Apple to update Mac OS X Tiger retail offerings

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 26
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by michaelb

    Technically, there's no reason software can't be shipped in razor thin CD jewel cases, stacked flat against each other on the shelf.



    But they just wouldn't stand out and many buyers would feel they were getting a $10 CD rather than a $129 operating system.




    I rather think they should put software CDs in thin jewel cases or even sleeves. The only thing they'd have to change is to get rid of shelves and use flip racks like in music stores. Of course, I'm old enough to remember and miss the days when LPs had nice, big cover art. Those were the days. For years after the CD arrived, the music companies still resisted going with bare jewel cases with their tiny cover art, enclosing the cases in long cardboard boxes instead, but it still wasn't the same as a permanent 12x12" album cover.



    Also, there may be a touch of theft-prevention there in not having expensive software in ultrathin packages. Not much, mind you, considering anyone who's really savvy enough would probably just download the warez off P2P or something instead of risking arrest for shoplifting.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 26
    bikertwinbikertwin Posts: 574member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ireland

    me Tarzan no agree



    Is mise Bikertwin. Is maith liom Origami! Cén fáth nÃ* maith leat é?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 26
    peharripeharri Posts: 169member
    Are they going to make this one Universal Binary/Intel compatible, or are we going to have to wait until Leopard for that?



    It'd be nice if those running OS X on non-Macs had the option of paying Apple for a paid-for copy. Yes, technically you might be violating the EULA, but then it becomes a contract dispute, not a copyright issue.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 26
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by lundy

    As much as we may want it to be the last time, it's not going to be.



    Per say

    Your a looser

    Wallah (or "viola")

    for all intensive purposes

    The Way We Where

    Isreal

    moran

    seperate

    it's



    etc. etc. ad nauseam.




    ad hominum



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 26
    Large retail boxes were hard to change to small, because larger boxes meant more "frontage" devoted to the product, making it easier for the consumer to see on the shelf. Manufacturers were reluctant to downsize because it meant giving up frontage to competing products, making their products potentially less visible.



    The growing environmental concerns of the public, combined with the ever-growing costs of the packaging, are getting manufacturers' attention, resulting in smaller packages.



    About time!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Sekio

    I've never understood why software makers need such huge boxes anyway. So wasteful.



    Remember the boxes software used to come in in the mid '90's? Those things were huge!




    Shelf space. Catching the consumer's eye in the store.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.