But Apple is already there with the Core technologies. Don't know if they will do it, but it is a way to differentiate for a while. No matter what they do, MS will follow. MS might get around to it say in 2009... 2012....2015.
That part that matters is that it's not going to happen. Apple is trying to compete with PC's on the Macs main criticisms from PC users. Pricing is one of the biggest ones, and one they are not going to try to loose on purpose. If you want a faster Machine with faster components buy a BOXX. Apple wont go to the lengths that BOXX does, and no co processor will make a Mac that fast. But it will drive the price up that high.
Yes, Dell buying Alienware IS a big deal and continues the upscale path they began with those Sony style knockoffs a few months ago. It is kind of like Wal-Mart starting to test upscale versions of its stores ..... cringe.....
If Apple adds a co processor 5 to 10 other vendors will announce they will also be adding a co processor within a week.
You're right, but who else can make use of it? The others will have to wait 3 years till MS changes Windows, Apple could make that change in Mac OS X immediately.
But why add another co processor? There's already one - called GPU...
Also, Apple sells highend video cards for less than PC card manufacturers. Where is this big profit margin? When Apple announced that the Quadro was available on the Mac they had every QuadroFX 4500 Price beat by $200.00.
The profit margin is there because there IS a profit margin.
Apple sells the cards. You can only get the cards through Apple. Therefore, Apple makes the money.
You're trying to tell me they don't make anything off video cards? Wait what? $1,650 for a quadro.. what do you suppose kicks back to Apple from that.
And may I remind you that it's a $1,650 UPGRADE from the 6600, meaning that you have to add in the cost of the FX6600 before calculating the cost.
Apple doesn't offer the QuadroFX as an upgrade kit--you must buy it in a G5, or you don't get one. Now, take a look at pricewatch.com: FX4500 is $1,710. So let's do a little addition here, we'll use the pricewatch price because the 6600's price is cheaper there (Apple $200, pricewatch $135 including shipping):
$1,650 + $135 = $1,785
VERDICT: NOT CHEAPER.
"Wait!" you might say, "Apple's not competing with pricewatch so it doesn't count!"
The only reason Apple doesn't compete with pricewatch on VIDEO CARDS is because they MODIFY their cards before they put them in their computers.
That doesn't matter though, as I said before: even with low margins, there is still profit to be had. Apple rigging its cards to be mac-only ensures that APPLE will be making all the profit.
Why do they use modified cards if not to make sure that APPLE sells the only cards you can use in APPLES.
It may be a theory, but it could also be a fact: there's no reason those cards are modified other than to make them proprietary.
Oh but why would Apple do this? I assure you, it's the same reason Apple chose to use EFI instead of bios in their x86 mactels: so THEY could sell them.
Next you'll be telling me that too wasn't profit motivated .
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I'm just saying: good luck finding alternatives to Apple on motherboards or video cards, as that's where their money is when they make computers... aside from maybe the iMac, where the most expensive component (wholesale) is probably the monitor.
It's just like the motherboard: You can't buy one of those off-the-shelf either.
Why do they use modified cards if not to make sure that APPLE sells the only cards you can use in APPLES.
It may be a theory, but it could also be a fact: there's no reason those cards are modified other than to make them proprietary.
Oh but why would Apple do this? I assure you, it's the same reason Apple chose to use EFI instead of bios in their x86 mactels: so THEY could sell them.
Next you'll be telling me that too wasn't profit motivated .
The primary reason to use OpenFirmware on PowerPC Macs and on PowerPC-Mac-installed video cards was innovation. The only prevalent alternative, BIOS, would have been a nightmare.
The primary reason to use EFI on Intel Macs and on Intel-Mac-installed video cards is innovation. The only prevalent alternative, BIOS, would have been a nightmare.
Profit is secondary.
Next you'll be telling me that Apple doesn't use Windows because Mac OS X puts more money in their own pockets.
The primary reason to use OpenFirmware on PowerPC Macs and on PowerPC-Mac-installed video cards was innovation. The only prevalent alternative, BIOS, would have been a nightmare.
BIOS is not and was not not available in any PPC mobo out there.
Nor did it matter if Apple used BIOS or not, as PPC mobos that ran the chips Apple did were exclusively bought by Apple.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
The primary reason to use EFI on Intel Macs and on Intel-Mac-installed video cards is innovation. The only prevalent alternative, BIOS, would have been a nightmare.
OK, How? There are plenty of BIOS-using PCs running OS X thanks to the OSx86 project, which I'll talk about more in a couple lines.
Linux and Unix run fine on x86 machines which have BIOS. Makes little difference aside from a few things which Apple probably have to tinker with to use EFI.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Profit is secondary.
Oh really? Why is apple trying to SHUT DOWN the OSx86 project, then?
Is that not profit-motivated?
Explain, please.
<EDIT> Since I'm pretty sure you're not going to read it, here's the article I just linked to:
Since last summer's announcement that Apple would be shifting its entire computer product line to Intel processors, PC enthusiasts have been trying to answer two questions. Would we be able to run Windows natively on Macintel hardware, and would we be able to run Mac OS X on commodity PC hardware? So far, the answer to the first question has been negative, with little or no prospect for success until Vista ships later this year. The second question is a different matter. Apple doesn't want Mac OS X running on anything other than Apple hardware, and as a result, has slapped the OSx86 Project with a DMCA violation notice.
After Pentium 4 developer systems and Intel-native builds of Mac OS X were shipped out, copies of the x86-native Mac OS X began showing up in the usual places. Naturally, people started trying to get it running on commodity x86 hardware, and with some success. They needed somewhere to collaborate as well, so the OSx86 Project was born. Several months prior to the shipment of the iMac Core Duo, enthusiasts were able to get Mac OS X 10.4.3 running on PCs. Once the iMacs began shipping with 10.4.4 installed, hackers were having a much more difficult time getting OS X to run on non-Apple Intel and even AMD hardware. (One Russian site claims to have a workaround for 10.4.4).
The EULA for Mac OS X states explicitly that the OS is only licensed to run on Apple hardware. Apple may have been content to more or less ignore the OSx86 Project in the months after the transition began; now that there are Intel-based Macs available, Apple wants to be sure that its high-margin hardware sales are not eroded by people running its OS on Dells, HPs, and home-built systems. As the OSx86 Project forums were arguably the best resource for figuring out how to do exactly that, it makes sense that Apple would bust out the lawyering stick on them.
</edit>
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Next you'll be telling me that Apple doesn't use Windows because Mac OS X puts more money in their own pockets.
Most of the people who buy macs buy them to use OS X.
Corporations are profit-motivated. Everything they do is profit-motivated. If they didn't, people would not invest in them.
I'm a libertarian, I don't see anything morally wrong with Apple locking in their customers.. hell, I have a G5 for god's sake. The point is: video cards are among, if not the most, expensive part in a computer, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Apple only uses custom video cards.
Tell me why this is "definitely" wrong, and I'll shut up, but consider this: It's more expensive to make a slightly different card than what you'll be selling the most of, so Apple's paying extra to have these custom cards... wouldn't they want their computers cheaper?
The answer, in my view, is that they eat the added-cost of the modified off-the-shelf cards so that they have the priviledge of no competition. Also, they don't have to worry about market fluctuation. The 6600 does NOT cost $200 anymore, but that's what Apple still sells it for on their site. Why? because they don't have to compete.
Also, Apple sells highend video cards for less than PC card manufacturers. Where is this big profit margin? When Apple announced that the Quadro was available on the Mac they had every QuadroFX 4500 Price beat by $200.00.
But the Quadro is a scam. The Quadro 4500 has the same performance as the 7800 GTX. Which would you rather buy, a $1600 Quadro or a $500 7800 GTX? Oh sorry, Apple refuses to sell you the GTX.
BIOS is not and was not not available in any PPC mobo out there.
That's irrelevant, as Apple designed the mobos on their own. IBM's PowerPC machines don't use OpenFirmware (they use something wholly different).
Quote:
Nor did it matter if Apple used BIOS or not, as PPC mobos that ran the chips Apple did were exclusively bought by Apple.
Um. Yeah. And?
Quote:
OK, How? There are plenty of BIOS-using PCs running OS X thanks to the OSx86 project, which I'll talk about more in a couple lines.
And? I don't remember talking about an OS. I talked about the Mac platform.
I'd like to see you implement a boot screen that, right from the start, is in the full and proper resolution, rather than some 320x240 256 color bullshit, as is the case in 90% of the machines out there. What, you think nobody fucking cares? Well, tell you what, I do, and I know I'm not alone. I really enjoy feeling like I'm not being screwed over and over again because my hardware vendor can't be bothered to throw away legacy shit. I really enjoy feeling that my hardware vendor is capable to get rid of floppy drives, of old-school serial and parallel buses and, yes, of extremely low-resolution video modes. I really enjoy that, even when I have to go do some maintenance stuff because my system is royally messed up, I can still work at 1024x768, because my system, and by that I mean the combination of software and hardware, is modern enough to actually provide the drivers automatically. Right from the start. Right from the very second you hit the power button. It's not rocket science.
Quote:
Linux and Unix run fine on x86 machines which have BIOS. Makes little difference aside from a few things which Apple probably have to tinker with to use EFI.
See above.
Quote:
Oh really? Why is apple trying to SHUT DOWN the OSx86 project, then?
Because it violates their EULA? Because it is, as such, piracy? Because Apple doesn't even currently provide boxed copies of OS X for Intel, so there's no way it's legal even in countries where EULAs are void?
Quote:
Most of the people who buy macs buy them to use OS X.
They buy them to experience the Mac platform.
Quote:
Corporations are profit-motivated. Everything they do is profit-motivated. If they didn't, people would not invest in them.
Nobody is arguing that.
Quote:
I don't think it's a coincidence that Apple only uses custom video cards.
The only custom part is the firmware. That's all. If Apple were so excited about their custom stuff, they would have stuck with ADC.
slughead, my statement was when Apple announced they were selling Quadro's they were selling them for about $200 less than anyone. At the time they were.
But the Quadro is a scam. The Quadro 4500 has the same performance as the 7800 GTX. Which would you rather buy, a $1600 Quadro or a $500 7800 GTX? Oh sorry, Apple refuses to sell you the GTX.
You are so not getting the purpose of a QuadroFX video card. It's not intended for anyone other than a Pro 3D user. It's not a gaming card intended for the use of gamers, or casual users. It's a high-end Pro 3D card that had been requested by Pro 3D users. Your GTX comparatively doesn't do squat for Maya. And you do not get the same performance as the QuadroFX 4500 using a 7800 GTX in a Pro 3D content creation environment. If your thinking your supposed to use that card for regular use and spend that much money you are seriously stupid.
I am, by the way, not arguing that Apple's BTO prices are inflated. But they're inflated regardless of whether you use their GPUs or anyone else's GPUs, and regardless of whether those GPUs have a firmware based on BIOS, OpenFirmware, EFI or whatever. I'm also not arguing that Apple artificially sells BTO options at inflated prices in order to make a huge profit margin. Nobody would argue that. But that has absolutely nil to do with the firmware.
I'd like to see you implement a boot screen that, right from the start, is in the full and proper resolution, rather than some 320x240 256 color bullshit, as is the case in 90% of the machines out there. What, you think nobody fucking cares? Well, tell you what, I do, and I know I'm not alone. I really enjoy feeling like I'm not being screwed over and over again because my hardware vendor can't be bothered to throw away legacy shit. I really enjoy feeling that my hardware vendor is capable to get rid of floppy drives, of old-school serial and parallel buses and, yes, of extremely low-resolution video modes. I really enjoy that, even when I have to go do some maintenance stuff because my system is royally messed up, I can still work at 1024x768, because my system, and by that I mean the combination of software and hardware, is modern enough to actually provide the drivers automatically. Right from the start. Right from the very second you hit the power button. It's not rocket science.
The POST screen, to which you refer, is about 1 or 2 seconds long on modern PCs and could be easily bypassed by not outputting to the monitor. I'd rather see a POST screen, personally, as it will tell me if there's something wrong.. but to each his/her own I guess.
And by the way, last time I checked, hitting the power button on my G5 took longer than 3 seconds to display the happy "apple" logo. Apple has a POST too, they just don't output it and in doing so it does nothing but conceal what your computer is doing.
As you're irrate and obviously emotional, I will not continue to respond to your post. Thank you for reading mine though.
Quote:
(onlooker)
slughead, my statement was when Apple announced they were selling Quadro's they were selling them for about $200 less than anyone. At the time they were.
And my point was, it doesn't matter what Apple's margin is, as they make 100% of all profit from the resale quadro cards for mac, and BTW, this is due to them modifying the firmware in the cards. 10% margin on the sale of 100% 100,000 cards is more than a 15% margin on the sale of 20% of 150,000 cards. Of course, a savings of a mere $200/2000 is far more drastic, not to mention the fact that Apple's not changed the price of their quadro yet, whereas the market has lowered the price drastically. Ergo, Apple's probably making an even BIGGER margin than normal resellers right now while selling 100% of all quadro cards for mac.
Could it be a coincidence? Sounds to me it's a few tens of millions of dollars Apple couldn't make if that "coincidence" weren't there. Even if it is a coincidence, if you remember correctly I said:
Apple WILL NEVER use off-the-shelf cards.
This is why I think that: they'd make less money, period.
Think Apple will offer Windows as a CTO option on the Apple Store? Mac OS X would always be available but you'd have an option to dual-boot or run Windows as a Virtual Machine.
That is assuming they don't use something like WINE and just replace Windows libraries on the fly.
Think Apple will offer Windows as a CTO option on the Apple Store? Mac OS X would always be available but you'd have an option to dual-boot or run Windows as a Virtual Machine.
That is assuming they don't use something like WINE and just replace Windows libraries on the fly.
Not unless MS releases windows for macintel. Even then, I give it 50/50
And my point was, it doesn't matter what Apple's margin is, as they make 100% of all profit from the resale quadro cards for mac, and BTW, this is due to them modifying the firmware in the cards. 10% margin on the sale of 100% 100,000 cards is more than a 15% margin on the sale of 20% of 150,000 cards. Of course, a savings of a mere $200/2000 is far more drastic, not to mention the fact that Apple's not changed the price of their quadro yet, whereas the market has lowered the price drastically. Ergo, Apple's probably making an even BIGGER margin than normal resellers right now while selling 100% of all quadro cards for mac.
Could it be a coincidence? Sounds to me it's a few tens of millions of dollars Apple couldn't make if that "coincidence" weren't there. Even if it is a coincidence, if you remember correctly I said:
Apple WILL NEVER use off-the-shelf cards.
This is why I think that: they'd make less money, period.
I guess I'll just have to agree that we just disagree because I'm too tired to keep reading your nonsense. Your thinking is clearly distorted and bias. Not necessarily towards Apple, but your afraid of something. Who knows what. Nevertheless you have no quarrels of pulling figures, and statements out of your ass that you can not prove. Therefore I'm done reading your posts. You wouldn't happen to be Ryan Meader (MOSR) would you?
Your thinking is clearly distorted and bias. Not necessarily towards Apple, but your afraid of something. Who knows what.
The numbers, as even a "clear thinking" individual can see, point to the fact that Apple makes more money doing what it does in the way of video cards than if it changed.
Therefore, I don't think Apple will change. Is that so "nonsensical" ?
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Nevertheless you have no quarrels of pulling figures, and statements out of your ass that you can not prove.
The "figures" I used were examples to prove a logical point--that Apple makes more money now than it would using off-the-shelf cards.
I really don't see how that's wrong, and you haven't really said anything that's lead me to believe otherwise (or have even attempted to).
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
You wouldn't happen to be Ryan Meader (MOSR) would you?
Haha, no. MOSR is too fanboyish to even consider Apple makes a penny off anything. I used to post as "slughead" there to get tech support, but this place is better for that too.
Comments
Originally posted by murk
But Apple is already there with the Core technologies. Don't know if they will do it, but it is a way to differentiate for a while. No matter what they do, MS will follow. MS might get around to it say in 2009... 2012....2015.
That part that matters is that it's not going to happen. Apple is trying to compete with PC's on the Macs main criticisms from PC users. Pricing is one of the biggest ones, and one they are not going to try to loose on purpose. If you want a faster Machine with faster components buy a BOXX. Apple wont go to the lengths that BOXX does, and no co processor will make a Mac that fast. But it will drive the price up that high.
Originally posted by onlooker
If Apple adds a co processor 5 to 10 other vendors will announce they will also be adding a co processor within a week.
You're right, but who else can make use of it? The others will have to wait 3 years till MS changes Windows, Apple could make that change in Mac OS X immediately.
But why add another co processor? There's already one - called GPU...
Originally posted by onlooker
and why is this thread named after a telephone company? MacTel is a telecommunications company. The Apple Macintosh is a computer. Get it straight.
I've always favoured the name Macintel. Mactel was a response to Wintel, which == Windows+Intel. So Macintosh+Intel should == Macintel
Amorya
Originally posted by Northgate
Mactel is easier to say. Two syllables.
It's already owned by MacTel though. You can't have two MacTels. Plus it sounds like crap.
Originally posted by onlooker
Also, Apple sells highend video cards for less than PC card manufacturers. Where is this big profit margin? When Apple announced that the Quadro was available on the Mac they had every QuadroFX 4500 Price beat by $200.00.
The profit margin is there because there IS a profit margin.
Apple sells the cards. You can only get the cards through Apple. Therefore, Apple makes the money.
You're trying to tell me they don't make anything off video cards? Wait what? $1,650 for a quadro.. what do you suppose kicks back to Apple from that.
And may I remind you that it's a $1,650 UPGRADE from the 6600, meaning that you have to add in the cost of the FX6600 before calculating the cost.
Apple doesn't offer the QuadroFX as an upgrade kit--you must buy it in a G5, or you don't get one. Now, take a look at pricewatch.com: FX4500 is $1,710. So let's do a little addition here, we'll use the pricewatch price because the 6600's price is cheaper there (Apple $200, pricewatch $135 including shipping):
$1,650 + $135 = $1,785
VERDICT: NOT CHEAPER.
"Wait!" you might say, "Apple's not competing with pricewatch so it doesn't count!"
The only reason Apple doesn't compete with pricewatch on VIDEO CARDS is because they MODIFY their cards before they put them in their computers.
That doesn't matter though, as I said before: even with low margins, there is still profit to be had. Apple rigging its cards to be mac-only ensures that APPLE will be making all the profit.
Why do they use modified cards if not to make sure that APPLE sells the only cards you can use in APPLES.
It may be a theory, but it could also be a fact: there's no reason those cards are modified other than to make them proprietary.
Oh but why would Apple do this? I assure you, it's the same reason Apple chose to use EFI instead of bios in their x86 mactels: so THEY could sell them.
Next you'll be telling me that too wasn't profit motivated
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I'm just saying: good luck finding alternatives to Apple on motherboards or video cards, as that's where their money is when they make computers... aside from maybe the iMac, where the most expensive component (wholesale) is probably the monitor.
It's just like the motherboard: You can't buy one of those off-the-shelf either.
Still seem nutty?
Originally posted by slughead
Why do they use modified cards if not to make sure that APPLE sells the only cards you can use in APPLES.
It may be a theory, but it could also be a fact: there's no reason those cards are modified other than to make them proprietary.
Oh but why would Apple do this? I assure you, it's the same reason Apple chose to use EFI instead of bios in their x86 mactels: so THEY could sell them.
Next you'll be telling me that too wasn't profit motivated
The primary reason to use OpenFirmware on PowerPC Macs and on PowerPC-Mac-installed video cards was innovation. The only prevalent alternative, BIOS, would have been a nightmare.
The primary reason to use EFI on Intel Macs and on Intel-Mac-installed video cards is innovation. The only prevalent alternative, BIOS, would have been a nightmare.
Profit is secondary.
Next you'll be telling me that Apple doesn't use Windows because Mac OS X puts more money in their own pockets.
Originally posted by Chucker
The primary reason to use OpenFirmware on PowerPC Macs and on PowerPC-Mac-installed video cards was innovation. The only prevalent alternative, BIOS, would have been a nightmare.
BIOS is not and was not not available in any PPC mobo out there.
Nor did it matter if Apple used BIOS or not, as PPC mobos that ran the chips Apple did were exclusively bought by Apple.
Originally posted by Chucker
The primary reason to use EFI on Intel Macs and on Intel-Mac-installed video cards is innovation. The only prevalent alternative, BIOS, would have been a nightmare.
OK, How? There are plenty of BIOS-using PCs running OS X thanks to the OSx86 project, which I'll talk about more in a couple lines.
Linux and Unix run fine on x86 machines which have BIOS. Makes little difference aside from a few things which Apple probably have to tinker with to use EFI.
Originally posted by Chucker
Profit is secondary.
Oh really? Why is apple trying to SHUT DOWN the OSx86 project, then?
Is that not profit-motivated?
Explain, please.
<EDIT> Since I'm pretty sure you're not going to read it, here's the article I just linked to:
Originally posted by arstechnica.com
Apple shuts down OSx86 Project forums
2/17/2006 2:37:17 PM, by Eric Bangeman
Since last summer's announcement that Apple would be shifting its entire computer product line to Intel processors, PC enthusiasts have been trying to answer two questions. Would we be able to run Windows natively on Macintel hardware, and would we be able to run Mac OS X on commodity PC hardware? So far, the answer to the first question has been negative, with little or no prospect for success until Vista ships later this year. The second question is a different matter. Apple doesn't want Mac OS X running on anything other than Apple hardware, and as a result, has slapped the OSx86 Project with a DMCA violation notice.
After Pentium 4 developer systems and Intel-native builds of Mac OS X were shipped out, copies of the x86-native Mac OS X began showing up in the usual places. Naturally, people started trying to get it running on commodity x86 hardware, and with some success. They needed somewhere to collaborate as well, so the OSx86 Project was born. Several months prior to the shipment of the iMac Core Duo, enthusiasts were able to get Mac OS X 10.4.3 running on PCs. Once the iMacs began shipping with 10.4.4 installed, hackers were having a much more difficult time getting OS X to run on non-Apple Intel and even AMD hardware. (One Russian site claims to have a workaround for 10.4.4).
The EULA for Mac OS X states explicitly that the OS is only licensed to run on Apple hardware. Apple may have been content to more or less ignore the OSx86 Project in the months after the transition began; now that there are Intel-based Macs available, Apple wants to be sure that its high-margin hardware sales are not eroded by people running its OS on Dells, HPs, and home-built systems. As the OSx86 Project forums were arguably the best resource for figuring out how to do exactly that, it makes sense that Apple would bust out the lawyering stick on them.
</edit>
Originally posted by Chucker
Next you'll be telling me that Apple doesn't use Windows because Mac OS X puts more money in their own pockets.
Most of the people who buy macs buy them to use OS X.
Corporations are profit-motivated. Everything they do is profit-motivated. If they didn't, people would not invest in them.
I'm a libertarian, I don't see anything morally wrong with Apple locking in their customers.. hell, I have a G5 for god's sake. The point is: video cards are among, if not the most, expensive part in a computer, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Apple only uses custom video cards.
Tell me why this is "definitely" wrong, and I'll shut up, but consider this: It's more expensive to make a slightly different card than what you'll be selling the most of, so Apple's paying extra to have these custom cards... wouldn't they want their computers cheaper?
The answer, in my view, is that they eat the added-cost of the modified off-the-shelf cards so that they have the priviledge of no competition. Also, they don't have to worry about market fluctuation. The 6600 does NOT cost $200 anymore, but that's what Apple still sells it for on their site. Why? because they don't have to compete.
Originally posted by onlooker
Also, Apple sells highend video cards for less than PC card manufacturers. Where is this big profit margin? When Apple announced that the Quadro was available on the Mac they had every QuadroFX 4500 Price beat by $200.00.
But the Quadro is a scam. The Quadro 4500 has the same performance as the 7800 GTX. Which would you rather buy, a $1600 Quadro or a $500 7800 GTX? Oh sorry, Apple refuses to sell you the GTX.
Originally posted by slughead
BIOS is not and was not not available in any PPC mobo out there.
That's irrelevant, as Apple designed the mobos on their own. IBM's PowerPC machines don't use OpenFirmware (they use something wholly different).
Nor did it matter if Apple used BIOS or not, as PPC mobos that ran the chips Apple did were exclusively bought by Apple.
Um. Yeah. And?
OK, How? There are plenty of BIOS-using PCs running OS X thanks to the OSx86 project, which I'll talk about more in a couple lines.
And? I don't remember talking about an OS. I talked about the Mac platform.
I'd like to see you implement a boot screen that, right from the start, is in the full and proper resolution, rather than some 320x240 256 color bullshit, as is the case in 90% of the machines out there. What, you think nobody fucking cares? Well, tell you what, I do, and I know I'm not alone. I really enjoy feeling like I'm not being screwed over and over again because my hardware vendor can't be bothered to throw away legacy shit. I really enjoy feeling that my hardware vendor is capable to get rid of floppy drives, of old-school serial and parallel buses and, yes, of extremely low-resolution video modes. I really enjoy that, even when I have to go do some maintenance stuff because my system is royally messed up, I can still work at 1024x768, because my system, and by that I mean the combination of software and hardware, is modern enough to actually provide the drivers automatically. Right from the start. Right from the very second you hit the power button. It's not rocket science.
Linux and Unix run fine on x86 machines which have BIOS. Makes little difference aside from a few things which Apple probably have to tinker with to use EFI.
See above.
Oh really? Why is apple trying to SHUT DOWN the OSx86 project, then?
Because it violates their EULA? Because it is, as such, piracy? Because Apple doesn't even currently provide boxed copies of OS X for Intel, so there's no way it's legal even in countries where EULAs are void?
Most of the people who buy macs buy them to use OS X.
They buy them to experience the Mac platform.
Corporations are profit-motivated. Everything they do is profit-motivated. If they didn't, people would not invest in them.
Nobody is arguing that.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Apple only uses custom video cards.
The only custom part is the firmware. That's all. If Apple were so excited about their custom stuff, they would have stuck with ADC.
Originally posted by wmf
But the Quadro is a scam. The Quadro 4500 has the same performance as the 7800 GTX. Which would you rather buy, a $1600 Quadro or a $500 7800 GTX? Oh sorry, Apple refuses to sell you the GTX.
You are so not getting the purpose of a QuadroFX video card. It's not intended for anyone other than a Pro 3D user. It's not a gaming card intended for the use of gamers, or casual users. It's a high-end Pro 3D card that had been requested by Pro 3D users. Your GTX comparatively doesn't do squat for Maya. And you do not get the same performance as the QuadroFX 4500 using a 7800 GTX in a Pro 3D content creation environment. If your thinking your supposed to use that card for regular use and spend that much money you are seriously stupid.
Originally posted by Chucker
I'd like to see you implement a boot screen that, right from the start, is in the full and proper resolution, rather than some 320x240 256 color bullshit, as is the case in 90% of the machines out there. What, you think nobody fucking cares? Well, tell you what, I do, and I know I'm not alone. I really enjoy feeling like I'm not being screwed over and over again because my hardware vendor can't be bothered to throw away legacy shit. I really enjoy feeling that my hardware vendor is capable to get rid of floppy drives, of old-school serial and parallel buses and, yes, of extremely low-resolution video modes. I really enjoy that, even when I have to go do some maintenance stuff because my system is royally messed up, I can still work at 1024x768, because my system, and by that I mean the combination of software and hardware, is modern enough to actually provide the drivers automatically. Right from the start. Right from the very second you hit the power button. It's not rocket science.
The POST screen, to which you refer, is about 1 or 2 seconds long on modern PCs and could be easily bypassed by not outputting to the monitor. I'd rather see a POST screen, personally, as it will tell me if there's something wrong.. but to each his/her own I guess.
And by the way, last time I checked, hitting the power button on my G5 took longer than 3 seconds to display the happy "apple" logo. Apple has a POST too, they just don't output it and in doing so it does nothing but conceal what your computer is doing.
As you're irrate and obviously emotional, I will not continue to respond to your post. Thank you for reading mine though.
(onlooker)
slughead, my statement was when Apple announced they were selling Quadro's they were selling them for about $200 less than anyone. At the time they were.
And my point was, it doesn't matter what Apple's margin is, as they make 100% of all profit from the resale quadro cards for mac, and BTW, this is due to them modifying the firmware in the cards. 10% margin on the sale of 100% 100,000 cards is more than a 15% margin on the sale of 20% of 150,000 cards. Of course, a savings of a mere $200/2000 is far more drastic, not to mention the fact that Apple's not changed the price of their quadro yet, whereas the market has lowered the price drastically. Ergo, Apple's probably making an even BIGGER margin than normal resellers right now while selling 100% of all quadro cards for mac.
Could it be a coincidence? Sounds to me it's a few tens of millions of dollars Apple couldn't make if that "coincidence" weren't there. Even if it is a coincidence, if you remember correctly I said:
Apple WILL NEVER use off-the-shelf cards.
This is why I think that: they'd make less money, period.
That is assuming they don't use something like WINE and just replace Windows libraries on the fly.
Originally posted by Xool
Think Apple will offer Windows as a CTO option on the Apple Store? Mac OS X would always be available but you'd have an option to dual-boot or run Windows as a Virtual Machine.
That is assuming they don't use something like WINE and just replace Windows libraries on the fly.
Not unless MS releases windows for macintel. Even then, I give it 50/50
Originally posted by slughead
Apple has a POST too, they just don't output it and in doing so it does nothing but conceal what your computer is doing.
Well, that proves you completely missed the point. Good job though.
Originally posted by slughead
And my point was, it doesn't matter what Apple's margin is, as they make 100% of all profit from the resale quadro cards for mac, and BTW, this is due to them modifying the firmware in the cards. 10% margin on the sale of 100% 100,000 cards is more than a 15% margin on the sale of 20% of 150,000 cards. Of course, a savings of a mere $200/2000 is far more drastic, not to mention the fact that Apple's not changed the price of their quadro yet, whereas the market has lowered the price drastically. Ergo, Apple's probably making an even BIGGER margin than normal resellers right now while selling 100% of all quadro cards for mac.
Could it be a coincidence? Sounds to me it's a few tens of millions of dollars Apple couldn't make if that "coincidence" weren't there. Even if it is a coincidence, if you remember correctly I said:
Apple WILL NEVER use off-the-shelf cards.
This is why I think that: they'd make less money, period.
I guess I'll just have to agree that we just disagree because I'm too tired to keep reading your nonsense. Your thinking is clearly distorted and bias. Not necessarily towards Apple, but your afraid of something. Who knows what. Nevertheless you have no quarrels of pulling figures, and statements out of your ass that you can not prove. Therefore I'm done reading your posts. You wouldn't happen to be Ryan Meader (MOSR) would you?
Originally posted by onlooker
Your thinking is clearly distorted and bias. Not necessarily towards Apple, but your afraid of something. Who knows what.
The numbers, as even a "clear thinking" individual can see, point to the fact that Apple makes more money doing what it does in the way of video cards than if it changed.
Therefore, I don't think Apple will change. Is that so "nonsensical" ?
Originally posted by onlooker
Nevertheless you have no quarrels of pulling figures, and statements out of your ass that you can not prove.
The "figures" I used were examples to prove a logical point--that Apple makes more money now than it would using off-the-shelf cards.
I really don't see how that's wrong, and you haven't really said anything that's lead me to believe otherwise (or have even attempted to).
Originally posted by onlooker
You wouldn't happen to be Ryan Meader (MOSR) would you?
Haha, no. MOSR is too fanboyish to even consider Apple makes a penny off anything. I used to post as "slughead" there to get tech support, but this place is better for that too.