70 replies to this topic

[BBrown]

professor falken, on Aug 16 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

It's most definitely not going to happen as long as Linux is developed by tons of waring factions.

factions - yes
waring factions- I don't think so.  No

Yes, there are tons of Linux Distros out there largely due to its open source non-commercial nature.  These are created voluntarily by independent developers to showcase their talents.  Are the developers at war?  No, and why would they be?  It is not like they are trying to compete for the sales of their distros.  Linux is free no matter what distro you decide to test drive.  There is really no commercial benefit to the developers, other than perhaps some bragging rights.  Is there some friendly competition among the developers, probably.  Is that a bad thing?  Why?  If that competition causes the developers to engage in a one upmanship to outdo the other, it leads to better and more stable distros over time, with users benefitting over the long run.

Linux is the a serious competitor and the wave of the future.  Don't let anyone fool you into believing otherwise.   Despite ignorance, despite ridicule, despite opposition, truth happens.

[endafy]

dillon31292, on Aug 15 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

It's most definitely not going to happen as long as Linux stays free and open-source.

Actually Linux is where it is because it is free and OSS. Me and 20 other developers/programmers I know moved to Linux overnight from Windows. Our software was eaten alive and redistributed through almost every major distribution. Perhaps you may have heard of it... Cheese... Windows sucks but because it is developed by a bunch of hacks. Mac being a glorified BSD system HAHAHAHAHAHAHA wow OSX is based on Mach not BSD wrong *nix there buddy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Mach_kernel
Honestly a little research will take you further than trying to sound cool. Mach is nice and quite honestly puts BSD to shame. It is a lot like Linux in how it operates. Mach is to BSD what Minix was to Unix and what Linux is to Minix. But it is not OSS but uses a few derivitives from BSD but the BSD license allows this to exist. Cue Windows 98se where Windows 98 was a bust and needed fixing so they took a boat load of BSD code, implimented it, and gave 98se as a free upgrade to those who bought Windows 98 and produced a receipt and went through the arduous "upgrade program". I love this where the ill informed thinks he knows everything.
Is a Mac worth it? No not with Linux hanging around, with cheap computers at CostCo or WallMart, and with current laws not allowing such things. Sure over there in the US where your dollar is worth half of our £ you may have issues but with us here in the UK becomming a new superpower Apple will have a better chance in haties than trying that here. It is still considered more of a toy still but once they become more and more popular and people buy them they will run into some real problems trying to just allow the OS to run on Apple only hardware. Fair Use FTW! I see Linux really becomming a popular thing like within the next couple of months. Hardware vendors are waking up and making drivers and Dell preinstalling them. No Mac was, is, and will continue to be a fan based toy with some cool effects and hollywood placement for the ignorant.
Why would I want to go through the hassle of putting it together? Well for one it is fun, and two it is cheaper. Would you drive a car without knowing how to change the oil or a tire? Would you buy a Dell or HP without knowing how to swap out the ram? I built a hotrod car and a hotrod PC with dual video cards because I can. Is it hard? Sure but it is fun. If you don't want the hassle buy HP or Dell. Point Case and Win. Despite ignorance truth happens... over and over and over...

[poopmonkey]

Think Mark, on Feb 23 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

In the UK, we pay out of the nose for Apple products and so forth, but when you consider it, is Apple really worth it. Are iPhones all that good, and whats an iPod when you can get something cheaper at CostCo....or WallMart...
I am never leaving Apple, and in my eyes they can do no wrong, but other people, "outsiders" and generally people who have not seen the light, can they really be convinced to pay out of the nose for quality?

Think Mark.....

"Generally People who have not seen the light." What is this a religious movement? All you are is a apple consumer, not some kind of missionaire in a New World Order led by Steve Jobs. Frankly, you can go ahead and buy all the apple gear you want, say it's the best quality, and worship your Steve Jobs poster on the wall for all I care, but even you stating that Apple creates super high quality products, or that you believe that Apple products are worth the investment, are just opinions. Now for my opinion, I believe that Apple products are overpriced meaning you are paying for the Apple brand. Also, I believe that Apple products like the Ipod are overrated because you can easily find similar products that cost less. Furthermore, I can easily create a faster and cheaper hackintosh then any of those Imacs. Lastly, this thread just provokes arguements.

[kitkat54]

Think Mark, on Feb 23 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

In the UK, we pay out of the nose for Apple products and so forth, but when you consider it, is Apple really worth it. Are iPhones all that good, and whats an iPod when you can get something cheaper at CostCo....or WallMart...
I am never leaving Apple, and in my eyes they can do no wrong, but other people, "outsiders" and generally people who have not seen the light, can they really be convinced to pay out of the nose for quality?

It somewhat depends on your level of saavy what real Apple products are worth to you.  Going down the list (my opinions):

iPod: no if you run Windows, yes if you run OSX.  Other companies create good mp3 players, but typically the software is windows only.

iPhone: yes -- no one else has come up with an interface and API that approaches the iPhone.  The quality of the web browser alone is worth it.

Mac Mini: yes if you are a low end user, and only want a "surf station".  Otherwise they are pretty underpowered.  They'd be better if they had better video (dual port or dual link, and maybe something other than intel GMA950) for the role of a small economical workstation... and this is a gripe more against the hole in Apple's product line between a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro.  (I know, what about the iMac?  read on.)

iMac: hell no.  The reason is simple.  I have a 20" display (1600x1200 resolution) I bought in 2003.  It is perfectly good, and I am still using it next to my 30" display (which the iMac can't drive, because it doesn't have dual link).  Had I bought a 20" iMac in 2003, I'd have a nice 20" display permanently attached to a 1.25GHz G4 that maxes out at 2GB of RAM (officially 1GB, but 2GB is said to work):

http://www.everymac....1.25_20_fp.html

It is quite telling that Apple has not released new displays since 2004.  iMacs of those days were still powered by G5 processors.  Obviously I have strong opinions about iMacs, but I feel I at least have a defensible reason for it.

Mac Pro: The mac pro is a good deal if you actually need octo-xeons.  The problem is that if you want a desktop to run dual displays, you either need to get a disposable iMac display, or a Mac Pro.  If you want to have a desktop attached to a 30" display, you need to get a Mac Pro.  $2300 (the cheapest Mac Pro, with one quad xeon) is very pricey for someone who just wants a lot of desktop real estate, and would be fine with specs otherwise seen in a mac mini.  My hackintosh Q6600 in my signiture is specifically because of that hole in Apple's product line -- I needed a machine that could drive a 30" and a 20" display.  I'd have been ok with a mini for my needs, except that I needed better video than a mini has.

Macbook (white): yes.  the macbook is a good consumer laptop, and one of the best sub 14" laptops availible.  I bought one of these for my wife, who is a kindergarten teacher.  She loves it.

Macbook (black): hell no.  $100 for black dye?!?  WTF?  (I like the black look a lot, but dude, you can get the same specs in white for $100 less.)

Macbook Air: I tend to think "no".  The air is impressive to look at, but when all is said and done, it's an underpowered white Macbook for $600 more.  The white Macbook is not what I'd call bulky, so unless you spend several days a week running through airport terminals to catch flights, I don't think the 2lbs is worth $600 more for inferior specs.  

Macbook Pro (2.4GHz 15"): yes... if you need nVidia graphics.  Otherwise a tripped out Macbook (white) is a better bet.  However, the Macbook Pros are nice machines and $1999 is not a bad entry point for a professional laptop.

Macbook Pro (2.5GHz 15"): no.  $500 buys you 100MHz and 256M of video RAM.  ick.  Might be a better deal if this model was offered with a 15" high resolution display (1680x1050).

Macbook Pro (low res 17"): no.  If you're going this far, get the high resolution LED display.

Macbook Pro (high res 17"): yes, but only if you need the screen real estate.  For me, it was worth it.  One thing I like about Apple's 17" laptops, is that they are a lot less bulky for the screen size than similar PC laptops.  In fact, the 17" Apple laptops are about the same bulk as most 15.4" PC laptops I've used.  My old 15.4" Thinkpad z61p was only about half a pound lighter with the extended battery, had the same depth, and was actually half an inch thicker.  Ok, the 17" is 1.3" wider, but the 17" 1920x1200 display is very pretty, and the Macbook Pro has a flat bottom and is much more comfortable on a lap than the Thinkpad which had rubber feet.

------------------------

wheh... now as to real mac hardware versus hackintoshes, if you know what you are doing, are not a "noob", and have familiarity with hardware components, and UNIX, a hack can be a better choice... there are basically three use cases:

OSX vs Vista: OSX is worth a premium over Vista.  hands down.  If you are comparing buying a black box Dell with Vista on it to buying a Mac, OSX is worth a premium by itself.  Joe User will have far fewer headaches with OSX than Vista.

Hackintosh vs Mac Mini or Mac Pro: if a mini won't fit your needs, you can spec out a quad core hackintosh for $1300 less (or more) than the low end quad core Mac Pro.  This is nothing to sneeze at, and is the one case where I might advise someone to go the hack route, if they were tech saavy enough to understand PC boot mechanisms, OS kernel and extension models, and UNIX.  There is some worth to being able to just use software update to do major OS updates and not have to worry about breaking your install, so if you aren't that saavy, I still might reccomend real Apple hardware despite the premium.

Hackbook vs Macbook/Macbook Pro: On this one, I would tend to reccomend real Apple hardware.  There is not as much of a markup on Apple notebooks as compared to PC offerings, owing to the fact that you don't typically buy components and assemble notebooks.  For the same reason, it's also MUCH harder to get a working hackbook, because you have far less control over the chips and components.  I have OSX running on my Vaio UX handheld, and I had to do all kinds of hacking to get it working (including cracking it open and replacing the wifi card).  I also tried to get it working on my z61p and failed.  Overall, for a couple hundred bucks, it's generally not worth the hassle, tho I wish Apple would put a second mouse button on their laptops. (sigh).

[purdz]

the black macbook actually has a slightly larger hardrive for that extra $100 you are mentioning..

well at least on the UK line up it does.. so you aren't paying the extra just for a newer colour

macbook (white) £829 160gb hard drive
macbook (black) £949 250gb hard drive..

but still theres my gripe with apple right there..

how does an extra 90gb of HD space equate to a price difference of £120 when you can buy a 1tb drive for well under £100 now

[BBrown]

purdz, on Aug 29 2008, 05:01 AM, said:

...how does an extra 90gb of HD space equate to a price difference of £120 when you can buy a 1tb drive for well under £100 now

Agreed!  Especially, when the HD in the Mac is nothing more than a plain Jane generic hard drive, so it is not even that you are paying the extra for a HD with better "build quality" than what you would see on a regular PC laptop.

[Cauldronborn]

I believe that Macs in general are overpriced.  In the vast majority of their product line I can build an equivalent computer for much less.  They are also not very expandable.  Big deal if you can add more ram later, or a bigger harddrive.  I don't necessarily want to buy a whole new computer just to swap the motherboard.  I think that when Apple comes out with a new product that they generally have top of the line stuff but like the general state of computing it quickly is eclipsed by new stuff and you are stuck with an obsolete machine.  My biggest beef though is probably with the lack of diversity in their lineup.  You have...

Mac Mini      Basically an underpowered laptop without the portablity (but hey its relatively cheap if you just want to run some Mac apps)
iMac            Great only I don't want a built in screen.  I like having identical monitors, same size, symmetrical, etc, which is impossible
                  with this machine.  Also if one thing breaks the whole machine has to be sent for repairs.  With a "PC" if my DVD burner goes
                  out I can still work while it goes back for repair.  They also top out at Core 2 Duo's.  Where are the Quad Core machines?
Mac Pro       Seem to be a decent deal especially if you buy your ram 3rd party.

Where is the middle ground though?  Something like an iMac but without the built in display.  Or a Quad Core desktop or one that might even be decent at games for example?

[outaru]

overall the iphone is "Worth it!"

although not perfect..
there are some glitches and things..

[Michu Neo]

Is it worth...
Well, I don't like all sensations and much commercials, although I respect Apple for developing such great system like OS X. When you ask me if it's worth to buy Mac - I say yes. Why? Because with a computer you've got stable, user friendly system and good machine with long time support. You know that your Mac won't stop working. Of course it's a better choice for business, less for gamers. But come on, nothing is 100% perfect BTW IMO all public administration should always run linux - it would be cheaper for all of us.
And if we're talking about iPhone... I don't really know. I just know that getting it in legal way is like 10 times to expensive to me. It looks nice, but there are much more much cheaper and more useful phones right now. And by the way I don't see much iPhone users in EU...
Apple Macs - hell yes
Apple iPhones - hell no
Apple iPods - why not? I like them though I use SonyEricsson as a player and I'm satisfied.

[kitkat54]

purdz, on Aug 29 2008, 03:01 AM, said:

the black macbook actually has a slightly larger hardrive for that extra $100 you are mentioning..

well at least on the UK line up it does.. so you aren't paying the extra just for a newer colour

macbook (white) £829 160gb hard drive
macbook (black) £949 250gb hard drive..

but still theres my gripe with apple right there..

how does an extra 90gb of HD space equate to a price difference of £120 when you can buy a 1tb drive for well under £100 now

Actually, no (at least not in the US).  I custom configured a white macbook to the exact same specs as a black one.  The black one is $100 more than the white one for the same specs.  This might be different in the UK.

[Slip]

I can't answer that.     I would break it into 2 parts though.  

Part 1

The CODE  to me its all about the code.  I like the Unix based OS with great GUI . objective C based . They choose all the best parts and the got it right.

Part 2  

The marketing    Goofy adds, attitude  ,   hardware locked  etc  , High $    but mostly cutting edge innovation.      Thanks for Apple.   Buyers choice.