Investors probe Apple's Jobs on successor, games, future products

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by archer75 View Post


    Mac mini for a home server? No where near enough storage. I'm running Windows Home Server now with 2.5tb of storage and I need another hard drive soon. And I built it for far less than $1500.



    How are you dealing with the well known loss of data problem?



    Also, the Mini can easily be configured with one of the HDD options that fit directly under the computer, and plug into the Firewire jack. You can add a Terabyte drive, and the server software, and have a small, neat, server, for less than $1,500, that works much more reliably than the dangerous thing you are using, and put it into a small space.
  • Reply 62 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    You're right. I Mega messed that one up.



    I though it was a play on words. Now, I'm disappointed.



    Besides, no matter what the frequency is, it's still a tone.
  • Reply 63 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    My question now... was $200 AAPL's last hurrah?



    Do you believe the stock will be locked in around $150—180 for several years, or is it all downhill from here? With Steve's successor being called into question, the sub-prime disaster sending the US economy into an extended funk, possible unfriendly capital gains tax measures under a Clinton or Obama presidency (not guaranteed, mind you)... where do you see AAPL over the next one to five years?



    I think the looming recession will depress the price for a while. But it's thought that it will end around the time of the election, or a short time after.



    So, it depends on Apple's sales during the period. If they are not as good as they otherwise would have been, but better then they would now be expected to be, then the stock will move up.



    If sales rebound well afterwards, then the stock should bound upwards.



    I don't see capital gains changes, if any, causing a problem. I welcome it.



    What people don't know, is that taxes were vastly higher in the '50's, but investment was never higher, and stock prices were jumping.



    Wealth making is not affected by taxes. That's a conservative myth. What is affected by tax rates is charitable giving. The lower the rates, the lower the giving. That mostly affects those on the top, as they are more adversly affected by high rates. People who want to create wealth for themselves won't stop because of tax rates, though they do change their strategy somewhat.



    Also, you only are affected by taxes when you sell taxable securities. Even if you own those, standard income tax rates will still be higher. Capital gains will always offer an advantage. And, money is money no matter what the tax rate is.
  • Reply 64 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zanshin View Post


    Hell, it would be nice if he just shut up about SJ not "undertaking" higher education all the damn time.



    I get the feeling he's one of those part-time retail clerks with multiple advanced degrees, who tells people he belongs to MENSA and lives with his Mom.





    Possibly.



    I often notice that a number of unsuccessful people love to pile it on those who are successful.
  • Reply 65 of 80
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Possibly.



    I often notice that a number of unsuccessful people love to pile it on those who are successful.



    Agreed. The everlasting burr in the saddle of intellectuals is that one needn't be a genius to be rich. I've met plenty of 'average' millionaires.
  • Reply 66 of 80
    archer75archer75 Posts: 204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    How are you dealing with the well known loss of data problem?



    Also, the Mini can easily be configured with one of the HDD options that fit directly under the computer, and plug into the Firewire jack. You can add a Terabyte drive, and the server software, and have a small, neat, server, for less than $1,500, that works much more reliably than the dangerous thing you are using, and put it into a small space.



    I have no such data loss. The issue is of some files becoming corrupted when editing them remotely. I have no issue with that. I do not editing those type of files remotely. I primarily use it for storing my immense HD movie collection and stream it to my HTPC. But it also holds by pictures, music, home videos and other files.

    And it also backs up the other windows machines on my network.



    Great, a mini can give me 1tb of storage. I'm jumping for joy. I need far more. And I need redundancy. I'm happy with my WHS. If I wasen't i'd go to unraid. On the mac side there is absolutely nothing that will work for me. I could connect an external to a mini. Maybe more. But it won't create a single storage pool of all my data and it won't give me redundancy.
  • Reply 67 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by archer75 View Post


    I have no such data loss. The issue is of some files becoming corrupted when editing them remotely. I have no issue with that. I do not editing those type of files remotely. I primarily use it for storing my immense HD movie collection and stream it to my HTPC. But it also holds by pictures, music, home videos and other files.

    And it also backs up the other windows machines on my network.



    Great, a mini can give me 1tb of storage. I'm jumping for joy. I need far more. And I need redundancy. I'm happy with my WHS. If I wasen't i'd go to unraid. On the mac side there is absolutely nothing that will work for me. I could connect an external to a mini. Maybe more. But it won't create a single storage pool of all my data and it won't give me redundancy.



    That's amazing, since the problems are severe, and the expanding list of programs not recommended to work with it is growing every day. MS has so far released a fix, which has not fixed the problem, and has even been considered to have increased it. Just don't add extra disks, as that's a major cause of concern.



    http://arstechnica.com/journals/micr...-in-whs-backup



    http://arstechnica.com/journals/micr...-whs-bug-grows



    With the Mini, you can add more disks, and there's no data loss, as you're using a real server OS. You can go RAID, you can mirror, etc.
  • Reply 68 of 80
    archer75archer75 Posts: 204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    That's amazing, since the problems are severe, and the expanding list of programs not recommended to work with it is growing every day. MS has so far released a fix, which has not fixed the problem, and has even been considered to have increased it. Just don't add extra disks, as that's a major cause of concern.



    http://arstechnica.com/journals/micr...-in-whs-backup



    http://arstechnica.com/journals/micr...-whs-bug-grows



    With the Mini, you can add more disks, and there's no data loss, as you're using a real server OS. You can go RAID, you can mirror, etc.



    The problems are rare. You are exaggerating. Like I said, I have no problems. Most people don't. But there are those occasions where data corruption does occur for the minority. Just don't edit an app on the server with one of those apps. Though I have used 3 such apps on that list and have had no file corruption.



    I have added extra discs without problems. In fact I now have 7 hard drives in my server. How am I to add 7 internal hard drives, all of varying sizes to a single storage pool on a mac mini?

    I would need 7 external enclosures along with a hub. That's 7 hard drives all plugged into a power strip and producing a ton of heat. That's 7 enclosures I have to buy. (make that 8, I do need another hard drive) Not to mention that Leopard server costs a fortune. WHS is a real server OS. It's windows server 2003.

    The problem with raid is that if you use discs of different sizes you end up losing alot of space. Raid 5 is not happy with varying disk sizes.

    The costs involved in doing this the apple way would cost a fortune. I could use unraid, which does what I want. I could grab any linux distro and use my existing hardware. But WHS works well for me so i'm happy.
  • Reply 69 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by archer75 View Post


    The problems are rare. You are exaggerating. Like I said, I have no problems. Most people don't. But there are those occasions where data corruption does occur for the minority.



    I have added extra discs without problems. In fact I now have 7 hard drives in my server. How am I to add 7 internal hard drives, all of varying sizes to a single storage pool on a mac mini?

    I would need 7 external enclosures along with a hub. That's 7 hard drives all plugged into a power strip and producing a ton of heat. That's 7 enclosures I have to buy. (make that 8, I do need another hard drive) Not to mention that Leopard server costs a fortune. WHS is a realy server OS. It's windows server 2003.

    The problem with raid is that if you use discs of different sizes you end up losing alot of space. Raid 5 is not happy with varying disk sizes.

    The costs involved in doing this the apple way would cost a fortune. I could use unraid, which does what I want. I could grab any linux distro and use my existing hardware. But WHS works well for me so i'm happy.



    I'm not exaggerating anything. Read the articles. There are others that say to stop using it altogether, as the problems are more widespread than thought. The risk isn't mine.



    You don't need 7 or 8 HDD enclosures, as you know. You can get a single enclosure if you really need that many. It can be a hotswap enclosure if really needed. I've used many of those over the years. If you have so many HDD's, you aren't slipping them all into your PC case either, and your system will cost much more than the $1,500 you stated.



    The power requirements are the same whether you are doing it the way you now do, or move to a Mac based system.



    WHS is not Server 2003. It has some of the same code, but is much simpler (which is why it's called "home" server), and has problems, as noted, that Server 2003 (about to be replaced with Server 2008) does not have.



    Good luck. Don't make the mistake of changing a name on any of your files from the server.
  • Reply 70 of 80
    archer75archer75 Posts: 204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I'm not exaggerating anything. Read the articles. There are others that say to stop using it altogether, as the problems are more widespread than thought. The risk isn't mine.



    You don't need 7 or 8 HDD enclosures, as you know. You can get a single enclosure if you really need that many. It can be a hotswap enclosure if really needed. I've used many of those over the years. If you have so many HDD's, you aren't slipping them all into your PC case either, and your system will cost much more than the $1,500 you stated.



    The power requirements are the same whether you are doing it the way you now do, or move to a Mac based system.



    WHS is not Server 2003. It has some of the same code, but is much simpler (which is why it's called "home" server), and has problems, as noted, that Server 2003 (about to be replaced with Server 2008) does not have.



    Good luck. Don't make the mistake of changing a name on any of your files from the server.



    In my case I have room for a dozen hard drives. And yes, I do have my 7 hard drives all in there.

    Going your route would cost me an absolute fortune compared to what I paid to build my own server.

    I used an old motherboard and cpu and optical drive. I bought a modular PSU, 2 promise SATA cards and the case. All of which was under $300. Most of the hard drives I already had, collecting dust. Which is why WHS is so great, I can use any drive of any size and it will be added to the storage pool. Even if I purchased all the parts I needed, brand new, I could get it all for under $1000. Which is what a mini and Leopard server would cost me alone. Not too mention the insane price of an enclosure to house all my hard drives.

    I can see no good reason whatsoever to use apple products to accomplish what I want in a server. Especially when I already have the hardware I need to do this in Windows or even in Linux. If I could get a hackintosh copy of Leopard server and if it would run on my hardware and if RAID wouldn't cause me to lose space due to varying sizes across all my hard drives i'd do it. I like OSX.

    WHS IS server 2003. The stripped down Server OS with WHS running in it. You want a screenshot? The features of WHS run on Server 2003.



    I can rename files on my server just fine. There is no data corruption. I do it all day long.
  • Reply 71 of 80
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,427member
    THANK YOU GEEKSTUD____THE ABOVE POST NAILED IT.

    i have multiplle computers and all have some music some photos some documents and to find the one i want i have to go through all of them i've been asking for an apple solution home server from some time i'd love to scan to the server, have it connected to my backup that's bootable for each computer keep things apple simple

    again

    thanks
  • Reply 72 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by archer75 View Post


    In my case I have room for a dozen hard drives. And yes, I do have my 7 hard drives all in there.

    Going your route would cost me an absolute fortune compared to what I paid to build my own server.

    I used an old motherboard and cpu and optical drive. I bought a modular PSU, 2 promise SATA cards and the case. All of which was under $300. Most of the hard drives I already had, collecting dust. Which is why WHS is so great, I can use any drive of any size and it will be added to the storage pool. Even if I purchased all the parts I needed, brand new, I could get it all for under $1000. Which is what a mini and Leopard server would cost me alone. Not too mention the insane price of an enclosure to house all my hard drives.

    I can see no good reason whatsoever to use apple products to accomplish what I want in a server. Especially when I already have the hardware I need to do this in Windows or even in Linux. If I could get a hackintosh copy of Leopard server and if it would run on my hardware and if RAID wouldn't cause me to lose space due to varying sizes across all my hard drives i'd do it. I like OSX.

    WHS IS server 2003. The stripped down Server OS with WHS running in it. You want a screenshot? The features of WHS run on Server 2003.



    I can rename files on my server just fine. There is no data corruption. I do it all day long.



    As I said, good luck as, you seem to be doing what is not recommended.
  • Reply 73 of 80
    jobs said about iphone blogging.. what does that mean? wouldn't it be a paint to blog form your iphone anyways?
  • Reply 74 of 80
    areseearesee Posts: 776member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekstud View Post


    This product, which I have been advocating to Apple for several years, is needed to form the base of today's modern multi-computer home. The new Time Machine network base station or hanging a USB drive off of an Airport Extreme is a start toward the solution, but still lacks some important server functionality such as providing a common "home directory" for each user that can be accessed from multiple devices. Rather than a more traditional fixed "home directory" server scheme, I envision more of a core home directory component with (possibly) multiple additional segments located on various external devices that are synced up like a laptop when within the home LAN.



    Here are some "simple" things I would like to be able to do with this product in a home with the following collection of Apple products:



    - 1 x Apple Home Server

    - 2 x Macbooks

    - 2 x iMac, one newer Intel, one older G4/G5

    - 2 x iPhone

    - 1 x iPod Nano



    1. I'd like each of five members of the family to have a central user account setup with a home directory on the server with easy to administer storage limits so the kids can't accidentally fill the storage space.



    2. Each user should be able to login (if permitted) to each desktop/laptop using a single username/password sign-on that would give access to the central server storage. For example, the kids would be able to login to the iMacs and one of the Macbooks, but not the other "work" Macbook.



    3. Each user can optionally also be designated a "local user" to each desktop/laptop with additional local storage and access to the device outside of the home LAN. So, Mom would be both a local user on her Macbook but would also have central storage space available when on the home LAN, and could optionally designate some of the local storage to be synced (for backup, general use, etc.) when at home (or triggered over an Internet connection).



    4. Easy central sharing of iTunes, iPhotos, iMovies, etc. that works seamlessly across all devices.



    5. Easy sharing of multiple Address Books (like multiple calendars online): imagine a central "family" Address Book than every device should by synced to as well as local user additions to it that remain separately controlled.



    Much of this functionally can be put together using a combination of existing server products and plenty of blood, sweat and tears. I don't want that anymore - and I'm a 20 year IT systems geek. I want the average non-geek home user to be able to set this up with some mouse clicks. Simply put, I want Apple to deliver the home server solution "For the rest of Us" at an obtainable price. This product space is wide open and waiting for Apple to deliver it with elegant design and engineering that makes it look easy.



    I've been waiting for this also.



    With Address Book I would like to be able to share, or not, multiple contact lists. I do not care for the current all or nothing approach we currently have. We also need to be able to share, or not, our calendar events, movies, music and photos. This can all be done with a home server. (Note people, we are talking software here not hardware.)
  • Reply 75 of 80
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    My question now... was $200 AAPL's last hurrah?



    Do you believe the stock will be locked in around $150?180 for several years, or is it all downhill from here? With Steve's successor being called into question, the sub-prime disaster sending the US economy into an extended funk, possible unfriendly capital gains tax measures under a Clinton or Obama presidency (not guaranteed, mind you)... where do you see AAPL over the next one to five years?



    That really depends on their ability to retain users and adapt.
  • Reply 76 of 80
    Quote:

    If apple wants to get serious about gaming we need to be able to upgrade the video card in the consumer level macs.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 77 of 80
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    From Glenda Adams, who's earned her living porting and publishing games on the Mac, via Gamasutra:



    Quote:

    [Q.] So to generally improve the status of Mac game development, is the answer simply greater market share for Macs?



    [A.] Unfortunately, I don't think market share is the answer. For years, that's all we hoped for -- more Mac market share would mean more game sales. But Apple has doubled the number of Macs they sell per quarter, and game sales haven't gone up. So now I believe it is more of a retail and marketing issue. There just aren't enough places to buy Mac games. Sometimes the amount of space devoted to Mac games in retail stores can be very limited.



    Having a well-established digital distribution service on the Mac, like Steam, would be one answer. Or, Apple selling games through iTunes would help solve some of the shelf space problem.



    The next problem is exaggerated by the relatively small size of the Mac market, but it's no less real for that:



    Quote:

    Right now, the biggest technical challenges are the rapid changes in video cards and drivers Apple has been releasing for the various Mac models. The release of Leopard has meant Apple's OpenGL resources seem to be focused primarily on the new OS. It's been harder than usual for us to get fixes for GL issues in older versions of OS X.



    This has been compounded by a lot of turnover in the video hardware included with new Mac models.



    [...]



    I'd love to see Apple come up with a uniform way to release OpenGL updates across all their operating systems and hardware. Similar to what Microsoft does with Direct3D -- although obviously, you have the secondary issue of lower-level ATI [and] nVidia drivers on the PC -- give game developers a good target graphics layer with stability, performance, and functionality that runs across Macs from those just released to ones that are a few years old. This would really cut our development and testing time, allowing us to get titles to market faster.



    The Mac will never be a hardcore gamer's platform. Windows won that battle. The best it can promise is good gaming performance. The Apple gaming console is out, and it's the iPhone/iPod Touch. Now that's actually interesting: Game companies coding to that platform are using Cocoa, OpenGL (embedded version, but still) and OpenAL, and the distribution that Adams hopes for is set up through iTunes. Maybe Apple can coax the game companies from the iPT to an enhanced AppleTV. They might even possibly be able to get them to the Mac. But those are both variously unlikely and really not important. The Mac is trapped in a catch-22 gaming wise with no easy way out. The iPhone/iPod Touch has already solved both of the problems that Adams identifies and it's already attracting major publishers. It won't run Crysis any time soon, but again, we've lost that battle.
  • Reply 78 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Amorph View Post


    From Glenda Adams, who's earned her living porting and publishing games on the Mac, via Gamasutra:



    The next problem is exaggerated by the relatively small size of the Mac market, but it's no less real for that:



    The Mac will never be a hardcore gamer's platform. Windows won that battle. The best it can promise is good gaming performance. The Apple gaming console is out, and it's the iPhone/iPod Touch. Now that's actually interesting: Game companies coding to that platform are using Cocoa, OpenGL (embedded version, but still) and OpenAL, and the distribution that Adams hopes for is set up through iTunes. Maybe Apple can coax the game companies from the iPT to an enhanced AppleTV. They might even possibly be able to get them to the Mac. But those are both variously unlikely and really not important. The Mac is trapped in a catch-22 gaming wise with no easy way out. The iPhone/iPod Touch has already solved both of the problems that Adams identifies and it's already attracting major publishers. It won't run Crysis any time soon, but again, we've lost that battle.



    The iPod/iTouch game issue is very different from the Mac computer game issue. So much so, that it's irrelevant to the latter altogether.



    While she's somewhat correct in what she's saying, she isn't entirely correct either.



    It's true that Mac game developers don't have the wide distribution channels that PC game developers have. But, it's still a matter of marketshare. You better believe it!



    Just because the Mac has increased in sales significantly, doesn't mean that there are enough sales. Right now, sales marketshare reached about 7%. That's the highest it's been for many years.



    But, overall, what is the percentage of Intel Macs out there? Not nearly as much as even that low number, perhaps 4.5%.



    That's a 19 to 1 ratio of PCs to Macs. Few developers are going to think that it's much more of a market than when it was 35 to 1. Considering that Mac development costs the same as PC development, and that development now can cost millions per game, the Mac market is seen as barely being able to compete for cheap game development.



    Apple doesn't help, but it's still a game of numbers.
  • Reply 79 of 80
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    The big issues on the computer side when it comes to gaming are really four fold:



    a) OpenGL. The OpenGL board moves molasses slow when it comes to updates, so OpenGL is pretty far behind Direct X. In addition, Apple is even slower to adopt those changes.



    b) The OpenGL implementation in OSX is really geared more towards things like core animation and quartz than it is 3D applications. Its really slow compared to even OGL2.1 on the windows side.



    c) The drivers aren't all that good and lately its been even worse.



    d) Apple is indifferent towards gaming at best.
  • Reply 80 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    The big issues on the computer side when it comes to gaming are really four fold:



    a) OpenGL. The OpenGL board moves molasses slow when it comes to updates, so OpenGL is pretty far behind Direct X. In addition, Apple is even slower to adopt those changes.



    b) The OpenGL implementation in OSX is really geared more towards things like core animation and quartz than it is 3D applications. Its really slow compared to even OGL2.1 on the windows side.



    c) The drivers aren't all that good and lately its been even worse.



    d) Apple is indifferent towards gaming at best.



    There's an additional one.



    DirectX doesn't always map to OpenGL. That causes problems, in both performance and visualization. When PC games implement DX 10 more widely, probably later this year, the situation will only get worse.
Sign In or Register to comment.