or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms - Page 6

post #201 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

1GB on the Dell should be 2GB.


dammit. it should be... ah well.

i think the point is fairly well heeled though, that the rep from the "clone" "manufacturer" is *completely* off base when it comes to Apple pricing (or the other major manufacturers are running 2-3x Apple's supposed 80% margins..


Certainly, Apple has no (or few) products in certain ranges, but the Mac Pros are full workstation systems for a darn good price - and a better price (fully outfitted) than any of the other majors.
post #202 of 238
my analogy was meant to illustrate the fact that just because i write something down that does not make it legal to do or impose on anyone else i was not comparing the crimes in any way.
Half the people you meet will be below average
Reply
Half the people you meet will be below average
Reply
post #203 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by taojones View Post

intellectual property issues aside, just because somebody writes something down and gets you to acknowledge it does not make it legal

if i put a piece of tape across my doorway and say on a sign "if you cross the tape i blow your head off" i will be up on manslaughter charges no matter what the sign says and the court will say "we don't care if you own the property or not… your busted"

i dont think they are well thought out but i really like to see the court open cans of worms.

(point of interest… signing and returning warrantee cards often contracts you to LESS rights than you have under most state laws. Companies can not refuse to repair or replace defective items simply because you did not send in a "registration") this is another way corporations dupe people into signing agreements that are more beneficial to the company than the consumer.) Oh eliot where are you now that we need you!

you don't suppose Dell is financing their legal fees?

If you simply post a sign on your property, e.g., "No Trespassing", you have the full extent of the law on your side to bring charges against anybody that defies it.

In certain states, the Castle Doctrine allows one to use deadly force against a trespasser if so threatened. Obviously, if you decide to enter a person's so-marked property, heck you don't even need to put a tape across you doorway or a sign prohibiting access, (although it sure helps), you are not going to have much defense if the owner feels unsafe and kills you in the process.
post #204 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Too bad it's still cheaper for the mac:

The T7400 is $3928 with the 320GB and free 19" monitor.
The Mac Pro is $3398 with the 20" ACD.

With the Dell UltraSharp 20"WS it's $4277.

This is from the post several messages back that you convienently ignored.

You mean the comparison where the mac had no RAID card?.. yeah of course i ignored that comparison, why would i pay attention to that comparison when the comparison wasn't valid?

The apple with a raid card is 4198.
This is not even the issue?.. why are we comparing the top of the line mac with the top of the line dell to argue who makes cheaper computers?. A regular consumer is not going to by mac pro so telling them the mac pro is cheaper than a Dell equivalent is frankly irrelevant. I've never heard anyone saying they'd buy a mac if it was cheaper than the T7400 DELL model.

Very elitist aren't you?.. assuming that when i go to dell website to compare computers, i'm only interested in the Dell T7400?.. how about comparing the macbook with a similarly speced laptop from dell or the mac mini with similarly speced dell?...

BTW, was the T7400 the only Dell model with similar specs or the one you could make to appear more expensive than a mac?. I don't think a regular person reading this forum will be persuaded to buy a mac.. lets see, i must spend over 3000 on a mac before it becomes cheaper than a Dell?.. wow, what incentive!!!
post #205 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

An apple display is $200?.. can you please post that link?..
An apple 19 inch widescreen (or close, i'd take 20 inch) is $200?..
Apple has never sold a monitor for $200 in the history of it's existence.
That is blasphemy, you should be ashamed of yourself.. which self respecting mac zealot would buy a monitor that cheap?.

Hope you weren't comparing a used mac monitor with a new monitor dell supplies with it's computers..


We are all waiting for this link to a $200 apple monitor. I have an old monitor i need replacing.. i am waiting with abated breath.

I don't know what the big deal is, you don't have to buy an Apple monitor. It's the computer and the OS that matters here, not the monitor.

Despite the high end work I've done over the years, and that includes my company, I've never bought an Apple monitor.

Besides, if you're buying such an expensive hi performance machine, I hope you aren't going to use it for word processing or some such low end purpose.

If you are going to use if for something that requires a good monitor, you will still have to spend more.
post #206 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Many legally executed binding agreements have language such as the following:

"In the event that any portion of this Agreement is held unenforceable, the unenforceable portion shall be construed in accordance with applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of the parties, and the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full force and effect."

The whole notion that by clicking a button, you are bound to the terms and the stated rights claimed by the EULA is a little shaky. It would be much stronger if you signed it in blue ink and it was witnessed, dated, notarized etc. Of course that would be ridiculous, but it would be stronger. So relatively speaking it is weak.

That's really a complex question. It depends on the jurisdiction.
post #207 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

You mean the comparison where the mac had no RAID card?.. yeah of course i ignored that comparison, why would i pay attention to that comparison when the comparison wasn't valid?

The apple with a raid card is 4198.
This is not even the issue?.. why are we comparing the top of the line mac with the top of the line dell to argue who makes cheaper computers?. A regular consumer is not going to by mac pro so telling them the mac pro is cheaper than a Dell equivalent is frankly irrelevant. I've never heard anyone saying they'd buy a mac if it was cheaper than the T7400 DELL model.

Very elitist aren't you?.. assuming that when i go to dell website to compare computers, i'm only interested in the Dell T7400?.. how about comparing the macbook with a similarly speced laptop from dell or the mac mini with similarly speced dell?...

BTW, was the T7400 the only Dell model with similar specs or the one you could make to appear more expensive than a mac?. I don't think a regular person reading this forum will be persuaded to buy a mac.. lets see, i must spend over 3000 on a mac before it becomes cheaper than a Dell?.. wow, what incentive!!!

He's doing that because they are equivalent machines. Sure, Dell has cheaper machines, but they ARE cheaper machines.

Just because a machine comes with a fast processor doesn't make it the equal of a better machine.

Otherwise, why would Dell have better machines?

The Mac Pro is a commercial grade workstation. Compare it to other commercial grade workstations, like the Boxx, don't compare it to a cheap home grade gaming machine.

And I don't believe that Dell, from what I can remember, at that price, has a RAID card either.

If you aren't happy that Apple makes no cheap home grade machines in that case size, sorry. But that's their choice. Their market is in hi reliability professional machines at that price grade.

You want a consumer machine from Apple, they have choices there too. If you aren't happy with them, and I can understand some people may not be, then buy something else. That's really the way you must look at it.

Making these price comparisons is of little value other than to show you that Apple isn't competing where you want them to be.
post #208 of 238
..........
post #209 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifterus View Post

These Dell price comparisons are making me yawn. Everyone knows the Mac Pro is very inexpensive for a Xeon system.

The point is that most people don't need or want a Xeon system with FB-DIMM memory. The value for this clone is the ability to have a Core 2 desktop machine that has PCIe slots - something that costs under $1000, can be overclocked, and can thus run faster than a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.

Anyway, these Psystar people are probably scam artists. I just learned there is a freely available EFI emulator (which Psystar is using without permission) which allows a legitimate copy of Leopard to be installed on a non-Mac. There's no purpose to buying a machine from them whatsoever. You can already put OSX on a Dell. You've been able to for a while I guess. I'm very familiar with Hackintosh, but that was just a hacked OS. This EFI emulator gives you the real deal. Kind of sick that this company is trying to capitalize on someone else's hard work.

Apple isn't marketing the Mac Pro to the majority of people. They are marketing it to a fairly small number of people and companies who need what if offers. The fact that they are selling at least a million of them a year is saying that they have picked their market and are doing pretty well in it.
post #210 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by initiator View Post

Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.

They don't realize that they are trying to open a can of worms that is far more than just Apple Allowing it's OS on non Apple hardware.

If Apple goes this route then they would have to strike up similar terms with hardware manufacturers (as Microsoft already has) setting certain regulations on hardware & requiring these companies to develop their own drivers for the system.

There is much more to the pie than that when you start getting into the details & I don't see this being something a court will agree falls under antitrust since Apple still has such a small percentage of the market & is bundling it's OS with it's hardware but does not require the user to use OS X.

I'm just highly skeptical that this will gain any ground at all aside from solidifying this companies demise as they are pounded by Apple's legal team.

People just don't seem to realize that even if OS X was open for any computer there is no way they would be able to support the software on these systems as that part requires a deal between the hardware manufacturers & Apple, one that would probably break deals for early adopters with Microsoft (a step most will not want to make until it's obvious Windows is going down the tubes). Microsoft sells the OEMs for ridiculous cheap to manufacturers.

This company has mistakenly depicted Apple as the 1 hurdle in this battle, foolish.
post #211 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

An apple display is $200?.. can you please post that link?..
An apple 19 inch widescreen (or close, i'd take 20 inch) is $200?..
Apple has never sold a monitor for $200 in the history of it's existence.
That is blasphemy, you should be ashamed of yourself.. which self respecting mac zealot would buy a monitor that cheap?.

Hope you weren't comparing a used mac monitor with a new monitor dell supplies with it's computers..


We are all waiting for this link to a $200 apple monitor. I have an old monitor i need replacing.. i am waiting with abated breath.

If you are serious on getting a new monitor, perhaps this particular response from jackdesign in a Macworld review (http://www.macworld.com/article/6119...wxm.html?t=218) will help direct you

jackedesign says:
Tue Nov 27 14:16:42 PST 2007 Re: NEC MultiSync LCD205WXM monitor
This review would have benefited from the listing of what panel this NEC uses, (TN, PVA, IPS, etc.) This specific monitor uses a TN panel, which we all know is the bottom of the barrel in quality and color reproduction. (Although NEC's are well above average for LCD's.)

…the reason why the Apple Monitors are superior with color is because they use S-IPS panels. IPS's are made for high end color, which is why they generally have slower response times. (Doesn't matter since we want to edit photos and design layouts, not play games.) PVA's come in second with a nice mix of color and speed.

Eizo's are by far the best for graphics professionals, but the cost is very high. You get what you pay for. Apple's are up there as well in cost, mostly because of that panel. Now, the only exclusion is that alot of the Eizo's use PVA's, but you will be hard spent to find a PVA by another brand that can come anywhere NEAR an IPS.

If you can't afford an Eizo, go for an Apple, or my favorite - NEC. Dell's 2007WFP started out as an IPS, but after the reviews rolled in, they quietly replaced them with less expensive PVA's... so now its a panel lottery for which one you'd actually get. Google it to get the appropriate serial numbers so you know what to look for.

one more thing...heres one place to look to see what monitors use what panels. http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php (just type what panel you are looking for in the search field... i.e. IPS)


Note Interesting how much good information like that posted by jackdesign helps to resolve some of the misconceptions that permeates the web. If anything, maybe be we should be more careful in our attempt to degrade a company based obviously on false data. Certainly from comparative specs posted here, it becomes clearer that Apple isn't the greedy party that some want to make of it.
post #212 of 238
Quote:
Come on, down with monolopies! I hope someone hits iTunes next!

iTunes is not a monopoly. There is a distinct difference between a market leader and anti-competitive monopoly. Amazon mp3 doing well proves there is room in the mp3 market.

Quote:
Once again there is no competition in the Mac market for other systems running the Mac OS. If I have tens of thousands invested in Mac software I cannot buy hardware for the OS from anyone else but Apple.

Two serious flaws in this reasoning.

For one a monopoly is not illegal. Anti-competitive abuse of a monopoly is illegal.

For two no one is forced to use a Mac. There are several other options. You use a Mac by choice.
post #213 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

You mean the comparison where the mac had no RAID card?.. yeah of course i ignored that comparison, why would i pay attention to that comparison when the comparison wasn't valid?

Because the DELL HAS NO RAID CARD EITHER.

Quote:
The apple with a raid card is 4198.

Actually, its a lot more but then you didn't bother to see for yourself...if you actually get the Dell RAID card then the comparison models all have to go SAS. The Dell is cheaper in that configuration by a little bit if I remember right because the Apple RAID card is better (and more expensive) and Apple overcharges for their SAS drive.

You can't actually do a SATA config after you select their RAID controller. The wizard complains even though the description of the controller says it works with SATA drives.

Quote:
This is not even the issue?.. why are we comparing the top of the line mac with the top of the line dell to argue who makes cheaper computers?. A regular consumer is not going to by mac pro so telling them the mac pro is cheaper than a Dell equivalent is frankly irrelevant. I've never heard anyone saying they'd buy a mac if it was cheaper than the T7400 DELL model.

The point is that Mac isn't overpriced be actually a good value for what they DO offer.

Quote:
Very elitist aren't you?.. assuming that when i go to dell website to compare computers, i'm only interested in the Dell T7400?.. how about comparing the macbook with a similarly speced laptop from dell or the mac mini with similarly speced dell?...

Because:

1) The T7400 is a similarly speced Dell to the Mac Pro
2) Dell doesn't offer a SFF computer like the mini
3) You can go compare a MB with a Dell. I think the Dell wins pricewise today.

Quote:
BTW, was the T7400 the only Dell model with similar specs or the one you could make to appear more expensive than a mac?. I don't think a regular person reading this forum will be persuaded to buy a mac.. lets see, i must spend over 3000 on a mac before it becomes cheaper than a Dell?.. wow, what incentive!!!

Yes it is the only model that supports the Xeon E5440.

And I've converted several Dell Precision buys to Mac Pros for exactly that reason. It's cheaper and with Bootcamp we can run it as a windows box if we want. Or linux if we care to.
post #214 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Very elitist aren't you?.. assuming that when i go to dell website to compare computers, i'm only interested in the Dell T7400?.. how about comparing the macbook with a similarly speced laptop from dell or the mac mini with similarly speced dell?...

Dell doesn't sell a 2.1Ghz Penryn with 3GB cache. So 2.4Ghz it is.

XPS M1330, 2.4Ghz T8300, 2GB RAM, 160GB 5200RPM HDD, 802.11N, Bluetooth: $1319
MacBook, 2.4Ghz T8300, 2GB RAM, 160GB 5200RPM HD, 802.11N, Bluetooth, mini-DVI to DVI converter: $1318.

The cheaper Dell laptops lines don't do Penryn.

So the MacBook isn't overpriced either but competes very well with the equivalent Dell.

The Mini is a hard comparison. The closest is the Inspiron 530 but it's much larger. On the plus side, it's $619 with a slightly faster CPU, larger HD and a superdrive vs the $599 mini. That makes it a better deal even if it is a teeny bit more expensive.

But as a media station PC I'd still rather have the mini. There's no reason the get the 530 price wise vs a normal tower because you don't really save that much space and its kinda ugly to boot. The XPS is slightly better looking but starts at $999.

We could compare AIOs but the iMac wins. Base model is $100 cheaper and it has an ATI HD 2400 vs X3100.
post #215 of 238
..........
post #216 of 238
xxxxxxxxxx
post #217 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifterus View Post

No it doesn't. The holder already has the right to sue anybody they want for any reason they want.

Oh please! You have to have a good reason to sue someone or the case will be thrown out by the judge.
post #218 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifterus View Post

What is wrong with you? You're like a child defending your favorite color. I've been a pro video editor for 10 years. I switched to Final Cut in 2005. I use a Mac Pro at work. I don't need some lame ass lecture on what the Mac Pro is marketed for. My point was simple (for most) to understand. There is a market between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro which Apple has chosen not to address, for whatever reason. This clone addresses that market. I didn't ask anyone's opinion as to whether or not Apple should or shouldn't be ignoring it. I simply stated that comparing a Dell with equal specs to a Mac Pro completely misses the point as to why someone would want a mid-range desktop OSX machine.

Why don't you just go away? You are becoming really annoying with your irrelevant posts. You don't seem to understand that your stances are just plain dumb. And accusing ME of being childish is like the stove calling the kettle black.

I don't care what you've done, you're still wrong. No one is denying that Apple doesn't have a machine to compete with this cheap machine.

Since you are the odd one here, it's not for you to be calling names.
post #219 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifterus View Post

There is a market between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro which Apple has chosen not to address, for whatever reason.

Apple believes that for the consumer market between the mini and the pro they fill that market with the iMac.

They don't much care to address the gamer market, the build it yourself enthusiast market, the low end market or the "prosumer who needs lots of slots" market that would like a mid ranged tower.

The gap is a lot smaller given that context given these are smaller, but vocal, niche markets within the larger consumer market that likely could be served well by an AIO.

That they don't compete directly with companies like Dell and HP except in areas of their own strengths has been a successful strategic move to maintain both margin and volume.
post #220 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

You mean the comparison where the mac had no RAID card?.. yeah of course i ignored that comparison, why would i pay attention to that comparison when the comparison wasn't valid?

The apple with a raid card is 4198.
This is not even the issue?.. why are we comparing the top of the line mac with the top of the line dell to argue who makes cheaper computers?. A regular consumer is not going to by mac pro so telling them the mac pro is cheaper than a Dell equivalent is frankly irrelevant. I've never heard anyone saying they'd buy a mac if it was cheaper than the T7400 DELL model.

Very elitist aren't you?.. assuming that when i go to dell website to compare computers, i'm only interested in the Dell T7400?.. how about comparing the macbook with a similarly speced laptop from dell or the mac mini with similarly speced dell?...

BTW, was the T7400 the only Dell model with similar specs or the one you could make to appear more expensive than a mac?. I don't think a regular person reading this forum will be persuaded to buy a mac.. lets see, i must spend over 3000 on a mac before it becomes cheaper than a Dell?.. wow, what incentive!!!

The DELL with the Adaptec RAID card of equal specs once again equals the cost of the Apple Card but actually has weaker specs.

The point of making equivalent comparable configurations requires one to focus on that one key term--equivalent.

I'd be happy with a mid-tower BTO headless Mac Workstation that isn't the Xeon and falls between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro.

You're still going to bitch that it's not cheap enough.
post #221 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't know what the big deal is, you don't have to buy an Apple monitor. It's the computer and the OS that matters here, not the monitor.

Despite the high end work I've done over the years, and that includes my company, I've never bought an Apple monitor.

Besides, if you're buying such an expensive hi performance machine, I hope you aren't going to use it for word processing or some such low end purpose.

If you are going to use if for something that requires a good monitor, you will still have to spend more.

The big deal is that in comparing a dell with an apple, dell is supplying it's monitor so we should expect apple to do the same.. that free monitor?.. guess what?.. it's not free!!!.. it's included in the price of the computer. Maybe apple should include a 'Free Monitor'??.

You can't just throw in any monitor in the comparison.. to do so, one would have to compute how much this
"free monitor" is costing the consumer, take it out of the price of the dell and then add the same generic monitor in both comparisons (good luck finding out how much this "free monitor" actually cost). I guess you could use the retail price of the monitor (not accurate but close enough i guess).
post #222 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

An apple display is $200?.. can you please post that link?..
An apple 19 inch widescreen (or close, i'd take 20 inch) is $200?..
Apple has never sold a monitor for $200 in the history of it's existence.
That is blasphemy, you should be ashamed of yourself.. which self respecting mac zealot would buy a monitor that cheap?.

Hope you weren't comparing a used mac monitor with a new monitor dell supplies with it's computers..


We are all waiting for this link to a $200 apple monitor. I have an old monitor i need replacing.. i am waiting with abated breath.

Sigh. People ask for the exact same specs to make the comparison. The Dell comes with a $200 Dell monitor. If you're giving the Mac Pro an Apple display, you have to give one to the Dell. Or buy a third party one for both.

But nice job steaming ahead there second guessing what I was referring to.

Double sigh for baselessly calling me a Mac zealot. You're just being an obtuse troll.
post #223 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

The big deal is that in comparing a dell with an apple, dell is supplying it's monitor so we should expect apple to do the same.. that free monitor?.. guess what?.. it's not free!!!.. it's included in the price of the computer. Maybe apple should include a 'Free Monitor'??.

You can't just throw in any monitor in the comparison.. to do so, one would have to compute how much this
"free monitor" is costing the consumer, take it out of the price of the dell and then add the same generic monitor in both comparisons (good luck finding out how much this "free monitor" actually cost). I guess you could use the retail price of the monitor (not accurate but close enough i guess).

You're right of course, it's a pain. But when I'm buying a hi performance machine, I don't buy a $200 monitor. Even if you're using the machine forspreedsheets, you'll want a bigger, better quality model just to better read the small characters.

So, it's quite possible that if the monitor can't be subtracted from Dell's price, and you have to buy a better one anyway, then you're actually going to pay more.

It's like the crappy printers given away for "free".
post #224 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

I'm looking to get a new professional-grade machine soon. Out of curiosity I've been pricing Mac Pro's against Dells. The Dells don't even seem to be in the same ballpark in price-- they're way, way higher. A vanilla $2800 2.8GHz 8 core Mac Pro equivalent, or anything close to it, costs at least $500 more at Dell's store. Am I doing something wrong? Everyone seems to claim Dells are cheaper but I don't see it.

Yes, you are. DELL has coupons all over the place, sometimes even $1500 off if yiu stack a few. You just gotta look on the right forums.
post #225 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

The big deal is that in comparing a dell with an apple, dell is supplying it's monitor so we should expect apple to do the same.. that free monitor?.. guess what?.. it's not free!!!.. it's included in the price of the computer. Maybe apple should include a 'Free Monitor'??.

You can't just throw in any monitor in the comparison.. to do so, one would have to compute how much this
"free monitor" is costing the consumer, take it out of the price of the dell and then add the same generic monitor in both comparisons (good luck finding out how much this "free monitor" actually cost). I guess you could use the retail price of the monitor (not accurate but close enough i guess).

I included a 20" ACD and the Mac Pro IS STILL CHEAPER.

You're just whining without a clue.
post #226 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by emulator View Post

Yes, you are. DELL has coupons all over the place, sometimes even $1500 off if yiu stack a few. You just gotta look on the right forums.

As far as the coupons go, it's a matter of pot luck.

Sometimes they may have a coupon for what you're looking for, but mostly not. And if they do, it's for a limited number, and, or, a limited time.

Basically, you have to be looking all of the time, and wait on your purchase to find the exact one you need. You may never find one, because not all of Dells stuff ever goes on coupon sale. It's mostly the cheaper stuff, but you really have to spend the time, and effort, to look.

When they are available, they usually get grabbed up by the people who do spend all their time on this, and network on some of the techie sites. When something desirable goes on sale they immediately post it, and in a day, all the coupons are gone. You have better luck with the less desirable stuff.

But, you might get lucky.
post #227 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by floccus View Post

Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.

Floccus, you have a point but Macs are collectables. They are not PCs. I ask Apple to let this run its course like a bad fever. As opposed to PC, cohesiveness between hardware and software is what makes the Mac and true blue Macies would not have it any other way. The Pystar is indeed flattering but this frankenstien will gain traction only with thieves not worth mentioning on this page. Macies are cut from a different cloth. Tatooing themselves the past 30 years says it all. Besides, add the cost of the OS and ports to the 400 and you will see what a rip off it is.
post #228 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Peters View Post

Floccus, you have a point but Macs are collectables. They are not PCs. I ask Apple to let this run its course like a bad fever. As opposed to PC, cohesiveness between hardware and software is what makes the Mac and true blue Macies would not have it any other way. The Pystar is indeed flattering but this frankenstien will gain traction only with thieves not worth mentioning on this page. Macies are cut from a different cloth. Tatooing themselves the past 30 years says it all. Besides, add the cost of the OS and ports to the 400 and you will see what a rip off it is.

Apple can't let it run its course. If this guy turns out to come up with a real product, which at this time is speculation only, and it is somewhat successful, then other bigger, more adept companies might try this. They could be much more successful. At some point Apple would have to shut it down (unless they really wanted it to work out, but that's very doubtful).

It's best to end it with a company that will cost little to close down, rather a big company that can afford the legal fees if they are serious.
post #229 of 238
This arguing is pointless. I am a Mac user (at work) and I love Mac. But I have not bought a Mac (for home) in at least 10 years. If there was a Mac, more powerful then the Mini, and without the built in screen (iMac) for less than $1k, I would buy it. There isn't so I won't be buying a Mac soon.

My next computer build is a home server built around an Intel q9300, Win XP, new hard drive, ram, moboard for about $500. The one after that is going to be a bluray, remote control, network browsing HTPC built around an Intel e8400, Win XP (Vista be damned), in a nice Omaura case, for under $800. If I could do either with a Mac for a REASONABLE price, I would be all over it.

All of you are missing the real point of this argument. Apple needs to sell us powerful Macs for less then $1k (and no, I don't mean $999 or things on sale for $899 or whatever). I mean, a TRUE mid-tower with 45nm, expandability, etc.

My hope is that this gives other 'companies,' legit or not, the impetus to offer OSX compatible PCs for $500 that blow away $1k+ Apple products until Apple LOSES sales and HAS to compete. As many of you have said over the years, competition is good for the consumer. In my opinion, Apple is not good for the consumer in ONE aspect. Price on the lower end market.

Rich snobs who are willing to drop $1k+ every year on a new Mac need not comment. Keep this in mind as the US economy continues to decline. Eventually, Apple will be recognized as the luxury it is and will be dropped.
post #230 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicnac View Post

This arguing is pointless. I am a Mac user (at work) and I love Mac. But I have not bought a Mac (for home) in at least 10 years. If there was a Mac, more powerful then the Mini, and without the built in screen (iMac) for less than $1k, I would buy it. There isn't so I won't be buying a Mac soon.

My next computer build is a home server built around an Intel q9300, Win XP, new hard drive, ram, moboard for about $500. The one after that is going to be a bluray, remote control, network browsing HTPC built around an Intel e8400, Win XP (Vista be damned), in a nice Omaura case, for under $800. If I could do either with a Mac for a REASONABLE price, I would be all over it.

All of you are missing the real point of this argument. Apple needs to sell us powerful Macs for less then $1k (and no, I don't mean $999 or things on sale for $899 or whatever). I mean, a TRUE mid-tower with 45nm, expandability, etc.

My hope is that this gives other 'companies,' legit or not, the impetus to offer OSX compatible PCs for $500 that blow away $1k+ Apple products until Apple LOSES sales and HAS to compete. As many of you have said over the years, competition is good for the consumer. In my opinion, Apple is not good for the consumer in ONE aspect. Price on the lower end market.

Rich snobs who are willing to drop $1k+ every year on a new Mac need not comment. Keep this in mind as the US economy continues to decline. Eventually, Apple will be recognized as the luxury it is and will be dropped.

What a waste of hardware. Of course it seems your fixated on gaming. I'd at worst partition by MBR with GRUB 2 and have Linux on those systems/FreeBSD 7 or OpenBSD and then a Windows block for gaming.

I don't game so I'd pass on Windows, period.
post #231 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicnac View Post

My next computer build is a home server built around an Intel q9300, Win XP, new hard drive, ram, moboard for about $500.

Mkay...why isn't the mini a decent home server? As a server even a desktop Unix is superior to WinXP.

Quote:
The one after that is going to be a bluray, remote control, network browsing HTPC built around an Intel e8400, Win XP (Vista be damned), in a nice Omaura case, for under $800. If I could do either with a Mac for a REASONABLE price, I would be all over it.

Another use that the mini is pretty good for since it's small, quiet and already has a remote. Get the base mini and attach an external BluRay FW drive. I don't think there's an internal drive that will fit yet. Maybe, I haven't looked.

Although, I'd likely just get a PS3 if I wanted BluRay right now. It seems unlikely that for under $800 you'll end up with HDMI output.

Quote:
All of you are missing the real point of this argument. Apple needs to sell us powerful Macs for less then $1k (and no, I don't mean $999 or things on sale for $899 or whatever).

They do. It's called a mini. It could use another update and a speed bump but it is a powerful Mac...great for the two uses you mention above.

Not a good gaming box though or for older PPC code under rosetta.

Quote:
Rich snobs who are willing to drop $1k+ every year on a new Mac need not comment. Keep this in mind as the US economy continues to decline. Eventually, Apple will be recognized as the luxury it is and will be dropped.

Most folks don't replace their Mac every year. I have the first rev MBP and it still is a fine machine because it's not bogged by the OS. There's a performance difference between when I have in Bootcamp/XP and OSX. XP with all the various IT required goop to keep it secure is very sluggish.

Eh...my buying strategy with Windows was to get a cheaper mid-grade tower every year. My strategy with Mac was to get the best I could reasonably afford and keep it longer.

I still use my G4 Quicksilver today. The same generation Dell (a 1.7 Ghz P4) is a lot less useful. TCO wise, about the same given that I upgraded more often on the PC side.

Now, with bootcamp, there's no reason to get a PC.
post #232 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's best to end it with a company that will cost little to close down, rather a big company that can afford the legal fees if they are serious.

Mel, point taken. I'll get views from my embarrassed friends who own iPod clones and come back to you. Several iPods were promptly replicated in my part of the world (Malaysia) but pricing of the real thing effectively sidelined the clones.
post #233 of 238
Well, I'm not sure, but I think their site on "BUY NOW" is down for reasons that may be obvious. I was going to buy a "mini" version too. SHAZBOT!
2.16 GHz 20" IMac w/ 3 Gb of RAM
2 GHz MacBook w/ 2 Gb of RAM
2 GHz MacBook w/ 4 Gb of RAM
1.83 GHz MacMini w/ 1 Gb of RAM (Hooked up to LCD 42")
Palm LifeDrive running LINUX (That was a pain in...
Reply
2.16 GHz 20" IMac w/ 3 Gb of RAM
2 GHz MacBook w/ 2 Gb of RAM
2 GHz MacBook w/ 4 Gb of RAM
1.83 GHz MacMini w/ 1 Gb of RAM (Hooked up to LCD 42")
Palm LifeDrive running LINUX (That was a pain in...
Reply
post #234 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifterus View Post

What is wrong with you? You're like a child defending your favorite color. I've been a pro video editor for 10 years. I switched to Final Cut in 2005. I use a Mac Pro at work. I don't need some lame ass lecture on what the Mac Pro is marketed for. My point was simple (for most) to understand. There is a market between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro which Apple has chosen not to address, for whatever reason. This clone addresses that market. I didn't ask anyone's opinion as to whether or not Apple should or shouldn't be ignoring it. I simply stated that comparing a Dell with equal specs to a Mac Pro completely misses the point as to why someone would want a mid-range desktop OSX machine.

Well said. The gap in Apple's lineup is a lot bigger than some people are willing to admit.
post #235 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

Well said. The gap in Apple's lineup is a lot bigger than some people are willing to admit.

No one is denying the gap is real. But, it's a silly argument to make comparisons that make no sense in an attempt to prove something we all already agree on.

This is, for whatever reason, Apple's choice, and comparing to machines that can't properly be compared isn't going to change that.

That's what lifterus doesn't seem to understand. Calling me childish doesn't help his argument either, when he doesn't understand that I'm not disagreeing with his position, only the way he's making it.
post #236 of 238
Nice! Thanks Psystar! thanks to you Apple will consider revising their licensing terms and bring about the awful activation process that plagues Windows! Way to go!
post #237 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer89 View Post

Nice! Thanks Psystar! thanks to you Apple will consider revising their licensing terms and bring about the awful activation process that plagues Windows! Way to go!

I think you mean thanks to Apple for not bringing out the machines that people want. You could very well blame Napster for illegal music downloading but the truth of it is that they were just distributing music using a method people wanted. Apple eventually followed suit.

If the clone makers succeed, which I sincerely hope happens then I also hope that Apple follows suit and delivers the products that people want. If clone makers don't succeed then Apple can rest assured that they made the right decisions.

I actually don't see the EULA holding up on this one because for one thing Leopard comes preinstalled and they have to modify the Leopard installer to work. What if Psystar remove the EULA before installing? Perhaps there is an agreement on the purchase of Leopard to not modify it for installation.
post #238 of 238
Dell does have single cpu Xeon / core2 Desktop socket 755 systems that cost less the 1 cpu mac pro at $2300. With desktop parts as well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms