Well, here's some wake up calls for those who thinks new imac will be a good HTPC or playing back any video format for that matter. The current intel IGP just plain sucks for all video play backs. You probably shouldn't even want to play 480i DVD titles on them.
Mmm...a NVidia commissioned study shows NVidia beating ATI. Surprise surprise. I actually do think NVidia is a little ahead at the moment as the HTPC forum on AVS seems to use the GeForce in their builds as much as Radeons. That wasn't true a year ago I don't think.
On the other hand you need to look at the software component and not the chipset for the HQV benchmarks. Many of the features tested depend on the scaler/playback software being used. For example I suspect that all three solutions would have scored much higher on some elements given DScaler/FFDShow + Zoomplayer or TheaterTek.
PureVideo does win in deinterlacing wierd and poorly mastered video but most movies (say LOTR, SW, etc) wont have those issues.
The 945 scored the same on picture detail (5) and outscored Nvidia on Color Bar/Vertical detail (10 vs 5). Its a little weird that no one but NVidea did 3:2 detection in their tests.
In any case, using PowerDVD for the 945G was a handicap in these tests. In addition they were unable to do 1080i given their ADD2 media expansion card not necessarily a limitation on the 950GMA. Not that it mattered much as the test display was 720p. The 1080i tests probably measured the display's abilities more than anything else. All DVI tests should have been 720p to eliminate as much as possible the influence of the display.
It was futher hamstrung by the selection of the Samsung LCD HDTV for the tests. 22" diagonal 720p TV is hardly a good selection.
They sat at the wrong distance for the tests and were outside both HDTV specifications and normal seating distances. (55" vs 35" for HDTV and probably 96" is a good average for most living rooms).
The tests were not stated to be double blind tests and are subjective scorings based on HQV guidelines.
All in all a very poor test of the respective technologies. No tests with a scope, color analyzer or pretty much anything.
Short answer: That whitepaper is useless except to show that PowerDVD decoder sucks and Principled Technology is pretty clueless about video.
-snip-My point was that *GAMERS* buy those $3,000 machines. I'm sure you know the type. They get LED feet for the machine. Memory cards with lights. They string those neon cords around and in the machine. They saw a hole in the panel so they can put a clear (illegal, no shielding) panel in to show all of their wonderful handiwork.
The Mini should be able to handle games that aren't first person shooters. Those are the worst. The rest, at least most of them, don't have as much of a graphics requirement.
Actually, it is only the rich or obsessive gamers that have the $3000 computers with $500 video cards. The vast majority of computer gamers use cheap computers and low to mid range graphics cards.
And it is no longer just first person shooters that need good 3d rendering capabilities: extremely popular games like world of warcraft needs a decent video card to get a playable frame rate. Even turn based strategy games like the Civilization IV are using beautiful 3D animations - which takes rendering power.
Consumer computers should be able to satisfy the needs of the casual gamer, and if the mini had a BTO option for a video card that would allow it to do so, 90% of all the complaints would vanish.
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux. Version 2.02 RC4 for Intel based Macs is available for testing. I wish I had an Intel Mac to test it with.
You gotta be kidding me. You really like MS works better than Claris works? My wife still has trouble writing simple letters in MS works. Needs my help all the time. Fold the spreadsheet and database into iworks and you've got a winner. Even better get a stripped down version of filemaker as your database.
Actually, it is only the rich or obsessive gamers that have the $3000 computers with $500 video cards. The vast majority of computer gamers use cheap computers and low to mid range graphics cards.
And it is no longer just first person shooters that need good 3d rendering capabilities: extremely popular games like world of warcraft needs a decent video card to get a playable frame rate. Even turn based strategy games like the Civilization IV are using beautiful 3D animations - which takes rendering power.
Consumer computers should be able to satisfy the needs of the casual gamer, and if the mini had a BTO option for a video card that would allow it to do so, 90% of all the complaints would vanish.
I have to tell you that it's not just rich gamers. Obsessive one's, sure. But that what's keeping Alien and Voodo afloat. The new hi end machines from Dell are also aimed at this crowd. There are a lot more of them out there than you think.
Every gaming site has declared anything but the fastest machines with the fastest ot almost the fastest video cards to incapable of properly playing these games.
So, obsessive? Yes! But those are the true gamers, usually males between 17 and 29.
You gotta be kidding me. You really like MS office better than Claris works? My wife still has trouble writing simple letters in MS works. Needs my help all the time. Fold the spreadsheet and database into iworks and you've got a winner. Even better get a stripped down version of filemaker as your database.
From using Works 8.0, the current version is a much better product. It works a lot like an office lite. Back in the day CW/AW was a much better product, but it's been seven years since its been updated. As for Pages, I find it to be a very good entry level page layout app. As a word processor, saying that it leaves a lot to be desired is putting it mildly.
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux. Version 2.02 RC4 for Intel based Macs is available for testing. I wish I had an Intel Mac to test it with.
The open source suites are out of the realm of possibility for the Mini's target crowd.
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux. Version 2.02 RC4 for Intel based Macs is available for testing. I wish I had an Intel Mac to test it with.
It works ok, though it's a bit sluggish. Ver. 2 should be better, if they ever get it finished on the Mac. It seems as though they aren't getting enough volunteers for Mac porting.
The main problem is that the interface looks like it came straight from Win 95 or something in that era.
It's so hard to look at, that I can't find myself using it for more than a few minutes. I know that sounds silly, but it's true.
If you are used to Windows, then it will look fine. But it's been criticised for having ugly fonts as well, and it's true. It's just hard to look at.
The Quartz version (Neo Office) is easier to work with for that reason (it doesn't use X11), but it's behind the other version. If they ever get that to ver 2, then all bets are off.
The open source suites are out of the realm of possibility for the Mini's target crowd.
Out of the realm of possibility???? isn't part of the audience for the mini people who don't have a lot of money for computers? They are the ones who don't have the money for MS Office or iWork, and actually need the open source suites.
My Mac-using friends either do know better or simply don't known (or care) enough about hardware specs to be misleadingly influenced by them. When I've helped the latter make purchasing choices they're most interested in (and ask questions about) software-related issues that might apply to what they want to do with the system. Any hardware-related interest has to do with peripherals (e.g. will their printer work).
It's obvious that people making significant purchases owe it to themselves to be accurately informed about influential factors they're unsure of. It's challenging to make that a less intimating and time-consuming process with complex products. It's easiest (and often fun) helping someone who's actively looking for sufficient pre-purchase assistance but not everyone realizes they may need it. And not everyone is prepared or qualified to help even if they'd like to.
I don't have patience with anyone's helpless habit of stubbornly shirking responsibility for cluelessly presumptuous purchasing decisions and blaming someone else for their ineptness.
Oh, yeah, there's a Mac mini update...
Those are Mac-users you are referring to. I am referring to PC users which Apple must continue to convert to the Mac.
Apple could make a $499 computer with the same margin as the $599 one. When the Celeron 4xx comes out, they could do $449 or perhaps even $399 at the same margin.
Really I don't get the mini. Hardly anyone buys it because it is really, really small. They buy it because it is inexpensive. Secondary attractions are the fact that it's smaller than a normal tower (note that it needn't be really, really small to be smaller than a normal tower), and it is quiet.
If Apple had made the mini big enough to contain a full-size hard-drive and optical drive, they still could have made it run quiet and smaller than a normal tower. The component costs would also have been lower, and much better hard-drive options would be available. There would also be enough room for full-size RAM dimms.
You are correct. Jobs is a genius at some things and a moron at others. He has never been a very intelligent businessman, ala Bill Gates.
He needs to put someone else in charge of hardware, someone who GETS the consumer.
Look, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but as long as people display an inability to read a thread properly, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
This whole thing is out of control. Nothing Apple could have presented would have satisfied everyone.
Actually, in the context of the Mac Mini, Apple could have produced a machine to satisfy everyone.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
When the new mini hits people's desks we will see how the integrated graphics work; I bet they will be more than satisfactory for the people who buy the mini because they are not geeks like us. If you aren't happy with IG on a mini, you have the option of a Quad with a Quadro FX 4500. Jane and Joe Average don't know the difference and probably couldn't care less.
I agree, apart from the crazy comment about "if you don't like it, get a Quad with a Quadro". Hello?? Surely there is some middle ground here, that Apple is failing to cover for no good reason?
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
The mini's price is also fine. If you want a 399 box, go get one. Based on specs, you can get something faster and cheaper. By the time you add in software on par with the mini's (there is none that I am aware of that is all made by the same maker and therefore interconnected and intuitive) you will surpass the mini's cost with these extra ghost costs.
Again, no-one said the Mini was overpriced. Yes, $399 PCs do not offer the features of a $599 mini, and therefore the mini is worth the extra $200, but only if you want those extra features.
I'm willing to take Melgross's points about production lines on board, they are not as sophisticated as I would like. But the fact remains that if Dell can produce a computer with loads of BTO options, then Apple should be able to do the same. Last time I checked, Dell makes huge profits every quarter, so all this talk about inexpensive PCs being unprofitable is bunk. Apple shot themselves in the foot by not designing the mini so that it would be easier to customise.
The machine they should have produced is:
Something just big enough to fit in a motherboard, full-size HD, full-size optical drive, and one full-length PCI-E card slot. This machine would still be much smaller than a normal tower, and could be made to run quietly.
The base configuration, for $399, could then be:
40 gig HD; 512 MB RAM; CD-RW drive; Celeron 4xx; integrated graphics; IR receiver, but no remote. edit: analogue audio out, no audio in /edit. Apple would make a profit off that.
The BTO options should then be:
More RAM
Bigger hard drives
Better optical drives (combo, super)
CPU: Solo or Duo
GPU: Any graphics card that fits in the PCI-E slot.
Airport
Bluetooth
edit: Digital audio I/O /edit
If people want to use Front Row, they would need to buy the Apple Remote separately, or they could control Front Row with a wireless keyboard and mouse if they prefer.
People have talked about buyers of $399 machines "clogging up support lines". As far as I know, Apple only allow a limited number of free calls to support, and they start charging after that.
There are plenty of people who just don't need the additional power of machines costing more than $399. There are also plenty of people who may want a slightly better graphics card, but already have a monitor etc, so why should they buy an iMac? It just makes so much sense to have a basic, configurable machine that lets users pick and choose the specs they want. I don't understand what is stopping Apple doing that.
What does that have to do with anything? I told you I thought he was a genius in many ways.
He just cannot bring himself to produce a worthy low end Computer for the common man.
Steve that doesn't make him a moron. You guys think the pathway to profits is just cutting the price down. It's always a balancing act.
Celeron? You would have heard bigger howls from the Mac faithful.
Would I like a Shuttle sized Mac mini with a PCI Express 16x slot and a 3.5" HD. Yup...but that wouldn't have had the same effect as the first time you lay your eyes on a Mac mini and think "That can't be the whole computer"
I respect Jobs for his keen ability to tread that line between art and the common tool.
We all want Apple to focus more on saving us money but hell I think the same thing everytime I get a bill.
What's "his" Net Worth compared to Bill Gates? Geez, some people look at the world and decide that a good entrepreneur is measured by his/her Net Worth.
Comments
Originally posted by bitemymac
Well, here's some wake up calls for those who thinks new imac will be a good HTPC or playing back any video format for that matter. The current intel IGP just plain sucks for all video play backs. You probably shouldn't even want to play 480i DVD titles on them.
see it for yourself:
http://www.principledtechnologies.co...A/VidPlay1.pdf
Mmm...a NVidia commissioned study shows NVidia beating ATI. Surprise surprise. I actually do think NVidia is a little ahead at the moment as the HTPC forum on AVS seems to use the GeForce in their builds as much as Radeons. That wasn't true a year ago I don't think.
On the other hand you need to look at the software component and not the chipset for the HQV benchmarks. Many of the features tested depend on the scaler/playback software being used. For example I suspect that all three solutions would have scored much higher on some elements given DScaler/FFDShow + Zoomplayer or TheaterTek.
PureVideo does win in deinterlacing wierd and poorly mastered video but most movies (say LOTR, SW, etc) wont have those issues.
The 945 scored the same on picture detail (5) and outscored Nvidia on Color Bar/Vertical detail (10 vs 5). Its a little weird that no one but NVidea did 3:2 detection in their tests.
In any case, using PowerDVD for the 945G was a handicap in these tests. In addition they were unable to do 1080i given their ADD2 media expansion card not necessarily a limitation on the 950GMA. Not that it mattered much as the test display was 720p. The 1080i tests probably measured the display's abilities more than anything else. All DVI tests should have been 720p to eliminate as much as possible the influence of the display.
It was futher hamstrung by the selection of the Samsung LCD HDTV for the tests. 22" diagonal 720p TV is hardly a good selection.
They sat at the wrong distance for the tests and were outside both HDTV specifications and normal seating distances. (55" vs 35" for HDTV and probably 96" is a good average for most living rooms).
The tests were not stated to be double blind tests and are subjective scorings based on HQV guidelines.
All in all a very poor test of the respective technologies. No tests with a scope, color analyzer or pretty much anything.
Short answer: That whitepaper is useless except to show that PowerDVD decoder sucks and Principled Technology is pretty clueless about video.
Vinea
Originally posted by melgross
-snip-My point was that *GAMERS* buy those $3,000 machines. I'm sure you know the type. They get LED feet for the machine. Memory cards with lights. They string those neon cords around and in the machine. They saw a hole in the panel so they can put a clear (illegal, no shielding) panel in to show all of their wonderful handiwork.
The Mini should be able to handle games that aren't first person shooters. Those are the worst. The rest, at least most of them, don't have as much of a graphics requirement.
Actually, it is only the rich or obsessive gamers that have the $3000 computers with $500 video cards. The vast majority of computer gamers use cheap computers and low to mid range graphics cards.
And it is no longer just first person shooters that need good 3d rendering capabilities: extremely popular games like world of warcraft needs a decent video card to get a playable frame rate. Even turn based strategy games like the Civilization IV are using beautiful 3D animations - which takes rendering power.
Consumer computers should be able to satisfy the needs of the casual gamer, and if the mini had a BTO option for a video card that would allow it to do so, 90% of all the complaints would vanish.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
, MS Works has become a better product,
You gotta be kidding me. You really like MS works better than Claris works? My wife still has trouble writing simple letters in MS works. Needs my help all the time. Fold the spreadsheet and database into iworks and you've got a winner. Even better get a stripped down version of filemaker as your database.
Originally posted by Res
Actually, it is only the rich or obsessive gamers that have the $3000 computers with $500 video cards. The vast majority of computer gamers use cheap computers and low to mid range graphics cards.
And it is no longer just first person shooters that need good 3d rendering capabilities: extremely popular games like world of warcraft needs a decent video card to get a playable frame rate. Even turn based strategy games like the Civilization IV are using beautiful 3D animations - which takes rendering power.
Consumer computers should be able to satisfy the needs of the casual gamer, and if the mini had a BTO option for a video card that would allow it to do so, 90% of all the complaints would vanish.
I have to tell you that it's not just rich gamers. Obsessive one's, sure. But that what's keeping Alien and Voodo afloat. The new hi end machines from Dell are also aimed at this crowd. There are a lot more of them out there than you think.
Every gaming site has declared anything but the fastest machines with the fastest ot almost the fastest video cards to incapable of properly playing these games.
So, obsessive? Yes! But those are the true gamers, usually males between 17 and 29.
Originally posted by backtomac
You really like MS office better than Claris works? My wife still has trouble writing simple letters in MS works.
Er... why is everyone using MS Works and MS Office interchangeably? The two are completely different products.
MS works has a feature set similar to AppleWorks and is awful. MS Office is vastly more powerful than AppleWorks.
If you think AppleWorks is better than Office, then you are not Office's target market.
Originally posted by backtomac
You gotta be kidding me. You really like MS office better than Claris works? My wife still has trouble writing simple letters in MS works. Needs my help all the time. Fold the spreadsheet and database into iworks and you've got a winner. Even better get a stripped down version of filemaker as your database.
From using Works 8.0, the current version is a much better product. It works a lot like an office lite. Back in the day CW/AW was a much better product, but it's been seven years since its been updated. As for Pages, I find it to be a very good entry level page layout app. As a word processor, saying that it leaves a lot to be desired is putting it mildly.
Originally posted by kukito
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux. Version 2.02 RC4 for Intel based Macs is available for testing. I wish I had an Intel Mac to test it with.
The open source suites are out of the realm of possibility for the Mini's target crowd.
Originally posted by kukito
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux. Version 2.02 RC4 for Intel based Macs is available for testing. I wish I had an Intel Mac to test it with.
It works ok, though it's a bit sluggish. Ver. 2 should be better, if they ever get it finished on the Mac. It seems as though they aren't getting enough volunteers for Mac porting.
The main problem is that the interface looks like it came straight from Win 95 or something in that era.
It's so hard to look at, that I can't find myself using it for more than a few minutes. I know that sounds silly, but it's true.
If you are used to Windows, then it will look fine. But it's been criticised for having ugly fonts as well, and it's true. It's just hard to look at.
The Quartz version (Neo Office) is easier to work with for that reason (it doesn't use X11), but it's behind the other version. If they ever get that to ver 2, then all bets are off.
http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/oo...downloads.html
Originally posted by kukito
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux.
There's also NeoOffice, without the X11 dependency. I've never used it (or OpenOffice, except briefly on Solaris many years ago).
[edit: foo, Mel beat me to it... sometimes I wish he'd slow down a bit.
Originally posted by sjk
There's also NeoOffice, without the X11 dependency. I've never used it (or OpenOffice, except briefly on Solaris many years ago).
[edit: foo, Mel beat me to it... sometimes I wish he'd slow down a bit.
I'm going down to my shop for an hour or so, you can squeeze something in there.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
The open source suites are out of the realm of possibility for the Mini's target crowd.
Out of the realm of possibility???? isn't part of the audience for the mini people who don't have a lot of money for computers? They are the ones who don't have the money for MS Office or iWork, and actually need the open source suites.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Er... why is everyone using MS Works and MS Office interchangeably? The two are completely different products.
MS works has a feature set similar to AppleWorks and is awful. MS Office is vastly more powerful than AppleWorks.
If you think AppleWorks is better than Office, then you are not Office's target market.
You are right I meant works. I am generally not that stupid but I do have my moments.
Originally posted by sjk
My Mac-using friends either do know better or simply don't known (or care) enough about hardware specs to be misleadingly influenced by them. When I've helped the latter make purchasing choices they're most interested in (and ask questions about) software-related issues that might apply to what they want to do with the system. Any hardware-related interest has to do with peripherals (e.g. will their printer work).
It's obvious that people making significant purchases owe it to themselves to be accurately informed about influential factors they're unsure of. It's challenging to make that a less intimating and time-consuming process with complex products. It's easiest (and often fun) helping someone who's actively looking for sufficient pre-purchase assistance but not everyone realizes they may need it. And not everyone is prepared or qualified to help even if they'd like to.
I don't have patience with anyone's helpless habit of stubbornly shirking responsibility for cluelessly presumptuous purchasing decisions and blaming someone else for their ineptness.
Oh, yeah, there's a Mac mini update...
Those are Mac-users you are referring to. I am referring to PC users which Apple must continue to convert to the Mac.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Apple could make a $499 computer with the same margin as the $599 one. When the Celeron 4xx comes out, they could do $449 or perhaps even $399 at the same margin.
Really I don't get the mini. Hardly anyone buys it because it is really, really small. They buy it because it is inexpensive. Secondary attractions are the fact that it's smaller than a normal tower (note that it needn't be really, really small to be smaller than a normal tower), and it is quiet.
If Apple had made the mini big enough to contain a full-size hard-drive and optical drive, they still could have made it run quiet and smaller than a normal tower. The component costs would also have been lower, and much better hard-drive options would be available. There would also be enough room for full-size RAM dimms.
You are correct. Jobs is a genius at some things and a moron at others. He has never been a very intelligent businessman, ala Bill Gates.
He needs to put someone else in charge of hardware, someone who GETS the consumer.
Originally posted by steve666
You are correct. Jobs is a genius at some things and a moron at others. He has never been a very intelligent businessman, ala Bill Gates.
He needs to put someone else in charge of hardware, someone who GETS the consumer.
What's "your" Net Worth compared to Steve Jobs'?
Originally posted by Bergermeister
This whole thing is out of control. Nothing Apple could have presented would have satisfied everyone.
Actually, in the context of the Mac Mini, Apple could have produced a machine to satisfy everyone.
Originally posted by Bergermeister
When the new mini hits people's desks we will see how the integrated graphics work; I bet they will be more than satisfactory for the people who buy the mini because they are not geeks like us. If you aren't happy with IG on a mini, you have the option of a Quad with a Quadro FX 4500. Jane and Joe Average don't know the difference and probably couldn't care less.
I agree, apart from the crazy comment about "if you don't like it, get a Quad with a Quadro". Hello?? Surely there is some middle ground here, that Apple is failing to cover for no good reason?
Originally posted by Bergermeister
The mini's price is also fine. If you want a 399 box, go get one. Based on specs, you can get something faster and cheaper. By the time you add in software on par with the mini's (there is none that I am aware of that is all made by the same maker and therefore interconnected and intuitive) you will surpass the mini's cost with these extra ghost costs.
Again, no-one said the Mini was overpriced. Yes, $399 PCs do not offer the features of a $599 mini, and therefore the mini is worth the extra $200, but only if you want those extra features.
I'm willing to take Melgross's points about production lines on board, they are not as sophisticated as I would like. But the fact remains that if Dell can produce a computer with loads of BTO options, then Apple should be able to do the same. Last time I checked, Dell makes huge profits every quarter, so all this talk about inexpensive PCs being unprofitable is bunk. Apple shot themselves in the foot by not designing the mini so that it would be easier to customise.
The machine they should have produced is:
Something just big enough to fit in a motherboard, full-size HD, full-size optical drive, and one full-length PCI-E card slot. This machine would still be much smaller than a normal tower, and could be made to run quietly.
The base configuration, for $399, could then be:
40 gig HD; 512 MB RAM; CD-RW drive; Celeron 4xx; integrated graphics; IR receiver, but no remote. edit: analogue audio out, no audio in /edit. Apple would make a profit off that.
The BTO options should then be:
More RAM
Bigger hard drives
Better optical drives (combo, super)
CPU: Solo or Duo
GPU: Any graphics card that fits in the PCI-E slot.
Airport
Bluetooth
edit: Digital audio I/O /edit
If people want to use Front Row, they would need to buy the Apple Remote separately, or they could control Front Row with a wireless keyboard and mouse if they prefer.
People have talked about buyers of $399 machines "clogging up support lines". As far as I know, Apple only allow a limited number of free calls to support, and they start charging after that.
There are plenty of people who just don't need the additional power of machines costing more than $399. There are also plenty of people who may want a slightly better graphics card, but already have a monitor etc, so why should they buy an iMac? It just makes so much sense to have a basic, configurable machine that lets users pick and choose the specs they want. I don't understand what is stopping Apple doing that.
Originally posted by hmurchison
What's "your" Net Worth compared to Steve Jobs'?
What does that have to do with anything? I told you I thought he was a genius in many ways.
He just cannot bring himself to produce a worthy low end Computer for the common man.
Originally posted by steve666
What does that have to do with anything? I told you I thought he was a genius in many ways.
He just cannot bring himself to produce a worthy low end Computer for the common man.
Steve that doesn't make him a moron. You guys think the pathway to profits is just cutting the price down. It's always a balancing act.
Celeron? You would have heard bigger howls from the Mac faithful.
Would I like a Shuttle sized Mac mini with a PCI Express 16x slot and a 3.5" HD. Yup...but that wouldn't have had the same effect as the first time you lay your eyes on a Mac mini and think "That can't be the whole computer"
I respect Jobs for his keen ability to tread that line between art and the common tool.
We all want Apple to focus more on saving us money but hell I think the same thing everytime I get a bill.
Originally posted by hmurchison
What's "your" Net Worth compared to Steve Jobs'?
What's "his" Net Worth compared to Bill Gates? Geez, some people look at the world and decide that a good entrepreneur is measured by his/her Net Worth.