he's worked for a dollar every year he's been back, though he did get a jet and 43mil in stock options he did save the ****ing company. rdf? yes. overpaid? hardly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
get up to date with your current events if you are going to make statements like that
[quote] Thank for correcting my typo. It is an IBM PII 233, 64mb. This of course makes Apple look even worse. However, if a single typo makes a post worthless in your opinion you actually may have problem finding worthy posts in here <hr></blockquote>
well, you first said P3 at less than half of 450MHz (so, a P3 @ <233MHz). but when i pointed out that P3's started life at 450MHz, you changed your story to an IBM PII @ 233MHz. so, 233 is less than half of 450 in your world.
sorry, but i think its clear you're simply trying to cover a lie with another.
and no, a single typo doesn't make a post worthless, but clear air of deception does.
<strong>First off Amorph, Respect! You have some valid points indeed though I happen to disaggree with most of what you say. I just feel compelled to comment on one thing you said.</strong>
quote [by Amorph]:
<strong>2) Macs are overpriced.</strong>
They have always been, and they will always be, more expensive than commodity PCs. Not without cause. Even in Apple's blackest days, when they were really overpriced, they still beat PCs for TCO.
<strong>If you go let's say 5 years back in time and compare Mac/PC Price/performance ratio and then do the same with todays Macs your results might be shocking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what I was doing. The now-famous (among Mac users) Gartner Group report comparing Performas running 7.5.x - surely Apple's all-time low - to comparably equipped PCs found that even though the Macs cost 50% more at least, they made up the difference in efficiency and reliability. (Hardware reliability, certainly, since the only thing 7.5 did reliably was crash.) But even with unimpressive hardware that was extremely expensive to engineer (Apple custom-designed each motherboard from scratch, and some of those motherboard designs were way out there), with expensive SCSI peripherals, each with a custom, proprietary ROM, all running a bloated, unstable OS, Macs were still the better bargain over the long term.
I don't think that's any less true now. OS X is more stable and more compatible, and Apple hardware is a lot less expensive than it used to be. It's within a couple of hundred dollars now (sometimes in favor of the Mac, which never used to be the case), instead of carrying a premium of $500 or more on all models.
There are two things to keep in mind when you do price comparisons: Consumers and businesses both tend to buy name brands, and that's partly because Bobtek PCs have horrible reliability and TCO even relative to, say, Gateway. Also, for any significant sale (more than a half-dozen computers) to a business or educational or non-profit customer, you don't sum up retail prices. You submit bids. On every bid I've ever seen, Apple has beaten all other vendors (including Dell) by a significant percentage in initial cost, then thrown in freebies like administrative software and wireless networks (including cards and base stations, and technicians to design and install it). For example, that school district in Pennsylvania spent about $2 million to get over $5 million in Apple products and support.
[quote]<strong>The Mac is getting further behind month by month, year by year. Why do you think SJ has stopped making his "Pentium Toasing" demonstrations on trade shows?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? There was the inevitable Photoshop bakeoff last MWNY, after all, and the press release for the dual-GHz PowerMacs used the phrase "Pentium toasting" or something very much like it. Apple doesn't do that for the iMacs, because there are things other than raw power that are more important to emphasize in the consumer lines. This fixation with processor speed is not irrelevant, but it's missing a great many things that are of far greater significance to a majority of Apple's customers, like ease of use, reliability, integration, compatibility (which is what scares people away from Macs about 90% of the time, in my own personal estimation), available software (and the quality thereof), and support. (Not to mention whether the rest of the architecture can meaningfully exploit the processor's potential.) It's a fact that Motorola no longer has a clear lead in integer performance (the G3's single great advantage back in the day), or in overall performance. So Apple found other ways to make the platform appealing. What's wrong with that? Especially since the market now is more or less unimpressed by the ability to check email at 2.2GHz instead of 2.1GHz, or to run through a baffling gauntlet of wizards and opaque, condescending error messages 10% faster. A lot of the critics seem to think that Apple could just jump to AMD, or magically get Moto to produce 10GHz processors, and it's a symptom of Steve Jobs' hatred for the Apple quick-to-remind-everyone-that-they're-faithful that Apple hasn't. Frankly, that's silly. If Apple sees near- and/or long-term benefits to the PowerPC that make it worthwhile to tough out the problems of the past couple of years, then they're making the right choice by sticking with it.
well, you first said P3 at less than half of 450MHz (so, a P3 @ <233MHz). but when i pointed out that P3's started life at 450MHz, you changed your story to an IBM PII @ 233MHz. so, 233 is less than half of 450 in your world.
sorry, but i think its clear you're simply trying to cover a lie with another.
and no, a single typo doesn't make a post worthless, but clear air of deception does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get your damn head out of your ass. It was a goddam typo, and that's obvious. Sorry if someone doesn't have the infinite computer knowledge that you do. If the dude is a Mac guy, you shouldn't be expecting him to know if it's a P3 or a P2 anyway. It seems clear to me that you don't want to face the fact that PeeCees are way faster than our machines. And he's right by the way. My 300mhz K6-2 PC is better at web browsing than my 400mhz G4, and possibly my 800mhz iMac, because our OS (OSX) is as slow as molasses
The reason MS Explorer loads faster on MS Windows isn't a 'problem' with OS X. It has more to do with the fact that MS ties explorer into the Windows OS. I know it doesn't make anyone feel any better, but that's the case.
A friend of mine at work built a dual gig Athlon of some sort and was like "wow, I click the explorer icon and Windows launches immediately!". Curious, I went over to the PII whatever-it-is-mhz I use at work, and sure enough, it loads explorer instantly too. Any Wintel PC loads explorer instantly. You can get a 5ghz PC but a PII whatever-the-hell-mhz PC will load explorer just as fast.
<strong> Funny statement. I do my business with Apple so it's Apple I hold accountable. From where Apple gets their components is non of my concern as long as they work. It's also SJ's job to make sure all departments of the company stay competitive
Now, I suppose I could hold the CEO of Sony responsible for hiring someone in some manufacturing or QA department who is responsible for releasing a DVD player with a tendency to give C:13:00 errors. But can the CEO really be held responsible for everything? Who is the CEO of Sony anyways? I think the new Ford T-Bird should have a more powerful engine, but should I blame the CEO of Ford that it doesn't? I suppose I could but is it really up to just one guy?
I think since most people (on these boards anyways) in Macdom actually know who Steve is, he often gets the Scapegoat function - which is fine with me, he gets paid enough he should be able to deal with it. It just strikes me as funny that people think if he were replaced with Tom Jones or whoever that Apple would suddenly bound to 10% marketshare.
I guarantee you all, Steve Jobs wants Apple to increase in profits and marketshare more than any of us do. And, considering his postion, he likely has a better handle on which strenghts Apple should cater to and which decisions to make based on those strengths (and weaknesses).
Anyhow, like I said earlier. Apple has it's problems, sure, but replacing Steve Jobs (with who again?) would do more harm than good.
Well, you're right. But the CEO can only do so much.
Steve used to get a lot of criticism for micro-managing every department. Now, people want him to go back and do that again? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I have anything against SJ, but his job as a CEO of Apple computer is to make sure his engineering departments as all other sections of Apple have the resources necessary to do their job. I certainly don't want him to micro-managing every department if that is what he does. I'm just pointing out his responsibilities as the CEO of Apple. Steve likes to take the applause when things are right so he must be a man to take criticism when things go wrong.
Comments
<strong>
overpaid?!?!!??!
he's worked for a dollar every year he's been back, though he did get a jet and 43mil in stock options he did save the ****ing company. rdf? yes. overpaid? hardly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
get up to date with your current events if you are going to make statements like that
he's certainly not hurting nor underpaid
<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-866056.html"; target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2100-1040-866056.html</a>;
[ 03-24-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
well, you first said P3 at less than half of 450MHz (so, a P3 @ <233MHz). but when i pointed out that P3's started life at 450MHz, you changed your story to an IBM PII @ 233MHz. so, 233 is less than half of 450 in your world.
sorry, but i think its clear you're simply trying to cover a lie with another.
and no, a single typo doesn't make a post worthless, but clear air of deception does.
<strong>First off Amorph, Respect! You have some valid points indeed though I happen to disaggree with most of what you say. I just feel compelled to comment on one thing you said.</strong>
quote [by Amorph]:
<strong>2) Macs are overpriced.</strong>
They have always been, and they will always be, more expensive than commodity PCs. Not without cause. Even in Apple's blackest days, when they were really overpriced, they still beat PCs for TCO.
<strong>If you go let's say 5 years back in time and compare Mac/PC Price/performance ratio and then do the same with todays Macs your results might be shocking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what I was doing. The now-famous (among Mac users) Gartner Group report comparing Performas running 7.5.x - surely Apple's all-time low - to comparably equipped PCs found that even though the Macs cost 50% more at least, they made up the difference in efficiency and reliability. (Hardware reliability, certainly, since the only thing 7.5 did reliably was crash.) But even with unimpressive hardware that was extremely expensive to engineer (Apple custom-designed each motherboard from scratch, and some of those motherboard designs were way out there), with expensive SCSI peripherals, each with a custom, proprietary ROM, all running a bloated, unstable OS, Macs were still the better bargain over the long term.
I don't think that's any less true now. OS X is more stable and more compatible, and Apple hardware is a lot less expensive than it used to be. It's within a couple of hundred dollars now (sometimes in favor of the Mac, which never used to be the case), instead of carrying a premium of $500 or more on all models.
There are two things to keep in mind when you do price comparisons: Consumers and businesses both tend to buy name brands, and that's partly because Bobtek PCs have horrible reliability and TCO even relative to, say, Gateway. Also, for any significant sale (more than a half-dozen computers) to a business or educational or non-profit customer, you don't sum up retail prices. You submit bids. On every bid I've ever seen, Apple has beaten all other vendors (including Dell) by a significant percentage in initial cost, then thrown in freebies like administrative software and wireless networks (including cards and base stations, and technicians to design and install it). For example, that school district in Pennsylvania spent about $2 million to get over $5 million in Apple products and support.
[quote]<strong>The Mac is getting further behind month by month, year by year. Why do you think SJ has stopped making his "Pentium Toasing" demonstrations on trade shows?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? There was the inevitable Photoshop bakeoff last MWNY, after all, and the press release for the dual-GHz PowerMacs used the phrase "Pentium toasting" or something very much like it. Apple doesn't do that for the iMacs, because there are things other than raw power that are more important to emphasize in the consumer lines. This fixation with processor speed is not irrelevant, but it's missing a great many things that are of far greater significance to a majority of Apple's customers, like ease of use, reliability, integration, compatibility (which is what scares people away from Macs about 90% of the time, in my own personal estimation), available software (and the quality thereof), and support. (Not to mention whether the rest of the architecture can meaningfully exploit the processor's potential.) It's a fact that Motorola no longer has a clear lead in integer performance (the G3's single great advantage back in the day), or in overall performance. So Apple found other ways to make the platform appealing. What's wrong with that? Especially since the market now is more or less unimpressed by the ability to check email at 2.2GHz instead of 2.1GHz, or to run through a baffling gauntlet of wizards and opaque, condescending error messages 10% faster. A lot of the critics seem to think that Apple could just jump to AMD, or magically get Moto to produce 10GHz processors, and it's a symptom of Steve Jobs' hatred for the Apple quick-to-remind-everyone-that-they're-faithful that Apple hasn't. Frankly, that's silly. If Apple sees near- and/or long-term benefits to the PowerPC that make it worthwhile to tough out the problems of the past couple of years, then they're making the right choice by sticking with it.
[ 03-24-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]
[ 03-24-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]
[ 03-24-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
well, you first said P3 at less than half of 450MHz (so, a P3 @ <233MHz). but when i pointed out that P3's started life at 450MHz, you changed your story to an IBM PII @ 233MHz. so, 233 is less than half of 450 in your world.
sorry, but i think its clear you're simply trying to cover a lie with another.
and no, a single typo doesn't make a post worthless, but clear air of deception does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get your damn head out of your ass. It was a goddam typo, and that's obvious. Sorry if someone doesn't have the infinite computer knowledge that you do. If the dude is a Mac guy, you shouldn't be expecting him to know if it's a P3 or a P2 anyway. It seems clear to me that you don't want to face the fact that PeeCees are way faster than our machines. And he's right by the way. My 300mhz K6-2 PC is better at web browsing than my 400mhz G4, and possibly my 800mhz iMac, because our OS (OSX) is as slow as molasses
A friend of mine at work built a dual gig Athlon of some sort and was like "wow, I click the explorer icon and Windows launches immediately!". Curious, I went over to the PII whatever-it-is-mhz I use at work, and sure enough, it loads explorer instantly too. Any Wintel PC loads explorer instantly. You can get a 5ghz PC but a PII whatever-the-hell-mhz PC will load explorer just as fast.
<strong> Funny statement. I do my business with Apple so it's Apple I hold accountable. From where Apple gets their components is non of my concern as long as they work. It's also SJ's job to make sure all departments of the company stay competitive
[ 03-24-2002: Message edited by: Intelligent Dandy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you're right. But the CEO can only do so much.
Steve used to get a lot of criticism for micro-managing every department. Now, people want him to go back and do that again?
Just as an example, my Sony DVD player quit working in January. Apparently, this model is known to have problems <a href="http://electronics.cnet.com/electronics/0-6342369-1304-6899346.html?tag=pdtl-list"; target="_blank">(it's a DVP-S560D)</a>.
Now, I suppose I could hold the CEO of Sony responsible for hiring someone in some manufacturing or QA department who is responsible for releasing a DVD player with a tendency to give C:13:00 errors. But can the CEO really be held responsible for everything? Who is the CEO of Sony anyways? I think the new Ford T-Bird should have a more powerful engine, but should I blame the CEO of Ford that it doesn't? I suppose I could but is it really up to just one guy?
I think since most people (on these boards anyways) in Macdom actually know who Steve is, he often gets the Scapegoat function - which is fine with me, he gets paid enough he should be able to deal with it. It just strikes me as funny that people think if he were replaced with Tom Jones or whoever that Apple would suddenly bound to 10% marketshare.
I guarantee you all, Steve Jobs wants Apple to increase in profits and marketshare more than any of us do. And, considering his postion, he likely has a better handle on which strenghts Apple should cater to and which decisions to make based on those strengths (and weaknesses).
Anyhow, like I said earlier. Apple has it's problems, sure, but replacing Steve Jobs (with who again?) would do more harm than good.
<strong>
Well, you're right. But the CEO can only do so much.
Steve used to get a lot of criticism for micro-managing every department. Now, people want him to go back and do that again? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I have anything against SJ, but his job as a CEO of Apple computer is to make sure his engineering departments as all other sections of Apple have the resources necessary to do their job. I certainly don't want him to micro-managing every department if that is what he does. I'm just pointing out his responsibilities as the CEO of Apple. Steve likes to take the applause when things are right so he must be a man to take criticism when things go wrong.
[Quote][QB]