above example was relying on a rebate from FreePC.
How much luck do you think you're going to have getting a rebate from a
company that's no longer in existence?
DC gets hosed on a business issue. Again.
Macman
dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
Sure it can--for the things that most people do.
E-mail? No problem.
Usenet? no problem
Normal web pages? No problem
Word processing? No problem
The only thing that most people do that would bog it down is a very
complex web pages. But I generally avoid those as much as possible,
anyway.
Once again, DC's Wintel bias shows. Any computer more than 2 years old
must be useless - in his feeble mind.
dc
>In article <n2d1tt038vt9frg62...@4ax.com>,
> dc <d...@foo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:13:17 -0400, Remote <rem...@gig.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><AlanGBaker-97777...@clgrps10.telusplanet.net>, Alan
>> >Baker
>> >
>> >Have you seen the XP commercial demoing its iMovie seem-alike? How
>> >sad that people will buy into that thinking it will work like
>> >iMovie.
>>
>> One of these days I'll plug in my FW card and try it on my Toshiba.
>
>Have you tried the real deal on your G3?
Of course - works great. Haven't used it to do anything under OS X,
but under OS 9 it was incredibly annoying how it hung your entire
machine while working. Under OS X I look forward to vast improvements
in that area, naturally. It's a good product.