Apple Lags Behind On DVD-R/RWs?
John Slade
novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their
mainstream computers. Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that come
with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary
novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive. Right now I can put
a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer, do that with Apple's mainstream
computers. To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, you have to wait
until Apple designs a new one, if they don't plan to drop the turkey that
is. Your only choice is to buy a USB drive and that means more desk clutter
which negates the main selling point of the Mini and iMac. The only Mac that
has a newer DVD-R/RW is the Mac Pro and who is dumb enough to buy a $2500
machine just to get a better optical drive? For those who don't know, the
reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case where you can
install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
John
KDT
Would be nice if a third party offered a BluRay upgrade....oh wait....
http://fastmac.com/slim_bluray.php
Snit
4/1/09 9:41 AM:
> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> novelty machines,
What do you mean by "novelty machines"? The mini, perhaps? Not sure what
you are getting at.
> just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x DVD-R/RW drives. Why
> don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream computers.
Good question: why don't Dells and HPs come with software to compete with
iLife?
> Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that come with faster drives. I'll
> tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary novelty machine, it's hard to
> upgrade to the next drive. Right now I can put a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or
> HP computer, do that with Apple's mainstream computers.
You show no sign of understanding what "novelty" means. You are using it as
some sort of insult, I think. What are you trying to get at?
> To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, you have to wait until Apple
> designs a new one, if they don't plan to drop the turkey that is. Your only
> choice is to buy a USB drive and that means more desk clutter which negates
> the main selling point of the Mini and iMac.
Oh no! Easy installation with USB or FireWire (which you showed no sign of
even knowing exists!)
> The only Mac that has a newer DVD-R/RW is the Mac Pro and who is dumb enough
> to buy a $2500 machine just to get a better optical drive?
LOL! The only benefit you see in the tower is the optical drive! Too
funny!
> For those who don't
> know, the reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case where
> you can install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
Slade has figured out that Apple does not offer as many configurations as
the rest of the computer industry... maybe he even knows they do not offer
as much as, say, Dell or HP.
Good for you, Slade! LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
jon.in.durham
> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
> DVD-R/RW drives.
Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
computers.
Will it make *That* much of a difference?
Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that come
> with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary
> novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive.
Right now I can put a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer
If it's a Laptop you're *Still* going to have take it apart, so ditto
doing that on a Mac.
do that with Apple's mainstream
> computers. To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, you have to wait
> until Apple designs a new one, if they don't plan to drop the turkey that
> is.
Your only choice is to buy a USB drive
What About Firewire?
and that means more desk clutter
> which negates the main selling point of the Mini and iMac. The only Mac that
> has a newer DVD-R/RW is the Mac Pro and who is dumb enough to buy a $2500
> machine just to get a better optical drive? For those who don't know, the
> reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case where you can
> install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
>
> John
>
>
LOL!, I remember up to 1995, PeeCees were still fitted with 5.25 disk
drives!, never mind CD-ROM!! :)
Talk about putting your foot in your mouth...
Steve Mackay
> John Slade wrote:
>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have
>> 8x DVD-R/RW drives.
>
> Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
> computers.
>
> Will it make *That* much of a difference?
>
>
> Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that come
>> with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a
>> proprietary novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive.
>
> Right now I can put a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer
>
> If it's a Laptop you're *Still* going to have take it apart, so ditto
> doing that on a Mac.
Yeah, that one screw on the bottom of my Dell E1705 laptop is just going
to be painful to remove & replace the DVD burner. <eye roll>
See, most non apple notebooks are a modular affair with swappable
components. My HD is the same way, I have 3 separate hard drives I use
that take ONE screw to remove and replace. Now, I did have to pay $5 per
drive sled however.
Snit
11:16 AM:
Slade is the one who recently bragged that eSATA was better than USB and
FireWire because, in part, you could boot from eSATA.
Yeah... given that he claims to make hobby computers for a living his
knowledge is amazingly lacking.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their
> mainstream computers.
Because very few people really care, and Apple designs its computers
around what capabilities actually matter to consumers, rather than
sticking in whatever part they can get the best combination of
specifications and price on this particular week.
[snip]
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Preston
> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their
> mainstream computers.
Most likely it's cost, heat, and other production factors. To be
honest, I've never felt the need for an 18x or 20x DVD-R drive.
Lloyd Parsons
Preston <pre...@stupid.com> wrote:
And you would most likely be just like most people in that.
But Slade just likes to stir the pot a bit now and then. He holds
himself out as some sort of expert while showing us all that he isn't
any kind of an expert.
He'll keep building his hobby computers and telling us all how we should
want all that extra crap that almost no one cares about, especially the
average home user.
Steve de Mena
> John Slade wrote:
>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have
>> 8x DVD-R/RW drives.
>
> Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
> computers.
>
> Will it make *That* much of a difference?
Was that the question? Regardless, thats a pretty sad justification
>
> Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that come
>> with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a
>> proprietary novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive.
>
> Right now I can put a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer
>
> If it's a Laptop you're *Still* going to have take it apart, so ditto
> doing that on a Mac.
Aren't the media bays in HPs and Dell usually accessible, where you
can just pull them out and swap? Usually you can swap a DVD burner
with an extra battery or hard drive.
Steve
Steve de Mena
> In article <FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
>> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their
>> mainstream computers.
>
> Because very few people really care,
Translation: It's Apple, so their customers will be happy with sub-par
performance.
> and Apple designs its computers
> around what capabilities actually matter to consumers, rather than
> sticking in whatever part they can get the best combination of
> specifications and price on this particular week.
>
> [snip]
Who is talking about price?
Steve
Steve de Mena
In other words, form over function.
Steve
zzbu...@netscape.net
> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their
> with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary
> novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive.
Well, no. The people doing optical development knew the companies
making low-end portables, like Apple, would jump on low-end DVD.
So, they're mostly just working on on-line publishing now-a-days
with DVD.
Right now I can put
> a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer, do that with Apple's mainstreamcomputers. To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, you have to wait
> until Apple designs a new one, if they don't plan to drop the turkey that
> is. Your only choice is to buy a USB drive and that means more desk clutter
> which negates the main selling point of the Mini and iMac. The only Mac that
> has a newer DVD-R/RW is the Mac Pro and who is dumb enough to buy a $2500
> machine just to get a betteropticaldrive? For those who don't know, the
ZnU
Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on
> >> it's
> >> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models
> >> have 8x DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x
> >> DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream computers.
> >
> > Because very few people really care,
>
> Translation: It's Apple, so their customers will be happy with
> sub-par performance.
Or perhaps they understand what's actually important about a computer.
> > and Apple designs its computers around what capabilities actually
> > matter to consumers, rather than sticking in whatever part they can
> > get the best combination of specifications and price on this
> > particular week.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Who is talking about price?
Dells computers (certainly its desktops) are essentially generic boxes
containing whatever parts had the best combination of specifications and
price during the most recent round of procurement.
Apple's computers are integrated, designed objects.
These two approaches to making computers have different implications on
many fronts.
KDT
> > "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> >> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
> >> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their
> >> mainstream computers.
>
> > Because very few people really care,
>
> Translation: It's Apple, so their customers will be happy with sub-par
> performance.
>
The majority of people at least in the US are buying laptop computers
and have been for the last two or three years -- so they obviously
don't care about the fastest performance. But why would most people
care about the speed of the DVD player regardless? Do you really
think that the majority of people are burning files to flimsy DVD-RW's
instead of using some type of flash media?
Also if you want to talk about sub-par performance, let's look at a
few things....
1. No Mac user is buying laptops with Celeron processors, or Pentium
Dual Core processorss (not Core Duos)
2. Weren't the PC users just defending Lauren for buying a slow AMD
Turon based laptop with a crappy display ?
3. Looking at the average selling price of computers sold by Dell, HP,
ASUS, etc, most PC buyers are buying low-end laptops with "sub par"
performance.
Steve de Mena
AMAZING HOW SUB-PAR DVD BURNERS FROM APPLE ARE JUSTIFIED HERE.
Not a single defense could even remotely be considered valid.
Steve
Walter Bushell
<8bab61b1-7354-47b5...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
KDT <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The majority of people at least in the US are buying laptop computers
> and have been for the last two or three years -- so they obviously
> don't care about the fastest performance. But why would most people
> care about the speed of the DVD player regardless? Do you really
> think that the majority of people are burning files to flimsy DVD-RW's
> instead of using some type of flash media?
Can't trust DVD-RW's for archival storage. Hard disks are getting
cheaper. If you are doing small scale distribution of DVDs you get an
external. And the price of blank Blue-Ray disks, makes me blanch.
Walter Bushell
> 1. No Mac user is buying laptops with Celeron processors, or Pentium
> Dual Core processorss (not Core Duos)
There still is a market for G4 laptops, however. And the price is more
than the equivalent, in performance, intel laptop.
Jim
Oh, so you think folks would use Blu-ray for data storage?
Not cost effective yet.
--
Jim
Mike
<eb7e6cea-e14d-4fcf...@s19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
KDT <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Search/Search.cfm?Ne=5000&Ntt=Blu-Ray&Ntk=Prima
ry&Ns=P_Price|0&N=6866
--
Mike
KDT
So how about all of the PC users not only buying sub par DVD Burners
(which relatively few people are using) but are also buying computers
with sub par processors, video hardware, displays, etc?
Since Apple doesn't sell *any* computers with anything less than a
Core 2 Duo 2Ghz besides the Air, by definition, no Mac users are
buying the sub par computers that the average Windows user is buying.
Since every Mac comes with graphics hardware that is at least four
times faster than Intel's integrated graphics *no* Mac user is buying
a computer with the level of graphics that come on Dell's and HP's low
end computers. So obviously, it's PC users who are buying Celeron
based computers with crappy displays running Vista Home Basic that
don't care about performance.
Walter Bushell
Mike <mi...@nononccfaba.org> wrote:
> http://eshop.macsales.com/Search/Search.cfm?Ne=5000&Ntt=Blu-Ray&Ntk=Prima
> ry&Ns=P_Price|0&N=6866
But look at the price of media.
jon.in.durham
>
> Slade is the one who recently bragged that eSATA was better than USB and
> FireWire because, in part, you could boot from eSATA.
That is some fancy shit!, shame its not allowed in the Windoze EULA :)
>
> Yeah... given that he claims to make hobby computers for a living his
> knowledge is amazingly lacking.
>
The same could be said for most Windroids.
Snit
AM:
Heck, just yesterday he was sharing his grand wisdom with me:
Slade thinks cookies are a form of software:
-----
Tracking cookies are indeed malware. They preform actions in
a browser. So it is software but I don't expect you to know
much about this because you're pretty dumb.
-----
He belittles low end machines for not being high end machines:
-----
> Your belittling of the lowest end Mac based on the fact that
> it is not a high end machine.
Right.
-----
He has no idea that at least some PCs choke and give an "invalid system"
error when you have a floppy with no OS on it:
-----
A computer does not choke because it can't boot from a floppy
with no OS on it.
-----
He also thinks there is some iLife equal on Windows... though, oddly enough,
he cannot point to this lovely Windows suite that allows a non-techie to
work with music and video and sound and web authoring without even knowing
the concept of folders and files. He is still looking, I guess. :)
He also thinks that backup strategies are some sort of high level knowledge
that few even technical folks posses... it is just weird. But then he makes
his scariest claim:
-----
I make computers and I repair computers.
-----
Just imagine if that is true. Yikes!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
Guffaw! Because the vendors can't put a reliable RW dvd out at those
higher speeds, that's why.
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
Steve de Mena
That says it all.
Steve
Steve de Mena
I didn't think that Blu-Ray movies were that much more than DVD movies.
Steve
Lloyd Parsons
Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
They are higher, with new releases being substantially higher. That
price differential just made Netflix up the charge to add BluRay to your
subscription from $1/month to a sliding scale depending on which
subscription you have. Mine was the 3 at a time and it went up to
$4/month more than the same subscription without BluRay.
Lloyd Parsons
To you, but then that is expected.
I notice that you don't 'justify' those sub-par windows boxes for their
shitty graphics and processors...
John Slade
"KDT" <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb7e6cea-e14d-4fcf...@s19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 1, 12:41 pm, "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on
> their
> come
> with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary
> novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive. Right now I can
> put
> a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer, do that with Apple's
> mainstream
> computers. To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, you have to
> wait
> until Apple designs a new one, if they don't plan to drop the turkey that
> is. Your only choice is to buy a USB drive and that means more desk
> clutter
> which negates the main selling point of the Mini and iMac. The only Mac
> that
> has a newer DVD-R/RW is the Mac Pro and who is dumb enough to buy a $2500
> machine just to get a better optical drive? For those who don't know, the
> reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case where you can
> install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
>
>Would be nice if a third party offered a BluRay upgrade....oh wait....
>http://fastmac.com/slim_bluray.php
Yea and you'll void your warranty if you install it on a iMac or Mini.
John
John Slade
Oh and look at that price. I can get a Blue-Ray WRITER for like $179
and install it. You have to get special made shit for the Mac that will cost
you an arm and a leg.
John
John Slade
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C5F8F67E.26FC3%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> John Slade stated in post FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com on
> 4/1/09 9:41 AM:
>
>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>> novelty machines,
>
> you are getting at.
>
>> just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x DVD-R/RW drives.
>> Why
>> don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
>> computers.
>
> iLife?
>
They aren't software companies. But software companies have products
that are better than iLife. I also like to choose the best application for
the specific task, if you're a Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife is
some sort of wonder that does things Windows packages can't. It's a free
software suite for OS X. Other PC makers bundle software with their
computers. But hey you should know that. You're a wierdo to keep bringing up
iLife like you're some kind of door to door encyclopedia salesman with a
seersucker suit yammering about your wares.
>
>> For those who don't
>> know, the reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case
>> where
>> you can install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
>
> Slade has figured out that Apple does not offer as many configurations as
> the rest of the computer industry... maybe he even knows they do not offer
> as much as, say, Dell or HP.
>
> Good for you, Slade! LOL!
And on that silly note. Back into my killfile you go. It's really sad to
see you still harping on arguments you lost years ago. You need help and a
life...Plonk!
John
Snit
4/2/09 2:43 PM:
...
>>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's novelty
>>> machines,
>>>
>> What do you mean by "novelty machines"? The mini, perhaps? Not sure what
>> you are getting at.
>>
>>> just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x DVD-R/RW drives. Why
>>> don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
>>> computers.
>>>
>> Good question: why don't Dells and HPs come with software to compete with
>> iLife?
>>
> They aren't software companies.
Well, not primarily, though both do have custom software on their machines.
But so what? I do not care where they get their components (hard and soft),
I care what customers get.
A friend just bought a new car: it has parts from all over the world. The
car maker did not make all of the parts... so what?
> But software companies have products that are better than iLife.
Such as? You keep making that claim, but you *never* support it. Never.
So try now: what suite of products (or single product) allows a non-techie
users (someone who does not even know how to use files and folders, for
example) to do what such a user can do with iLife? You see: that is the
"power" of iLife - its ease of use. It does not pretend to be a competitor
to, say, the Adobe development suites.
> I also like to choose the best application for the specific task, if you're a
> Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife is some sort of wonder that does
> things Windows packages can't. It's a free software suite for OS X. Other PC
> makers bundle software with their computers. But hey you should know that.
> You're a wierdo to keep bringing up iLife like you're some kind of door to
> door encyclopedia salesman with a seersucker suit yammering about your wares.
See how you go into an incoherent, insulting mode when you know you cannot
make a point. How humiliating for you!
>>> For those who don't know, the reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it
>>> has a big case where you can install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
>>>
>> Slade has figured out that Apple does not offer as many configurations as the
>> rest of the computer industry... maybe he even knows they do not offer as
>> much as, say, Dell or HP.
>>
>> Good for you, Slade! LOL!
>
> And on that silly note. Back into my killfile you go. It's really sad to see
> you still harping on arguments you lost years ago. You need help and a
> life...Plonk!
LOL! Gee, Slade, and I thought you were just about to support your claims.
Don't trip over those laces as you run away pretending to not even see
people call you on your BS. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> They aren't software companies. But software companies have products
> that are better than iLife. I also like to choose the best application for
> the specific task, if you're a Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife is
> some sort of wonder that does things Windows packages can't. It's a free
> software suite for OS X. Other PC makers bundle software with their
> computers. But hey you should know that. You're a wierdo to keep bringing up
> iLife like you're some kind of door to door encyclopedia salesman with a
> seersucker suit yammering about your wares.
Name one piece of software that is better than iLife.
The PC vendors bundle crapware with their machines.
> And on that silly note. Back into my killfile you go. It's really sad to
> see you still harping on arguments you lost years ago. You need help and a
> life. Plonk!
>
> John
Is Snit bothering you that much? You will beg for his attention before
long, like he begs for everyone's attention.
--
Apple über alles! Heil Steve Jobs!
John Slade
"jon.in.durham" <j...@no.email.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gr0b1i$4e0$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> John Slade wrote:
>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>
> Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
> computers.
>
Well it takes about half the time on my system. I have a 16x.
>
>
> Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that come
>> with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary
>> novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive.
>
> Right now I can put a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer
>
> If it's a Laptop you're *Still* going to have take it apart, so ditto
> doing that on a Mac.
>
There is room for a Blue-Ray player in a Mackbook Air? Hell they don't
even have a damnded DVD-ROM/R/RW. You have to borrow a friends or get a
protable one, that means more shit you have to lug around. Here's an idea,
maybe Apple should put a ESATA prot on the Macbook Air and then they can
have fast external storage.
> do that with Apple's mainstream
>> computers. To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, you have to
>> wait until Apple designs a new one, if they don't plan to drop the turkey
>> that is.
>
>
> Your only choice is to buy a USB drive
>
> What About Firewire?
>
Firewire is dying. It would be better to get USB.
> and that means more desk clutter
>> which negates the main selling point of the Mini and iMac. The only Mac
>> that has a newer DVD-R/RW is the Mac Pro and who is dumb enough to buy a
>> $2500 machine just to get a better optical drive? For those who don't
>> know, the reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case
>> where you can install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
> LOL!, I remember up to 1995, PeeCees were still fitted with 5.25 disk
> drives!, never mind CD-ROM!! :)
>
I remember in 1995 I built a computer with no 5.25" disk. Are you
saying that all PCs had 5.25" drives or just the few you saw?
Hehe I remember that Macs didn't get AGP graphics and SATA until WAY
after PCs got it. The next thing, USB 3 that is very fast will debut on PCs
built by guys like ME and when will Apple implement it? Oh wait you can just
go out and get a card on the Macs that accept cards. LOL.
> Talk about putting your foot in your mouth...
I didn't put my foot in my mouth, you did with that silly statement that
all PCs had 5.25" disks. People were making all kinds of PCs out there and
some were more advanced than others. So go ahead and by that $500 Blue-Ray
writer to cram into your Intel iMac that runs Windows.
John
John Slade
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-07429F.1...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
>> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on
>> their
>> mainstream computers.
>
> around what capabilities actually matter to consumers, rather than
> sticking in whatever part they can get the best combination of
> specifications and price on this particular week.
No it's because Apple doesn't want to spend the money to have faster
drives built so they can install them on the current stock of Macs. They'll
try to dump these old machines at a deep discount and then produce the next
crop of computers that you dumbasses will buy sight unseen.
John
John Slade
"Steve de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
news:Zs-dneyOc53clEnU...@giganews.com...
> ZnU wrote:
>> In article <FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
>> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>>> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
>>> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on
>>> their mainstream computers.
>>
>> Because very few people really care,
>
> performance.
I rememeber when these same Mac Kook Zealots were bragging all over the
place at how much fast the PowerPC was than the Intel Penium. Then Sony kept
lagging in producing a faster CPU and we PC users were getting faster and
faster speeds. So then you heard the Mac speed freaks shut the hell up. Then
it went to "The fastest PC in the world." to "Who needs all that speed
except people who want to play games and guys who want to show of?" Hehe
it's so funny to see them talking now. I think I'll go back and read some of
those old posts about how much faster the Mac was.
John
John Slade
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <Zs-dneyOc53clEnU...@giganews.com>,
> Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>> > In article <FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
>> > "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on
>> >> it's
>> >> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models
>> >> have 8x DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x
>> >> DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream computers.
>> >
>> > Because very few people really care,
>>
>> Translation: It's Apple, so their customers will be happy with
>> sub-par performance.
>
> Or perhaps they understand what's actually important about a computer.
You actually believe that bull? Apple has found a cult following that
will buy everything they put out as long as they put it in a A)small box
B)cute box or C)small and cute box. They will buy it no matter what. But one
good thing, Macs can run Windows now.
>
>> > and Apple designs its computers around what capabilities actually
>> > matter to consumers, rather than sticking in whatever part they can
>> > get the best combination of specifications and price on this
>> > particular week.
>> >
>> > [snip]
>>
>> Who is talking about price?
>
> Dells computers (certainly its desktops) are essentially generic boxes
> containing whatever parts had the best combination of specifications and
> price during the most recent round of procurement.
>
> Apple's computers are integrated, designed objects.
>
> These two approaches to making computers have different implications on
> many fronts.
You honestly think Apple put slower DVD writers in their machines on
purpose? LOL
John
Snit
T-Bone-8D9CB7....@unlimited.newshosting.com on 4/2/09 2:55 PM:
> In article <ukaBl.27669$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> They aren't software companies. But software companies have products
>> that are better than iLife. I also like to choose the best application for
>> the specific task, if you're a Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife is
>> some sort of wonder that does things Windows packages can't. It's a free
>> software suite for OS X. Other PC makers bundle software with their
>> computers. But hey you should know that. You're a wierdo to keep bringing up
>> iLife like you're some kind of door to door encyclopedia salesman with a
>> seersucker suit yammering about your wares.
>
> Name one piece of software that is better than iLife.
> The PC vendors bundle crapware with their machines.
For years Slade has been claiming that "Kook Zealots" have been unfairly
denying that the software he names is as good or better than iLife.
But he keeps "forgetting" to *name* the software that he thinks is being
unfairly rejected! In other words: he knows he has no point to make and
just lashes out to try to hide that fact.
>> And on that silly note. Back into my killfile you go. It's really sad to
>> see you still harping on arguments you lost years ago. You need help and a
>> life. Plonk!
>>
>> John
>
> Is Snit bothering you that much? You will beg for his attention before
> long, like he begs for everyone's attention.
I will respond to Slade's comments as I see fit... if he opts to not respond
that is his business. But, as is his norm, he has shown himself to be
clearly very, very confused.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-03B0DC.2...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> > In article <Zs-dneyOc53clEnU...@giganews.com>,
> > Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> > In article <FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> >> > "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on
> >> >> it's
> >> >> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models
> >> >> have 8x DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x
> >> >> DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream computers.
> >> >
> >> > Because very few people really care,
> >>
> >> Translation: It's Apple, so their customers will be happy with
> >> sub-par performance.
> >
> > Or perhaps they understand what's actually important about a computer.
>
> You actually believe that bull?
Yes.
> Apple has found a cult following that will buy everything they put
> out as long as they put it in a A)small box B)cute box or C)small and
> cute box. They will buy it no matter what. But one good thing, Macs
> can run Windows now.
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you're utterly incapable of
comprehending the reasons people buy Macs. (And the priorities consumers
have when purchasing computers generally.)
> >> > and Apple designs its computers around what capabilities actually
> >> > matter to consumers, rather than sticking in whatever part they can
> >> > get the best combination of specifications and price on this
> >> > particular week.
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >>
> >> Who is talking about price?
> >
> > Dells computers (certainly its desktops) are essentially generic boxes
> > containing whatever parts had the best combination of specifications and
> > price during the most recent round of procurement.
> >
> > Apple's computers are integrated, designed objects.
> >
> > These two approaches to making computers have different implications on
> > many fronts.
>
> You honestly think Apple put slower DVD writers in their machines on
> purpose? LOL
As opposed to what? Putting them there accidentally?
I think that Apple actively evaluated whether, at this time, given all
the factors involved (price, heat, power consumption, form factor,
utility to the end user), faster drives made sense or not. Whereas Dell
probably evaluated nothing but price. They don't have to worry about
heat, power consumption and form factor much, because they don't design
their systems with as much attention to those issues as Apple does.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
John Slade
> > "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> >> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have
> >> 8x
> >> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on
> >> their
> >> mainstream computers.
>
> > Because very few people really care,
>
> Translation: It's Apple, so their customers will be happy with sub-par
>> performance.
>>
>The majority of people at least in the US are buying laptop computers
>and have been for the last two or three years -- so they obviously
>don't care about the fastest performance. But why would most people
>care about the speed of the DVD player regardless?
The player is irrelevant. I'm talking about the writer. That is half
speed. I've written DVDs at 2x, 4x, 8x, 12x and 16x on my home system. I can
tell you if you ever write a 4x disk and 16x disk, you will not want to go
back. It woult take from 15 to 20 minutes with 4x, it takes about five or
six minuts with a 16x.
> Do you really
>think that the majority of people are burning files to flimsy DVD-RW's
>instead of using some type of flash media?
Actually if you buy quality DVD media at about $30 per 100, it will
last a long long time and it's more stable than flash media. Flash media
wears out over time. But to answer your question, people mostly use DVD-Rs
to archive data. I trust that more than a flash drive as some can be damaged
by magnetic fields. Someone is using a lot of DVDs and other opticl disks
because they make so many of them and they sell like crazy.
John
John Slade
"Preston" <pre...@stupid.com> wrote in message
news:2009040115401875249-preston@stupidcom...
> On 2009-04-01 10:41:09 -0600, "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> said:
>
>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
>> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on
>> their
>> mainstream computers.
>
> I've never felt the need for an 18x or 20x DVD-R drive.
>
The speed gain from 8x to 16x is pretty big. The speed gain from 16x
to 20x isn't that big.
John
John Slade
"GreyCloud" <cum...@mist.com> wrote in message
news:_uCdnV-cAMFenUjU...@bresnan.com...
That's why most people use DVD-Rs not DVD-RWs. The "R" means
"recordable" not ROM in this case.
John
Steve de Mena
Well, we were discussing DVD BURNERS. And you have seemingly
excluded all Intel systems with "non shitty" graphics and processors.
Steve
Steve de Mena
Says who? Apple? Are they the ones that can determine what your
warranty rights are?
Steve
Steve de Mena
>> You honestly think Apple put slower DVD writers in their machines on
>> purpose? LOL
>
> As opposed to what? Putting them there accidentally?
>
> I think that Apple actively evaluated whether, at this time, given all
> the factors involved (price, heat, power consumption, form factor,
> utility to the end user), faster drives made sense or not. Whereas Dell
> probably evaluated nothing but price. They don't have to worry about
> heat, power consumption and form factor much, because they don't design
> their systems with as much attention to those issues as Apple does.
Apple has done a poor job in terms of heat dissipation if you ask me.
They strive to make their systems as quiet as possible and skirt on
the edge of overheating. I lost two Mac Mini system boards to this
and the graphics card on my first generation Mac Pro (the ATI x1900)
consistently had heating problems that required me to use a 3rd party
utility to crank up the fans to airplane levels (and I still had
frequent issues). The fact they had no newer cards available for my
Mac Pro irked me too, I had to but the entry level model just so I
could get working graphics. Months later they released a version of
their latest graphics card compatible with my Mac Pro and I had to buy
a THIRD graphics card to get the performance I desired.
Steve
ed
> In article <ukaBl.27669$ZP4.18...@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > They aren't software companies. But software companies have products
> > that are better than iLife. I also like to choose the best application for
> > the specific task, if you're a Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife is
> > some sort of wonder that does things Windows packages can't. It's a free
> > software suite for OS X. Other PC makers bundle software with their
> > computers. But hey you should know that. You're a wierdo to keep bringing up
> > iLife like you're some kind of door to door encyclopedia salesman with a
> > seersucker suit yammering about your wares.
>
> Name one piece of software that is better than iLife.
> The PC vendors bundle crapware with their machines.
dell bundles 'adobe elements studio' (photoshop elements, premier
elements, and soundbooth cs4) on some of their machines; may not be
your cup of tea, but far from crap, and i would argue better than
ilife.
<snip>
ed
> In article <_L6dnUbPC9lIgUjUnZ2dnUVZ_sLin...@giganews.com>,<snip>
> > AMAZING HOW SUB-PAR DVD BURNERS FROM APPLE ARE JUSTIFIED HERE.
>
> > That says it all.
>
> > Steve
>
> To you, but then that is expected.
>
> I notice that you don't 'justify' those sub-par windows boxes for their
> shitty graphics and processors...
hehe, the funny thing with graphics is all the complaints for years
about integrated graphics w/ shared memory until the macbook and imac
showed up with intel graphics, then it was good enough. and now that
they've moved on to better nvidia graphics, the intel solutions are
crap again. :D
wetpixel
> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their
> mainstream computers. Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that come
> with faster drives.
Wow, John -- all that and you only proved you don't know what drive
speed means to an optical.
What you are reading isn't an average speed, it's a max.
It applies to a very small portion of the drive.
I'd guess the biggest reason that Apple likes the others is that they
are very much quieter. High-speed opticals tend to be very loud, and
there are reports of shattering discs in them.
More than that, the difference in what they can read (and even the
maximum they need to read) isn't very big.
> > I'll tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary
> > novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive.
I thought you'd been spanked enough on this topic.
Of course you can put those drives into Macs; there just isn't much
reason to do it.
That means your application of 'proprietary' is entirely off (as you
keep saying, they use the _same_ hardware! You can't claim both!).
It also shows your application of 'novelty' is neither appropriate nor
useful -- how could a machine be a novelty just because it has a
slightly slower optical read speed?
> > Right now I can put
> > a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer, do that with Apple's mainstream
> > computers. To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, you have to wait
> > until Apple designs a new one, if they don't plan to drop the turkey that
> > is. Your only choice is to buy a USB drive and that means more desk clutter
> > which negates the main selling point of the Mini and iMac.
Uh-huh. Until you (John) realize that computers don't typically use or
need Blu-Ray. Until you get smart enough to know that just because
Apple makes mainstream computers like those doesn't mean that you can
randomly select those alone to slight for not having the Blu-Ray.
> > The only Mac that
> > has a newer DVD-R/RW is the Mac Pro and who is dumb enough to buy a $2500
> > machine just to get a better optical drive? For those who don't know, the
> > reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case where you can
> > install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
You mean, a case like the kind you were championing for being the best
kind of PC? One where you can easily change out parts as you described,
inexpensively and easily? Exactly what one expects because it is _not_
proprietary or novelty?
ZnU
Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> >> You honestly think Apple put slower DVD writers in their
> >> machines on
> >> purpose? LOL
> >
> > As opposed to what? Putting them there accidentally?
> >
> > I think that Apple actively evaluated whether, at this time, given
> > all the factors involved (price, heat, power consumption, form
> > factor, utility to the end user), faster drives made sense or not.
> > Whereas Dell probably evaluated nothing but price. They don't have
> > to worry about heat, power consumption and form factor much,
> > because they don't design their systems with as much attention to
> > those issues as Apple does.
>
> Apple has done a poor job in terms of heat dissipation if you ask me.
> They strive to make their systems as quiet as possible and skirt on
> the edge of overheating. I lost two Mac Mini system boards to this
> and the graphics card on my first generation Mac Pro (the ATI x1900)
> consistently had heating problems that required me to use a 3rd party
> utility to crank up the fans to airplane levels (and I still had
> frequent issues).
When a component fails, it's virtually never the case that one can
conclusively determine something like "well, if it had been run 10
degrees cooler, it wouldn't have failed". And even if one could, the
answer would often end up being "if it had been run 10 degrees cooler it
would have lasted another six months, and no longer been under warranty
when it failed".
In terms of components that act flaky while running within allowable
temperatures, well, they're just plain defective. You shouldn't have
downloaded a utility to rev up your fans. You should have gotten Apple
to replace the card.
When surveys of general hardware failure rates are occasionally done,
Apple tends to come out pretty well, with may indicate little or no
increased failure rate, and I, for one, appreciate hardware that's as
quiet as it can be.
> The fact they had no newer cards available for my Mac Pro irked me
> too, I had to but the entry level model just so I could get working
> graphics. Months later they released a version of their latest
> graphics card compatible with my Mac Pro and I had to buy a THIRD
> graphics card to get the performance I desired.
It can still take a little while for graphics cards to make it to the
Mac, yes. The situation isn't nearly as bad as it used to be, though.
wetpixel
<hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "jon.in.durham" <j...@no.email.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gr0b1i$4e0$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> > John Slade wrote:
> >> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> >> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
> >> DVD-R/RW drives.
> >
> > Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
> > computers.
> >
> > Will it make *That* much of a difference?
>
> Well it takes about half the time on my system. I have a 16x.
No, John, it takes nearly the same time -- because that 16x isn't an
average, it's a maximum. Did you really never run across this?
> > Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that come
> >> with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary
> >> novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive.
> >
> > Right now I can put a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer
> >
> > If it's a Laptop you're *Still* going to have take it apart, so ditto
> > doing that on a Mac.
> >
>
> There is room for a Blue-Ray player in a Mackbook Air?
Good God, did you never read that 'changing the goalposts' thread?
You cannot make an argument by selecting different models to criticize
-- especially when everyone but you knows why the MBA is different.
> Hell they don't
> even have a damnded DVD-ROM/R/RW. You have to borrow a friends or get a
> protable one, that means more shit you have to lug around.
No, you don't. You don't have to carry anything if you don't need the
optical drive, see? You don't need the optical drive all the time, and
if you do, then you wouldn't buy the MBA.
You really shouldn't be this thick.
> Here's an idea,
> maybe Apple should put a ESATA prot on the Macbook Air and then they can
> have fast external storage.
Or really fast networking, right? Then they could easily access
whatever you have on the network, including backup drives, shared
drives, and opticals on other machines.
> > Your only choice is to buy a USB drive
> > What About Firewire?
> Firewire is dying. It would be better to get USB.
Ooof. It isn't, but even if you were right -- you're saying you can't
consider FW an option because in a few years it won't be sold?
Why wouldn't it work (very well) in the meantime?
> > LOL!, I remember up to 1995, PeeCees were still fitted with 5.25 disk
> > drives!, never mind CD-ROM!! :)
> >
> I remember in 1995 I built a computer with no 5.25" disk. Are you
> saying that all PCs had 5.25" drives or just the few you saw?
Oh, God, John, you really have no reasoning ability.
The fact that PCs held on to very old, unreliable, and horrible
technology is a sign about how that part of the industry moves and
fails. It is no sign of anything that someone _could_ build something
different. The relevant point is how badly old tech hangs on in
mainstream offerings.
> Hehe I remember that Macs didn't get AGP graphics and SATA until WAY
> after PCs got it.
Huh. Maybe someone should help you with those dates. It's far more
likely that you just didn't notice when they had them.
> The next thing, USB 3 that is very fast will debut on PCs
> built by guys like ME and when will Apple implement it? Oh wait you can just
> go out and get a card on the Macs that accept cards. LOL.
Uh... aren't you just saying that Macs will be able to do it _exactly_
when you can do it at home? (You did!)
USB 3 is not likely to be such a huge deal, anyway -- I guess you are
championing it just because you know it's coming.
> > Talk about putting your foot in your mouth...
>
> I didn't put my foot in my mouth, you did with that silly statement that
> all PCs had 5.25" disks.
He didn't claim that at all. He remembered PCs having them in 1995; he
didn't state that every PC had them. You misunderstood what he was
writing of.
> People were making all kinds of PCs out there and
> some were more advanced than others. So go ahead and by that $500 Blue-Ray
> writer to cram into your Intel iMac that runs Windows.
... but you still go back to the questionable benefit of a misapplied
technology, implying it's necessary without support, and condemning
Macs just because some of them don't do everything that some others do.
John, if I can show you a Windows PC that doesn't do _anything_ that
you just wrote about, will you shut up?
wetpixel
<hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I rememeber when these same Mac Kook Zealots were bragging all over the
> place at how much fast the PowerPC was than the Intel Penium. Then Sony kept
> lagging in producing a faster CPU and we PC users were getting faster and
> faster speeds. So then you heard the Mac speed freaks shut the hell up. Then
> it went to "The fastest PC in the world." to "Who needs all that speed
> except people who want to play games and guys who want to show of?" Hehe
> it's so funny to see them talking now. I think I'll go back and read some of
> those old posts about how much faster the Mac was.
>
> John
That would be a good idea. You certainly need a lot of information to
get your facts straight.
Yes, Mac users were proud to have fast processors.
Yes, they weren't always the fastest. (That doesn't condemn either Mac
users or the processors, you understand.)
Yes, when they weren't the fastest, most Mac users didn't proclaim them
to be. Again, this is a good thing. It is proper that people don't.
Yes, when they were fastest again the Mac users wrote about it.
Just what about this sounds wrong to you?
No one stays on top; when they are not, they don't claim it. That's
right and proper.
They do _not_ use the Slade criticism technique, and point out that
since one maker makes a slower computer, they must all be junk. Or that
since one maker uses a slower processor type, all the stuff from that
maker is obviously a novelty bogus piece of junk that Slade could
outperform.
wetpixel
<hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Good question: why don't Dells and HPs come with software to compete with
> > iLife?
> >
>
> They aren't software companies. But software companies have products
> that are better than iLife.
I'll bet you can't show how they are 'better' -- you haven't even
established a need that they don't have!
> I also like to choose the best application for
> the specific task, if you're a Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife is
> some sort of wonder that does things Windows packages can't.
You're a Windows zealot (and moron!) if you think Windows has anything
similar in meaningful ways. Simplicity is far more important than
matching features, and no Windows package offers that kind of
integrated simplicity.
> It's a free
> software suite for OS X. Other PC makers bundle software with their
> computers. But hey you should know that. You're a wierdo to keep bringing up
> iLife like you're some kind of door to door encyclopedia salesman with a
> seersucker suit yammering about your wares.
Like your commonest arguments?
€ iMac and mini aren't expandable
€ MBA doesn't have everything a full-featured laptop does
€ because it has similar components, a Mac is 'just' a PC
€ because it can be called a PC, a Mac must be junk
€ it's a 'novelty' computer, because it doesn't run Windows.
> > Slade has figured out that Apple does not offer as many configurations as
> > the rest of the computer industry... maybe he even knows they do not offer
> > as much as, say, Dell or HP.
> >
> > Good for you, Slade! LOL!
>
> And on that silly note. Back into my killfile you go. It's really sad to
> see you still harping on arguments you lost years ago. You need help and a
> life...Plonk!
Justify _any_ of your arguments above, or you are far worse a fool.
wetpixel
<hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> No it's because Apple doesn't want to spend the money to have faster
> drives built so they can install them on the current stock of Macs. They'll
> try to dump these old machines at a deep discount and then produce the next
> crop of computers that you dumbasses will buy sight unseen.
Why is it that every idiot troll claims Mac users buy without thinking?
Apparently, it's a common mode of buying for fools like Slade, but most
Mac users don't spend a lot of money upgrading all the time.
(No, not because they cannot, Slade, but because they aren't constantly
fooled into that game like Windows buyers are so often.)
Lloyd Parsons
Yes, I have. There's nothing wrong with the more upscale intel/windows
machines. It is at the lower end of the market that Apple doesn't serve
that the crap is found. Although all too often in the Dell and HPs,
they seem to stay with integrated graphics more than I would have
expected.
GreyCloud
You missed the point on this one.
When you insert a blank DVD into an Apple dvd drive and using the disk
utility tool,
and have something to record, the tool makes a suggestion of a lower
speed for a
successful burn. Then it verifys the burn. Going faster may make a
coaster or on
a rewrittable dvd a redo. So is speed such a big deal?
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
Alan Baker
Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <mike-376CF4.0...@nntp.teranews.com>,
> > Mike <mi...@nononccfaba.org> wrote:
> >
> >> http://eshop.macsales.com/Search/Search.cfm?Ne=5000&Ntt=Blu-Ray&Ntk=Prima
> >> ry&Ns=P_Price|0&N=6866
> >
> > But look at the price of media.
>
> I didn't think that Blu-Ray movies were that much more than DVD movies.
>
> Steve
But there is so much you don't notice, Steve.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Alan Baker
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "KDT" <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eb7e6cea-e14d-4fcf...@s19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 1, 12:41 pm, "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> > novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
> > DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on
> > their
> > mainstream computers. Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that
> > come
> > with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary
> > novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive. Right now I can
> > put
> > a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer, do that with Apple's
> > mainstream
> > computers. To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, you have to
> > wait
> > until Apple designs a new one, if they don't plan to drop the turkey that
> > is. Your only choice is to buy a USB drive and that means more desk
> > clutter
> > which negates the main selling point of the Mini and iMac. The only Mac
> > that
> > has a newer DVD-R/RW is the Mac Pro and who is dumb enough to buy a $2500
> > machine just to get a better optical drive? For those who don't know, the
> > reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case where you can
> > install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
> >
> >> John
>
> >Would be nice if a third party offered a BluRay upgrade....oh wait....
> >http://fastmac.com/slim_bluray.php
>
> Yea and you'll void your warranty if you install it on a iMac or Mini.
>
> John
Really? Care to show us your reference for that?
Mike
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C5F8F67E.26FC3%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> > John Slade stated in post FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com on
> > 4/1/09 9:41 AM:
> >
> >> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
> >> novelty machines,
> >
> > What do you mean by "novelty machines"? The mini, perhaps? Not sure what
> > you are getting at.
> >
> >> just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x DVD-R/RW drives.
> >> Why
> >> don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
> >> computers.
> >
> > Good question: why don't Dells and HPs come with software to compete with
> > iLife?
> >
>
> They aren't software companies. But software companies have products
> that are better than iLife.
John,
Care to tell us what suite of Windows software you can purchase is equal
to or better than iLife?
> I also like to choose the best application for
> the specific task, if you're a Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife is
> some sort of wonder that does things Windows packages can't. It's a free
> software suite for OS X.
While it comes on a Mac when you purchase one, it's not included in an
OS. You do know Apple sells iLife in their stores, online, etc? Right?
>Other PC makers bundle software with their
> computers. But hey you should know that. You're a wierdo to keep bringing up
> iLife like you're some kind of door to door encyclopedia salesman with a
> seersucker suit yammering about your wares.
> >
> >> For those who don't
> >> know, the reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case
> >> where
> >> you can install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
> >
> > Slade has figured out that Apple does not offer as many configurations as
> > the rest of the computer industry... maybe he even knows they do not offer
> > as much as, say, Dell or HP.
> >
> > Good for you, Slade! LOL!
>
> And on that silly note. Back into my killfile you go. It's really sad to
> see you still harping on arguments you lost years ago. You need help and a
> life...Plonk!
>
> John
--
Mike
Snit
10:46 PM:
> In article <ukaBl.27669$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:C5F8F67E.26FC3%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>> John Slade stated in post FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com on
>>> 4/1/09 9:41 AM:
>>>
>>>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>>>> novelty machines,
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "novelty machines"? The mini, perhaps? Not sure what
>>> you are getting at.
>>>
>>>> just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x DVD-R/RW drives.
>>>> Why
>>>> don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
>>>> computers.
>>>
>>> Good question: why don't Dells and HPs come with software to compete with
>>> iLife?
>>>
>>
>> They aren't software companies. But software companies have products
>> that are better than iLife.
>
> John,
>
> Care to tell us what suite of Windows software you can purchase is equal
> to or better than iLife?
No. He cannot. If he could he would have done so years ago. But he runs,
every time. He will this time. I commend you for giving him another
chance... but he will run.
And then he will blame me. :)
>> I also like to choose the best application for the specific task, if you're a
>> Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife is some sort of wonder that does
>> things Windows packages can't. It's a free software suite for OS X.
>>
> While it comes on a Mac when you purchase one, it's not included in an OS. You
> do know Apple sells iLife in their stores, online, etc? Right?
Hey, he did say it was a suite *for* OS X, not a part of OS X.
>> Other PC makers bundle software with their computers. But hey you should know
>> that. You're a wierdo to keep bringing up iLife like you're some kind of door
>> to door encyclopedia salesman with a seersucker suit yammering about your
>> wares.
>>
>>>> For those who don't know, the reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it
>>>> has a big case where you can install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
>>>>
>>> Slade has figured out that Apple does not offer as many configurations as
>>> the rest of the computer industry... maybe he even knows they do not offer
>>> as much as, say, Dell or HP.
>>>
>>> Good for you, Slade! LOL!
>>>
>> And on that silly note. Back into my killfile you go. It's really sad to see
>> you still harping on arguments you lost years ago. You need help and a
>> life...Plonk!
>>
>> John
You almost have to feel sorry for John, feeling the need to bury his head
like that.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve de Mena
The integrated graphics in my Mac Mini couldn't do 1920x1280 coming
out of the analog VGA port. I was using an analog switchbox at the
time and that was a major inconvenience. My other systems could
output 1920x1280 via VGA.
Steve
Mike
Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Not sure that saying it's a "...free software suite of OS X" is saying
it's always free, which it isn't.
>
> >> Other PC makers bundle software with their computers. But hey you should
> >> know
> >> that. You're a wierdo to keep bringing up iLife like you're some kind of
> >> door
> >> to door encyclopedia salesman with a seersucker suit yammering about your
> >> wares.
> >>
> >>>> For those who don't know, the reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because
> >>>> it
> >>>> has a big case where you can install an off the shelf drive in it
> >>>> easily.
> >>>>
> >>> Slade has figured out that Apple does not offer as many configurations as
> >>> the rest of the computer industry... maybe he even knows they do not
> >>> offer
> >>> as much as, say, Dell or HP.
> >>>
> >>> Good for you, Slade! LOL!
> >>>
> >> And on that silly note. Back into my killfile you go. It's really sad to
> >> see
> >> you still harping on arguments you lost years ago. You need help and a
> >> life...Plonk!
> >>
> >> John
>
> You almost have to feel sorry for John, feeling the need to bury his head
> like that.
--
Mike
Snit
9:38 AM:
...
>>> Care to tell us what suite of Windows software you can purchase is equal
>>> to or better than iLife?
>>
>> No. He cannot. If he could he would have done so years ago. But he runs,
>> every time. He will this time. I commend you for giving him another
>> chance... but he will run.
>>
>> And then he will blame me. :)
>>
>>>> I also like to choose the best application for the specific task, if you're
>>>> a Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife is some sort of wonder that does
>>>> things Windows packages can't. It's a free software suite for OS X.
>>>>
>>> While it comes on a Mac when you purchase one, it's not included in an OS.
>>> You do know Apple sells iLife in their stores, online, etc? Right?
>>>
>> Hey, he did say it was a suite *for* OS X, not a part of OS X.
>>
> Not sure that saying it's a "...free software suite of OS X" is saying it's
> always free, which it isn't.
It is a software suite that is included for free when you buy a Mac. It is
not included when you buy OS X (though you can get a bundle). You can also
buy it separately.
I think we can nit pick people's wording, but unless someone makes it clear
they disagree with that I think we are all pretty much in agreement. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
John Slade
You know what? When I put a blank DVD-R in, a menu pops up asking me
what program I want to use with the disk. I can choose to burn a data disk
or whatever from any number of programs. I choose Nero and drag and drop the
files I want copied. Then when I hit burn, it allows me to burn at maximum
speed or I can drop down that menu to pick a slower speed. I ALWAYS use
maximum with my Verbatim media. I burnt at 16x every time. Out of about 220
DVDs burned, I have had maybe three coasters and they were ALL due to a
corrupted file. I think if you're worried about the Mac's DVD drive burning
a coaster, if you go faster then 8x, then it shows you have little faith in
Apple hardware. I can understand this because you've been using Macs for a
while. I don't worry about faster speeds. I verify every disk through a
separate program because I just like it better, I could use verify with Nero
as I burn also. However I find that all those disk are burned just fine. So
you saying that burning at faster speeds is pure horse shit, well unless you
go and buy the cheap ass junk media they sell to people who don't know. Hey
maybe Apple could start making blank DVDs to their "high standards", stamp a
big read Apple with a bite taken out of it and sell them for $5 bucks a
piece. The Mac Kook Zealots would buy that shit without question and claim
it's better than the media PC users use. Well that is until they find out
it's rebranded Taiyo Yuden or Mitsubishi Chemicals DVDs.
LOL That's a good one. "You don't want faster speeds because you might
get errors." Yea right, then why the fuck does Apple put a 16x DVD writer on
it's Mac Pro?
John
John Slade
"wetpixel" <wetp...@news.news> wrote in message
news:020420091325324027%wetp...@news.news...
> In article <FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Slade
> <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have 8x
>> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on
>> their
>> mainstream computers. Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that
>> come
>> with faster drives.
> Wow, John -- all that and you only proved you don't know what drive
> speed means to an optical.
I know exactly what it means because I've used EVERY SPEED up to 16x
to record DVDs. You don't seem to know about drive speed because you would
not have made this silly statement.
> What you are reading isn't an average speed, it's a max.
> It applies to a very small portion of the drive.
When I record DVDs I get a realtime readout of the speed the drive is
recording. Now it's pretty easy to calculate the actual speed versus the max
speed.
>
> I'd guess the biggest reason that Apple likes the others is that they
> are very much quieter. High-speed opticals tend to be very loud, and
> there are reports of shattering discs in them.
>
That's complete horse shit because Apple puts a 16x drive on the Mac
Pro. Also it's bullshit because I've had several brands of DVD writers and
they don't make noise at all. If it does, it's so low I can't hear it
outside the case. I have never seen a disk shattered by any optical drive.
> More than that, the difference in what they can read (and even the
> maximum they need to read) isn't very big.
Once again you are confused about the gist of this conversation. It is
not about READ SPEED it's about WRITE SPEED. They all read fast enough to
play movies and read data. A 16x speed means it writes single-layer
DVD-R/+Rs at that speed. When you write a DVD on an 8x drive and a 16x
drive, there is a pretty big difference.
>
>> > I'll tell you the reason, when you make a proprietary
>> > novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive.
> I thought you'd been spanked enough on this topic.
Nope. I was right, they showed an internal Blue-Ray drive that costs
over $500 and when you in stall it, it voids your warranty on the Mini and
iMac. That is not "easy" by any stretch. Also have you ever seen how much it
takes to open up an iMac? Have you seen how much it takes to open up a Mini,
I hope you have a paint scraper handy.
> Of course you can put those drives into Macs; there just isn't much
> reason to do it.
Oh yes there is. Apple does it on their Mac Pro. It's just that their
drives on smaller computers are specially made and it would cost a lot to
put one out that you could install. So they'll just design it into the next
batch of Macs. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that the next crop of
Macs have faster DVD writers in them.
> That means your application of 'proprietary' is entirely off (as you
> keep saying, they use the _same_ hardware! You can't claim both!).
Apple's DVD writers are specially made for the iMac and Mini. Apple is
a proprietary maker of comptuers. That's a fact. However some of the
components that connect to the proprietary motherboard are OEM stuff that's
on the market for other PCs.
> It also shows your application of 'novelty' is neither appropriate nor
> useful -- how could a machine be a novelty just because it has a
> slightly slower optical read speed?
The novelty is in the size and style. The Mini seems to be patched
together form laptop parts and are slower in general than regular desktop
parts.
>
>> > Right now I can put
>> > a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer, do that with Apple's
>> > mainstream
>> > computers. To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, you have to
>> > wait
>> > until Apple designs a new one, if they don't plan to drop the turkey
>> > that
>> > is. Your only choice is to buy a USB drive and that means more desk
>> > clutter
>> > which negates the main selling point of the Mini and iMac.
> Uh-huh. Until you (John) realize that computers don't typically use or
> need Blu-Ray.
Ah more lowered expectations from a Mac Kook Zealot. You don't need
speed, you don't need big HDs and you don't need fast DVD burners. Hell by
that logic all you need is a CD-ROM and a USB flash drive. If we went by
that logic, nobody would have put DVDs drives on computers because you don't
really need them. But if you want to install an application or game, you'd
want one. Hell you could just have a USB flash drive and that's it. Hehe.
You starting to reallize how totally stupid your arguement is now?
>Until you get smart enough to know that just because
> Apple makes mainstream computers like those doesn't mean that you can
> randomly select those alone to slight for not having the Blu-Ray.
I don't slight them for not having a Blue-Ray drive at this time because
it's reletively new tech. I do slight Apple because their upgrade path
negates the selling point of the iMac and Mini which is less desk clutter
and size. If you want a Blue-Ray you have to pay more for an external or go
with that company that sells them for $500. All the wile us PC users with
those "clunky" boxes can get one for less than half the price.
>
>> > The only Mac that
>> > has a newer DVD-R/RW is the Mac Pro and who is dumb enough to buy a
>> > $2500
>> > machine just to get a better optical drive? For those who don't know,
>> > the
>> > reason the Mac Pro has a drive is because it has a big case where you
>> > can
>> > install an off the shelf drive in it easily.
> You mean, a case like the kind you were championing for being the best
> kind of PC? One where you can easily change out parts as you described,
> inexpensively and easily?
Yes. The best PC is one you can upgrade with the newest technology. It
seems in these economic times, many people will upgrade rather than buy a
new computer just to get a faster DVD writer or Blue-Ray drive. I wonder
why I keep seeing people buy them at stores like Best Buy, CompUSA and
Walmart. It seems the only people who think millions don't upgrade are the
people with computers you can't upgrade easily and cheaply. Go figya. LOL.
John
Mike
Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
That's what I was pointing out....
--
Mike
Lloyd Parsons
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
The least shopped part of all those stores is the upgrade parts area.
Who are you trying to kid here?
Everytime someone goes searching for what computers that are discarded
when new ones are bought, almost all of them have exactly zero add-on
parts in them.
A little memory is generally the most anyone does outside of the geeks.
GreyCloud
I've got the same thing, but the disk utility selects the suggeted burn
speed for the best
reliability. Just like speed limit signs on highways. Sure, you've got
your corvette and
got at great high speeds, but run the risk of crash and burn.
But of course you'd rather blow away a perfectly good dvd on a risk, right?
Guffaw!!!
John Slade
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-DD0E...@news.individual.net...
> In article <e0uBl.22202$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes. The best PC is one you can upgrade with the newest technology.
>> It
>> seems in these economic times, many people will upgrade rather than buy a
>> new computer just to get a faster DVD writer or Blue-Ray drive. I wonder
>> why I keep seeing people buy them at stores like Best Buy, CompUSA and
>> Walmart. It seems the only people who think millions don't upgrade are
>> the
>> people with computers you can't upgrade easily and cheaply. Go figya.
>> LOL.
>>
>> John
>
> The least shopped part of all those stores is the upgrade parts area.
> Who are you trying to kid here?
Prove it.
>
> Everytime someone goes searching for what computers that are discarded
> when new ones are bought, almost all of them have exactly zero add-on
> parts in them.
I'm not saying most people upgrade. I'm saying millions and millions of
people upgrade and buy parts to install themselves. Now the computer world
in general is hundreds of millions. I know many many people who would rather
buy a $99 Blue-Ray drive and pay $20 to have it installed than a fool who
will just sit and wait for some company to include it.
>
> A little memory is generally the most anyone does outside of the geeks.
Prove it. Show me some actual sales figures to back up your point.
John
Walter Bushell
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
Hay, maybe as little as again as much as installed. >:|
Maybe a hard disk.
On one machine, a new video card (to go to 16 bit color from 8), a new
hard drive, 96 meg of memory (for a _grand total of 128 MB max for the
machine), and an accelerator board (from a 603 E 160 MHz to a G3 260
MHz). But I am a geek and everything was bought at end of life close out
special, except the hard drive. (The g3 update was a lot more than the
MHz would indicate.)
But if you're paying list it rarely makes sense to upgrade, beyond
memory and hard disk.
John Slade
"Steve de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
news:IfudnWsXe_t5o0jU...@giganews.com...
> John Slade wrote:
>> "KDT" <scarf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:eb7e6cea-e14d-4fcf...@s19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Would be nice if a third party offered a BluRay upgrade....oh wait....
>>> http://fastmac.com/slim_bluray.php
>>
>> Yea and you'll void your warranty if you install it on a iMac or
>> Mini.
>>
>> John
>
> rights are?
Depends on what state you live in and what the Apple policy is. But
AFAIK if you open up a Mini or iMac, take out the DVD drive and install a
third party Blue-Ray drive, you'll void your warranty.
John
John Slade
"wetpixel" <wetp...@news.news> wrote in message
> In article <ukaBl.27669$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Slade
> <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> > Good question: why don't Dells and HPs come with software to compete
>> > with
>> > iLife?
>> >
>>
>> They aren't software companies. But software companies have products
>> that are better than iLife.
> I'll bet you can't show how they are 'better' -- you haven't even
> established a need that they don't have!
>
>> I also like to choose the best application for
>> the specific task, if you're a Kook Zealot like you, you'll think iLife
>> is
>> some sort of wonder that does things Windows packages can't.
> You're a Windows zealot (and moron!) if you think Windows has anything
> similar in meaningful ways. Simplicity is far more important than
> matching features, and no Windows package offers that kind of
> integrated simplicity.
I'm not an anything zealot. You don't see me in here shilling for
Windows much now do you?
John
>
>> It's a free
>> software suite for OS X. Other PC makers bundle software with their
>> computers. But hey you should know that. You're a wierdo to keep bringing
>> up
>> iLife like you're some kind of door to door encyclopedia salesman with a
>> seersucker suit yammering about your wares.
> Like your commonest arguments?
> ? iMac and mini aren't expandable
> ? MBA doesn't have everything a full-featured laptop does
> ? because it has similar components, a Mac is 'just' a PC
> ? because it can be called a PC, a Mac must be junk
> ? it's a 'novelty' computer, because it doesn't run Windows.
John Slade
"wetpixel" <wetp...@news.news> wrote in message
> In article <8vaBl.27671$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Slade
> <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "jon.in.durham" <j...@no.email.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:gr0b1i$4e0$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> > John Slade wrote:
>> >> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on it's
>> >> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models have
>> >> 8x
>> >> DVD-R/RW drives.
>> >
>> > Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream
>> > computers.
>> >
>> > Will it make *That* much of a difference?
>>
>> Well it takes about half the time on my system. I have a 16x.
> No, John, it takes nearly the same time -- because that 16x isn't an
> average, it's a maximum. Did you really never run across this?
>
>
Are you off your meds or something? You're actually telling me that
buring at 8x is nearly the same as buring in 16x? That's bullshit because
you have never used my machine.
>> > Dell and HP have computers that are cheaper that come
>> >> with faster drives. I'll tell you the reason, when you make a
>> >> proprietary
>> >> novelty machine, it's hard to upgrade to the next drive.
>> >
>> > Right now I can put a Blue-Ray player on a Dell or HP computer
>> >
>> > If it's a Laptop you're *Still* going to have take it apart, so ditto
>> > doing that on a Mac.
>> >
>> >> Hell they don't
>> even have a damnded DVD-ROM/R/RW. You have to borrow a friends or get a
>> protable one, that means more shit you have to lug around.
> No, you don't. You don't have to carry anything if you don't need the
> optical drive, see? You don't need the optical drive all the time, and
> if you do, then you wouldn't buy the MBA.
> You really shouldn't be this thick.
>
>> Here's an idea,
>> maybe Apple should put a ESATA prot on the Macbook Air and then they can
>> have fast external storage.
> Or really fast networking, right? Then they could easily access
> whatever you have on the network, including backup drives, shared
> drives, and opticals on other machines.
Oh so you have to borrow shit form others when you get a MBA rather
than buy a laptop with everything included that may be a half of an inch
taller. Who's stupid now? What fuckwit would buy a Macbook air just because
it's a LITTLE thinner than a regular laptop? Oh wait...
>
>> > Your only choice is to buy a USB drive
>> > What About Firewire?
>> Firewire is dying. It would be better to get USB.
> Ooof. It isn't, but even if you were right -- you're saying you can't
> consider FW an option because in a few years it won't be sold?
Yes.
>
>> > LOL!, I remember up to 1995, PeeCees were still fitted with 5.25 disk
>> > drives!, never mind CD-ROM!! :)
>> >
>> I remember in 1995 I built a computer with no 5.25" disk. Are you
>> saying that all PCs had 5.25" drives or just the few you saw?
> Oh, God, John, you really have no reasoning ability.
> The fact that PCs held on to very old, unreliable, and horrible
> technology is a sign about how that part of the industry moves and
> fails. It is no sign of anything that someone _could_ build something
> different. The relevant point is how badly old tech hangs on in
> mainstream offerings.
>
>> Hehe I remember that Macs didn't get AGP graphics and SATA until
>> WAY
>> after PCs got it.
> Huh. Maybe someone should help you with those dates. It's far more
> likely that you just didn't notice when they had them.
It was years after PCs had them.
>
>> The next thing, USB 3 that is very fast will debut on PCs
>> built by guys like ME and when will Apple implement it? Oh wait you can
>> just
>> go out and get a card on the Macs that accept cards. LOL.
> Uh... aren't you just saying that Macs will be able to do it _exactly_
> when you can do it at home? (You did!)
> USB 3 is not likely to be such a huge deal, anyway -- I guess you are
> championing it just because you know it's coming.
Already computers and motherboards are being designed with USB 3.0.
When is Apple slated to roll out it's new line of PCs? When was the last
time Apple put out a new desktop?
>
>> > Talk about putting your foot in your mouth...
>>
>> I didn't put my foot in my mouth, you did with that silly statement
>> that
>> all PCs had 5.25" disks.
> He didn't claim that at all. He remembered PCs having them in 1995; he
> didn't state that every PC had them. You misunderstood what he was
> writing of.
>
>> People were making all kinds of PCs out there and
>> some were more advanced than others. So go ahead and by that $500
>> Blue-Ray
>> writer to cram into your Intel iMac that runs Windows.
> ... but you still go back to the questionable benefit of a misapplied
> technology, implying it's necessary without support, and condemning
> Macs just because some of them don't do everything that some others do.
>
Look you fool. I didn't say it was NECESSARY I said Apple is lagging and
they are.
> John, if I can show you a Windows PC that doesn't do _anything_ that
> you just wrote about, will you shut up?
These conversations are about new consumer desktops that Apple is
selling now versus what other PC manufactures are sell now. I can find a
shitload of old PCs that are just as bad as a current Mac. This is why I'm
no fan of proprietary computers like the iMac and Mini. Both of them are
among the most proprietary computers you can find outside of laptops. If you
put me in your killfile you won't hear from me again. I don't change my name
to get around being killfiled because I don't give a shit if someone ignores
me. However you have some no-life loons who just can't stand to be ignored.
John
Lloyd Parsons
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
I used to do all that geeky stuff before I retired. But I made my
living selling and servicing networks for schools and small businesses.
It was damn rare that the desktop computers in those places were ever
upgraded at all.
About 10% of my business was to home users, and they never upgraded
after the purchase.
But I would think that external HDs would be a pretty big item these
days with streaming video and such out there in plentiful supply. But
then that ext hd can move to a new machine too.
Lloyd Parsons
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-DD0E...@news.individual.net...
> > In article <e0uBl.22202$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. The best PC is one you can upgrade with the newest technology.
> >> It
> >> seems in these economic times, many people will upgrade rather than buy a
> >> new computer just to get a faster DVD writer or Blue-Ray drive. I wonder
> >> why I keep seeing people buy them at stores like Best Buy, CompUSA and
> >> Walmart. It seems the only people who think millions don't upgrade are
> >> the
> >> people with computers you can't upgrade easily and cheaply. Go figya.
> >> LOL.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> > The least shopped part of all those stores is the upgrade parts area.
> > Who are you trying to kid here?
>
> Prove it.
>
Just walk in any of those stores and the proof is right in front of your
eyes.
> >
> > Everytime someone goes searching for what computers that are discarded
> > when new ones are bought, almost all of them have exactly zero add-on
> > parts in them.
>
> I'm not saying most people upgrade. I'm saying millions and millions of
> people upgrade and buy parts to install themselves. Now the computer world
> in general is hundreds of millions. I know many many people who would rather
> buy a $99 Blue-Ray drive and pay $20 to have it installed than a fool who
> will just sit and wait for some company to include it.
>
I'd say 10% or less of the computer users out there ever upgrade a
computer.
> >
> > A little memory is generally the most anyone does outside of the geeks.
>
> Prove it. Show me some actual sales figures to back up your point.
>
> John
Hey John, I don't work for a living these days to support me, so why in
hell would I want to do any work for you? :)
You and I both know the upgrade market is pitifully small, and smaller
yet in the retail storefront. But feel free to keep posting the comedy
show you are running.
John Slade
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-965ED4.1...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <HEaBl.27676$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:znu-03B0DC.2...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
>> > In article <Zs-dneyOc53clEnU...@giganews.com>,
>> > Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> > In article <FOMAl.22487$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
>> >> > "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on
>> >> >> it's
>> >> >> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models
>> >> >> have 8x DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x
>> >> >> DVD-R/RWs on their mainstream computers.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Translation: It's Apple, so their customers will be happy with
>> >> sub-par performance.
>> >
>>
>> You actually believe that bull?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Apple has found a cult following that will buy everything they put
>> out as long as they put it in a A)small box B)cute box or C)small and
>> cute box. They will buy it no matter what. But one good thing, Macs
>> can run Windows now.
>
> You have repeatedly demonstrated that you're utterly incapable of
> comprehending the reasons people buy Macs. (And the priorities consumers
> have when purchasing computers generally.)
>
>> >> > and Apple designs its computers around what capabilities actually
>> >> > matter to consumers, rather than sticking in whatever part they can
>> >> > get the best combination of specifications and price on this
>> >> > particular week.
>> >> >
>> >> > [snip]
>> >>
>> >> Who is talking about price?
>> >
>> > Dells computers (certainly its desktops) are essentially generic boxes
>> > containing whatever parts had the best combination of specifications
>> > and
>> > price during the most recent round of procurement.
>> >
>> > Apple's computers are integrated, designed objects.
>> >
>> > These two approaches to making computers have different implications on
>> > many fronts.
>>
>> You honestly think Apple put slower DVD writers in their machines on
>> purpose? LOL
>
> As opposed to what? Putting them there accidentally?
No. The only machine with an easy upgrade where you can just slide a
drive in and connect it(Mac Pro) has what kind of DVD writer? The ones that
are hard to upgrade(iMac and Mini) has what speed DVD writer? It's as simple
as that. Tell me you can at least understand what goes into designing and
putting a new drive in those machines.
>
> I think that Apple actively evaluated whether, at this time, given all
> the factors involved (price, heat, power consumption, form factor,
> utility to the end user), faster drives made sense or not. Whereas Dell
> probably evaluated nothing but price. They don't have to worry about
> heat, power consumption and form factor much, because they don't design
> their systems with as much attention to those issues as Apple does.
Dude. How much faster and how much more power does a 8x drive use versus
a 16x drive. Can you show me that the power consumption and RPMs are much
more. I have installed both kinds and they both use the same power
connector. I have heard loud drives and quiet ones of all speeds. So that is
completely crazy. My 16x drive is very quiet.
Power consumption in a desktop is not relevant but it is in a laptop.
As for Apple paying attention, just watch what they put in their next
cute tiny machines.
But it seems to me some people are talking and wondering and waiting
for Apple to upgrade their machines.
http://news.techwhack.com/9222-new-macs
You know, when companies stop upgrading and putting out new computers
in a line, it could mean the end of the line. I don't know if this is
happening at Apple with the Mac but it does not look good.
John
Snit
1:23 PM:
What? Agreement on Usenet? Absurd! :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
David Empson
> "wetpixel" <wetp...@news.news> wrote in message
> news:020420091339062877%wetp...@news.news...
> > In article <8vaBl.27671$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Slade
> > <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The next thing, USB 3 that is very fast will debut on PCs
> >> built by guys like ME and when will Apple implement it? Oh wait you can
> >> just
> >> go out and get a card on the Macs that accept cards. LOL.
> > Uh... aren't you just saying that Macs will be able to do it _exactly_
> > when you can do it at home? (You did!)
> > USB 3 is not likely to be such a huge deal, anyway -- I guess you are
> > championing it just because you know it's coming.
>
> Already computers and motherboards are being designed with USB 3.0.
> When is Apple slated to roll out it's new line of PCs? When was the last
> time Apple put out a new desktop?
They just released new models of all the desktops (Mac Mini, iMac and
Mac Pro) in March. I'd expect the next batch of new models to be late
this year.
USB 3.0 isn't expected to be widely available until some time in 2010. I
would expect to see it introduced on Macs once peripherals start to
appear in quantity, and support is included in standard chipsets,
perhaps late this year but more likely to be next year.
Apple was very prompt at introducing USB 1.x (the first iMac was
released before USB 1.1 was standardised), but were late to the party
with USB 2.0, possibly due to trying not to cut into the market share
for Firewire.
The situation is different now, as Firewire is evolving into a niche
product and Apple no longer includes it on all Mac models. They have a
greater incentive to include USB 3.0 reasonably promptly, but they won't
do this until it is close enough to a standard, most or all features are
supported in the hardware chipsets, and enough Mac users will benefit
from it.
There is precedent that they might release hardware support for USB 3.0
without announcing it: 802.11n support was introduced in Core 2 Duo Mac
models from late 2006, but this wasn't announced until several months
later. Existing computers could have 802.11n enabled by running a
software update. (There was a small charge for the update, for
accounting reasons, but it was free if you bought an Airport base
station with 802.11n support.)
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Steve de Mena
> Depends on what state you live in and what the Apple policy is. But
> AFAIK if you open up a Mini or iMac, take out the DVD drive and install a
> third party Blue-Ray drive, you'll void your warranty.
>
> John
Nope.
Steve
Walter Bushell
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
> I used to do all that geeky stuff before I retired. But I made my
> living selling and servicing networks for schools and small businesses.
> It was damn rare that the desktop computers in those places were ever
> upgraded at all.
Including the OS.
ZnU
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Um... I'm pretty sure Apple is capable of putting DVD drives into iMacs
and Mac minis. I really don't understand what you're getting at here.
[snip]
> You know, when companies stop upgrading and putting out new computers
> in a line, it could mean the end of the line. I don't know if this is
> happening at Apple with the Mac but it does not look good.
Oh, now I see what you're getting at. You're an idiot.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
John Slade
"David Empson" <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:1ixnfyz.qbjiijj0jtwfN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz...
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "wetpixel" <wetp...@news.news> wrote in message
>> news:020420091339062877%wetp...@news.news...
>> > In article <8vaBl.27671$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Slade
>> > <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The next thing, USB 3 that is very fast will debut on PCs
>> >> built by guys like ME and when will Apple implement it? Oh wait you
>> >> can
>> >> just
>> >> go out and get a card on the Macs that accept cards. LOL.
>> > Uh... aren't you just saying that Macs will be able to do it _exactly_
>> > when you can do it at home? (You did!)
>> > USB 3 is not likely to be such a huge deal, anyway -- I guess you are
>> > championing it just because you know it's coming.
>>
>> Already computers and motherboards are being designed with USB 3.0.
>> When is Apple slated to roll out it's new line of PCs? When was the last
>> time Apple put out a new desktop?
>
> They just released new models of all the desktops (Mac Mini, iMac and
> Mac Pro) in March. I'd expect the next batch of new models to be late
> this year.
Actually I just read what they put out. They are not really new. They
are just upgraded versions of their old machines. I didn't see much new on
the iMac except for more memory and maybe a bigger HD. Oh and they put in a
new graphics card on some machines. The Mini and Pro have CPU upgrades.
These are not new machines. However I also read that this is the last
Macworld that Apple will be a part of. I mean geez the biggest Mac event of
the year and Apple is opting out for the future. I think this does not bode
well for the Mac.
>
> USB 3.0 isn't expected to be widely available until some time in 2010. I
> would expect to see it introduced on Macs once peripherals start to
> appear in quantity, and support is included in standard chipsets,
> perhaps late this year but more likely to be next year.
>
> Apple was very prompt at introducing USB 1.x (the first iMac was
> released before USB 1.1 was standardised),
No it wasn't, USB 1.1 was in use a full year before the iMac was even
introduced. I bought a motherboard in 1996 with functioning USB 1.0 ports. I
also had a USB mouse in 1997 or 1998. Apple's first computer with USB was
not introduced until 1999. USB 1.0 was standardized in 1996. Now if you say
three years is very prompt, then you are out of touch.
>but were late to the party
> with USB 2.0, possibly due to trying not to cut into the market share
> for Firewire.
>
> The situation is different now, as Firewire is evolving into a niche
> product and Apple no longer includes it on all Mac models. They have a
> greater incentive to include USB 3.0 reasonably promptly, but they won't
> do this until it is close enough to a standard, most or all features are
> supported in the hardware chipsets, and enough Mac users will benefit
> from it.
>
> There is precedent that they might release hardware support for USB 3.0
> without announcing it: 802.11n support was introduced in Core 2 Duo Mac
> models from late 2006, but this wasn't announced until several months
> later. Existing computers could have 802.11n enabled by running a
> software update. (There was a small charge for the update, for
> accounting reasons, but it was free if you bought an Airport base
> station with 802.11n support.)
That isn't really free in my book. It reminds me of the guy from India
calling me saying they want to "give" me $300 worth of gasoline coupons.
I think the Mac could be in it's final days or Apple will move to
making computers that are more practical than stylish.
John
David Empson
> "David Empson" <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:1ixnfyz.qbjiijj0jtwfN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz...
> > USB 3.0 isn't expected to be widely available until some time in 2010. I
> > would expect to see it introduced on Macs once peripherals start to
> > appear in quantity, and support is included in standard chipsets,
> > perhaps late this year but more likely to be next year.
> >
> > Apple was very prompt at introducing USB 1.x (the first iMac was
> > released before USB 1.1 was standardised),
>
> No it wasn't, USB 1.1 was in use a full year before the iMac was even
> introduced.
USB 1.1 was released in November 1998, according to Wikipedia, so if it
existed in any form a year earlier it would have been a draft.
The first iMac was announced in May 1998 and was available in August
1998, prior to USB 1.1.
> I bought a motherboard in 1996 with functioning USB 1.0 ports. I
> also had a USB mouse in 1997 or 1998. Apple's first computer with USB was
> not introduced until 1999. USB 1.0 was standardized in 1996. Now if you say
> three years is very prompt, then you are out of touch.
USB wasn't in common use until after USB 1.1 was released. I didn't
notice it on new PCs until around the time the iMac was introduced.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
John Slade
You're saying they changed their policy because before it did void the
warranty of the Mini and the iMac. Guess I'll give them a call and see.
John
Tim Murray
> No it wasn't, USB 1.1 was in use a full year before the iMac was even
> introduced. I bought a motherboard in 1996 with functioning USB 1.0 ports. I
> also had a USB mouse in 1997 or 1998. Apple's first computer with USB was
> not introduced until 1999. USB 1.0 was standardized in 1996. Now if you say
> three years is very prompt, then you are out of touch.
Wow. You must have been very tight with the USB working group. I mean, since
even Microsoft had a heckuva time getting its hands on USB as late as October
1996, you must have had a motherboard hand soldered for you.
And how did you operate it in 1996? Retail Windows 95 didn't support it --
you had to have OEM after October.
Face it, Slade: Like it or not, Apple was the company to mainstream Ethernet,
USB, PostScript, Firewire, wireless, etc. Tough if you don't like it.
John Slade
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "David Empson" <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in message
>> news:1ixnfyz.qbjiijj0jtwfN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz...
>> > USB 3.0 isn't expected to be widely available until some time in 2010.
>> > I
>> > would expect to see it introduced on Macs once peripherals start to
>> > appear in quantity, and support is included in standard chipsets,
>> > perhaps late this year but more likely to be next year.
>> >
>> > Apple was very prompt at introducing USB 1.x (the first iMac was
>> > released before USB 1.1 was standardised),
>>
>> No it wasn't, USB 1.1 was in use a full year before the iMac was even
>> introduced.
>
> USB 1.1 was released in November 1998, according to Wikipedia, so if it
> existed in any form a year earlier it would have been a draft.
>
Ok I take it back Macs had USB 1.0 before they had USB 1.1. But the
fact remains that the PCs had USB ports at least two years before the Mac
got them.
John
John Slade
"wetpixel" <wetp...@news.news> wrote in message
> In article <lBaBl.27674$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, John Slade
> <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I rememeber when these same Mac Kook Zealots were bragging all over
>> the
>> place at how much fast the PowerPC was than the Intel Penium. Then Sony
>> kept
>> lagging in producing a faster CPU and we PC users were getting faster and
>> faster speeds. So then you heard the Mac speed freaks shut the hell up.
>> Then
>> it went to "The fastest PC in the world." to "Who needs all that speed
>> except people who want to play games and guys who want to show of?" Hehe
>> it's so funny to see them talking now. I think I'll go back and read some
>> of
>> those old posts about how much faster the Mac was.
>>
>> John
>
> That would be a good idea. You certainly need a lot of information to
> get your facts straight.
>
> Yes, Mac users were proud to have fast processors.
> Yes, they weren't always the fastest. (That doesn't condemn either Mac
> users or the processors, you understand.)
Sony decided they were not going to move the PowerPC ahead at the time
and Apple was left in the lurch because Intel was moving ahead. Then you
started hearing the same bullshit we hear now, "You don't need all that
speed, speed is for game players." You know basically the lowered
expectations thing.
> Yes, when they weren't the fastest, most Mac users didn't proclaim them
> to be. Again, this is a good thing. It is proper that people don't.
> Yes, when they were fastest again the Mac users wrote about it.
>
I never said most of them., ust the Mac Kook Zealots. They went to
BareFeats(a.k.a. StinkyFeets) and saw biased tests. You know the kind who
are so crazy they have to change their names in here so they don't get
ignored. That is the penacle of pathetic losers.
Apple also had an ad saying their computer was the most powerful home
computer in the world and that was bullshit. I think they were forced to
pull that ad somewhere.
> Just what about this sounds wrong to you?
It wasn't true.
> No one stays on top; when they are not, they don't claim it. That's
> right and proper.
But the PC will forever be ove the Mac because, quiet as it's kept,
the Mac actually died a few years ago and Apple started making PCs. But the
Mac Kook Zealots will refuse to admit that Macs died and Apple makes PCs
they call Macs.
>
> They do _not_ use the Slade criticism technique, and point out that
> since one maker makes a slower computer, they must all be junk. Or that
> since one maker uses a slower processor type, all the stuff from that
> maker is obviously a novelty bogus piece of junk that Slade could
> outperform.
They do exactly that. In this argument they were claiming that PCs
are inferior because some people buy Celerons, a lower powered Intel CPU.
But they fail to realize that the iMinime and iMac basically has Intel
mobile processors in them and not a regular Core 2 Duo. Mobile processors
tend to be less powerful than their non-mobile counterparts.
John
John Slade
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> In article <_L6dnUbPC9lIgUjU...@giganews.com>,
>> Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>
>>> KDT wrote:
>>>> On Apr 2, 2:24 am, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>>>> KDT wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 1, 8:39 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ZnU wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <FOMAl.22487$c45.17...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
>>>>>>>> "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If there is any more proof that Apple is lagging behind on
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> novelty machines, just look at the Mini and the iMac. All models
>>>>>>>>> have 8x
>>>>>>>>> DVD-R/RW drives. Why don't they have 16x, 18x or even 20x
>>>>>>>>> DVD-R/RWs on their
>>>>>>>>> mainstream computers.
>>>>>>>> Because very few people really care,
>>>>>>> Translation: It's Apple, so their customers will be happy with
>>>>>>> sub-par
>>>>>>> performance.
>>>>>> and have been for the last two or three years -- so they obviously
>>>>>> don't care about the fastest performance. But why would most people
>>>>>> care about the speed of the DVD player regardless? Do you really
>>>>>> think that the majority of people are burning files to flimsy
>>>>>> DVD-RW's
>>>>>> instead of using some type of flash media?
>>>>>> Also if you want to talk about sub-par performance, let's look at a
>>>>>> few things....
>>>>>> 1. No Mac user is buying laptops with Celeron processors, or Pentium
>>>>>> Dual Core processorss (not Core Duos)
>>>>>> 2. Weren't the PC users just defending Lauren for buying a slow AMD
>>>>>> Turon based laptop with a crappy display ?
>>>>>> 3. Looking at the average selling price of computers sold by Dell,
>>>>>> HP,
>>>>>> ASUS, etc, most PC buyers are buying low-end laptops with "sub par"
>>>>>> performance.
>>>>> AMAZING HOW SUB-PAR DVD BURNERS FROM APPLE ARE JUSTIFIED HERE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a single defense could even remotely be considered valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>> So how about all of the PC users not only buying sub par DVD Burners
>>>> (which relatively few people are using) but are also buying computers
>>>> with sub par processors, video hardware, displays, etc?
>>>>
>>>> Since Apple doesn't sell *any* computers with anything less than a
>>>> Core 2 Duo 2Ghz besides the Air, by definition, no Mac users are
>>>> buying the sub par computers that the average Windows user is buying.
>>>> Since every Mac comes with graphics hardware that is at least four
>>>> times faster than Intel's integrated graphics *no* Mac user is buying
>>>> a computer with the level of graphics that come on Dell's and HP's low
>>>> end computers. So obviously, it's PC users who are buying Celeron
>>>> based computers with crappy displays running Vista Home Basic that
>>>> don't care about performance.
>>> AMAZING HOW SUB-PAR DVD BURNERS FROM APPLE ARE JUSTIFIED HERE.
>>>
>>> That says it all.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>> To you, but then that is expected.
>>
>> I notice that you don't 'justify' those sub-par windows boxes for their
>> shitty graphics and processors...
>
> Well, we were discussing DVD BURNERS. And you have seemingly excluded
> all Intel systems with "non shitty" graphics and processors.
I sure did start this about DVD Burners and guess what. Apple is
putting a new x18 writer on the Mac Pro. I wonder why they didn't put one on
the Mini or iMac. Hmmmmmm...
John
GreyCloud
So, are you going to start repairing macs as well?
GreyCloud
GreyCloud
LOL! He's still waffling on whether to start repairing macs or not.
That is if he
can figure out how to open one.
GreyCloud
With time machine, connecting an external fire wire drive is just too easy.
No software to install or anything else. I bought a Maxtor external.
Time machine sure makes it easy.
Lloyd Parsons
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Maybe because the casual home user those machines are targetted for
don't really give a shit about the speed of the DVD burner?
Lloyd Parsons
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Sony decided they were not going to move the PowerPC ahead at the time
> and Apple was left in the lurch because Intel was moving ahead. Then you
> started hearing the same bullshit we hear now, "You don't need all that
> speed, speed is for game players." You know basically the lowered
> expectations thing.
Sony?
Lloyd Parsons
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Are you sure about the iMacs? I know the mac mini uses them, but not
the iMac.
Snit
lloydparsons-BFF1...@news.individual.net on 4/4/09 1:14 PM:
>>> Well, we were discussing DVD BURNERS. And you have seemingly excluded
>>> all Intel systems with "non shitty" graphics and processors.
>>
>> I sure did start this about DVD Burners and guess what. Apple is
>> putting a new x18 writer on the Mac Pro. I wonder why they didn't put one on
>> the Mini or iMac. Hmmmmmm...
>>
>> John
>
> Maybe because the casual home user those machines are targetted for
> don't really give a shit about the speed of the DVD burner?
How much speed difference is there? For much of the disk you do not get the
"advertised" speed... only on the outter part where data is written *last*.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
The iMac has a Core 2 Duo. Slade has no idea what he is talking about:
<http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html>
-----
Processor and memory
* 2.66GHz, 2.93GHz, or 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
* 6MB shared L2 cache at full processor speed
* 1066MHz frontside bus
* 2GB (two 1GB SO-DIMMs) or 4GB (two 2GB SO-DIMMs) of 1066MHz
DDR3 SDRAM; two SO-DIMM slots support up to 8GB
-----
You would think Slade, given his claimed business, would know how to find
that and likely would even be familiar with it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lloyd Parsons
Snit <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Slade hasn't shown any particular expertise in much about Windows PCs,
let alone Macs.
Steve de Mena
Once again, Apple can not determine what your legal rights are in
terms of a warranty. You are asking the wrong people.
See the "Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act".
Steve
Tim Murray
>
> Ok I take it back Macs had USB 1.0 before they had USB 1.1. But the
> fact remains that the PCs had USB ports at least two years before the Mac
> got them.
I took a few minutes to look for this today. Nothing every said the iMac was
the first computer to sport USB, but all sources did say it was the first in
volume. Do you have other sources?