It may be a contract but it is not really enforceable because it is not a signed and legally executed document. Breach of contract is a very minor issue especially when the terms and rights claimed are written as broadly as these EULAs usually are. Yes it is a contract, but a very weak one.
Not entirely true. Most courts have held that simply opening the sealed package that has clearly defined the consequences of such action is binding. Afterall, even a handshake is binding.
Yes it is a contract. And yes can be perceived as a weak one. But only if you have the resources to fight it in court.
Perhaps you should ask your company whether they regard EULAs as binding, and what would happen to you if you defied the EULA on one of their machines.
When you buy a copy of software (or music or movies), you DO NOT own it. You've purchased a license to use it and that license comes with terms of usage.
There are way too many people who do not understand the concept of copyright or intellectual property and I think that is where the problem lies. You can try to challenge the laws (as this company is trying to do with their Open Computers) but until the laws change (and they are not likely going to be), you need to understand how these laws work.
Again, you are buying the right to use ... you do not buy ownership of the product.
I understand the intricacies of copyrights and the right to use concept, I just thought it was too dull to talk about here
My point was that if they sell the items in the proper order (Machine, then software, then installation) that any violation of user agreements has passed to the consumer and the Apple would probably not go after the consumers directly. But like someone else mentioned, if they pre-install OSX then it seems like they have crossed the line.
The original poster was therefore being a little bit dishonest in his comparison as he failed to mention the monitor that Apple will charge you $600 for and the RAID that Apple will charge you $800 for. A fair comparison should be done on a like for like basis.
The T7400 is $4277 with the 320GB and 20" WS UltraSharp.
The Mac Pro is $3398 with the 20" ACD.
Both with software RAID.
Even if you deduct the 20" Ultrasharp the Dell is still $3,928.
I'm glad you now seem to understand somewhat, but not completely. You can be sued for any reason, by anyone. The EULA does not give someone special permission to sue you. It simply shows that the software maker expected you to read it and is operating under the assumption that you agreed to it. That's all. It has no legal authority over someone who buys a copy of the software, and like you said you are not breaking any laws by violating any restrictions that are not laws. And breaking that assumed contract (again, nobody can prove you read it and actually agreed to it, which is why EULAs are joke compared to real contracts) in a manner which does not violate any laws does not give anyone legal precedent to claim damages they otherwise couldn't claim with or without an EULA.
EULAs are mostly just "you can't sue me if we deny you warranty or tech support for doing xxx" and "if you sue us we can use this to say we warned you." It's about denying liability. It has absolutely zero legal authority over you. If they want to sue you for non-illegal violations, it doesn't help them at all, nor do they require it just to file a lawsuit.
I NOW seem to understand? That's actually funny! I haven't changed what I said, only explained it more completely to you, so that now YOU seem to understand somewhat. But, not entirely.
The EULA does give the holder the right to sue you. The EULA is a binding document, as are all contracts. Or don't you believe in contract law?
Most states even have the "shrink-wrap" contract law, in which you agree to the EULA (contract) as soon as you open the wrapper, without even having seen it, much less read it!
It's not that you are breaking the law, in the way you seem to think some of us are saying, but that the law does back the legality of contracts. Otherwise, there would be no civil couart system in place where it could be inforced. It would simply be a provate agreement, with no penalties possible.
You can go to trial, where a real judge, and a real jury decides whether the contract was violated. And, as the case, the EULA is recognized as a valid contract. If it weren't recognized by law, that wouldn't be the case.
As you are so set against this, why don't you provide some legitimate links proving your point, as you seem to be avoiding reading the information provided by mine, which contain the actual laws in question?
This won't be such a big problem if Psystar installs Tiger instead of Leopard on their systems.
There most likely won't be any more updates to Tiger, so they can be sure that there won't be any iPhone-style bricking, and Leopard hasn't added very much functionality anyways (other than boot camp, biweekly fixes and lots of crashing...)
I'm still getting Security Updates from Apple for Tiger.
It may be a contract but it is not really enforceable because it is not a signed and legally executed document. Breach of contract is a very minor issue especially when the terms and rights claimed are written as broadly as these EULAs usually are. Yes it is a contract, but a very weak one.
It isn't a "weak" contract. If it can be proven to have been violated then it can be taken to court. It's then up to the jury to decide, as it is with everything, unless both sides agree to have a judge decide instead.
This is one reason why the RIAA, ill advised as it may be, can do what it's doing. Sometimes it wins, and sometimes it loses, you're right as it's a matter of proof. But, if the proof is there, they will win.
And YES the Dell system does include RAID. The Non-Raid configuration is there because there is only one hard drive configured in the system, If you want to add more drives to the system the RAID controller is already there included in the base price. (A quick look at the system on the Dell website will confirm this).
With the Mac Pro you can also add more drives but in order to have RAID you must pay $800 for the RAID controller.
The only way to do a true comparison must be to perform a like for like comparison otherwise it is useless as a comparison. So i make the Dell $400 cheaper than the mac.
The argument could be that Dell force you to pay for a RAID controller whether you want one or not whereas Apple give you the option and it is a fair argument. But I would imagine that Dell have taken the approach that anyone using systems this powerful and expensive would have something pretty serious running on the hard drives and therefore not using RAID would be a pretty silly thing to be doing. I would probably go along with that viewpoint to be honest.
Hey, don't get me wrong, $400 more for a system like this? I would go for the Mac Pro, It is a nice system and runs OSX. This is not an anti-Apple post, but this is 'be realistic' post, if you truly believe that the Mac is the better deal then great, say so. But be honest about it, by fudging the figures it makes you look like you do not really believe what you are saying and just trying to be the blind Apple fanboy.
You don't need to have a controller to have RAID on a Mac, any Mac, even the Mini.
I understand the intricacies of copyrights and the right to use concept, I just thought it was too dull to talk about here
My point was that if they sell the items in the proper order (Machine, then software, then installation) that any violation of user agreements has passed to the consumer and the Apple would probably not go after the consumers directly. But like someone else mentioned, if they pre-install OSX then it seems like they have crossed the line.
The interesting thing here is that they can sell the machine, but must be a licensed dealer to sell Apple products as new.
If Apple were to give them an agreement to be a licensed dealer of the OS, then they could sell that as well, otherwise no.
But, under no circumstances could they install the software themselves.
Even if the are allowed, bt Apple, to sell the software, they can't say that the customer should buy their machine for the express purpose of doing so, as that would lead them to be the cause of their customers violating the software license, and as they were profiting from those sales, they could be held to a higher standard of copyright violation, that MAY be elevated to the criminal level. That's difficult to say, but, at least, they could be sued out of business.
As to the price of memory and upgrading video cards, well anyone who has been using a Mac for a while knows you don't buy these things from Apple.
Not entirely true.
Apple has always been accused of 'over' pricing and often it is an 'over' simplication of the truth.
For example as shown here, most often comparative price shopping has not been accurately tabled. Turns out the Mac is cheaper than a 'comparative' Dell and the Psystar may not represent the true value as declared.
Having bought/procured hundreds of new Macs for myself, my company and my clients, buying them off the shelf fully 'loaded' from Apple can be a lot cheaper and faster than sourcing, purchasing, transporting, installing, testing and guaranteeing options than doing it myself or hiring or outsourcing service personnel.
Upgrading is another matter. Providing of course you know what you are doing. And more often than not, most aren't in the 'capable' category.
And before anybody challenges my opinion, just how many of us buy a 'basic' car and go to Cosco for the tires, or buy a frame house and join Direct Buy (and that is joke) to finish it.
In any event, Apple has made it exceptionally easy to upgrade RAM. Something I wouldn't hesitate to do myself. My wife is another matter.
go pick up a shiity 19" LCD at Best Buy for $120 - it'll be better than the "free" 19" you get with teh dell. for $1000 more than the apple. with a smaller hard drive. and "worse" ram.
It isn't a "weak" contract. If it can be proven to have been violated then it can be taken to court. It's then up to the jury to decide, as it is with everything, unless both sides agree to have a judge decide instead.
This is one reason why the RIAA, ill advised as it may be, can do what it's doing. Sometimes it wins, and sometimes it loses, you're right as it's a matter of proof. But, if the proof is there, they will win.
Same here.
There is an old saying:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
It actually holds up in court.
Melgross, you are usually a smart guy but you are wrong in this one aspect.. EULA's are extremely weak. For example, what if the EULA was in English but I only understood Spanish?. Can a court force somone to agree to a contract that they didn't understand?... if that was so, the Pre-nup that Jack Kent Cook signed with his ex-wife would have held up.. i believed she argued something similar (that becuase she did not have a lawyer, she did not understand the contract as it was drawn up). Yes, it's still a contract but it's weak. I suspect companies do not challenge it because all companies have EULA.. why would microsoft for example challenge the EULA of another company when they too have EULA's?. Acually, by PsyStar challenging apple EULA, they are setting themselves up (if the court agree with them) for consumers to ignore their EULA, not something any company would look forward to.
To be honest, I suspect if an individual hired a top lawyer and took a company to court for it's EULA, they would have a very good chance of winning. It depends on whether PsyStar has a very good lawyer.
go pick up a shiity 19" LCD at Best Buy for $120 - it'll be better than the "free" 19" you get with teh dell. for $1000 more than the apple. with a smaller hard drive. and "worse" ram.
That's not adequate.. dell is giving you a dell monitor. If i buy an equivalent apple system, i expect then an apple monitor. If you want to take that argument to the extreme.. then i could compare the dell system without any ram and no network card, etc just to get it cheaper than the mac and then buy those from best buy.
We are comparing systems here from the original vendor. Apple Zealots always state that apple monitors are better than any other monitors.. why if i am buying an apple instead of a dell would i want some shiity 19'' LCD from best buy?. I'd want an apple monitor right?. Is it Dell fault their monitors are cheaper than Apple (dell doesn't work in the apple pricing department).
Naw, sorry, you don't get away with comparing a mac with a dell and then say buy some generic monitor. That's not how systems comparison works.
To be honest, I suspect if an individual hired a top lawyer and took a company to court for it's EULA, they would have a very good chance of winning. It depends on whether PsyStar has a very good lawyer.
Except that folks have done that (well, you'll have to assess whether they had a "top" lawyer or not) and lost. Likely the EFF has at a minimum "decent" laywers (who have defended cases all the way to SCOTUS) and they lost the BNet case based on EULA and DMCA.
If PsyStar had a good lawyer they'd likely have advised them better thus far.
We are comparing systems here from the original vendor. Apple Zealots always state that apple monitors are better than any other monitors.. why if i am buying an apple instead of a dell would i want some shiity 19'' LCD from best buy?. I'd want an apple monitor right?. Is it Dell fault their monitors are cheaper than Apple (dell doesn't work in the apple pricing department).
Naw, sorry, you don't get away with comparing a mac with a dell and then say buy some generic monitor. That's not how systems comparison works.
Too bad it's still cheaper for the mac:
The T7400 is $3928 with the 320GB and free 19" monitor.
The Mac Pro is $3398 with the 20" ACD.
With the Dell UltraSharp 20"WS it's $4277.
This is from the post several messages back that you convienently ignored.
It isn't a "weak" contract. If it can be proven to have been violated then it can be taken to court. It's then up to the jury to decide, as it is with everything, unless both sides agree to have a judge decide instead.
Many legally executed binding agreements have language such as the following:
"In the event that any portion of this Agreement is held unenforceable, the unenforceable portion shall be construed in accordance with applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of the parties, and the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full force and effect."
The whole notion that by clicking a button, you are bound to the terms and the stated rights claimed by the EULA is a little shaky. It would be much stronger if you signed it in blue ink and it was witnessed, dated, notarized etc. Of course that would be ridiculous, but it would be stronger. So relatively speaking it is weak.
i think the point is fairly well heeled though, that the rep from the "clone" "manufacturer" is *completely* off base when it comes to Apple pricing (or the other major manufacturers are running 2-3x Apple's supposed 80% margins..
Certainly, Apple has no (or few) products in certain ranges, but the Mac Pros are full workstation systems for a darn good price - and a better price (fully outfitted) than any of the other majors.
Comments
It may be a contract but it is not really enforceable because it is not a signed and legally executed document. Breach of contract is a very minor issue especially when the terms and rights claimed are written as broadly as these EULAs usually are. Yes it is a contract, but a very weak one.
Not entirely true. Most courts have held that simply opening the sealed package that has clearly defined the consequences of such action is binding. Afterall, even a handshake is binding.
Yes it is a contract. And yes can be perceived as a weak one. But only if you have the resources to fight it in court.
Perhaps you should ask your company whether they regard EULAs as binding, and what would happen to you if you defied the EULA on one of their machines.
When you buy a copy of software (or music or movies), you DO NOT own it. You've purchased a license to use it and that license comes with terms of usage.
There are way too many people who do not understand the concept of copyright or intellectual property and I think that is where the problem lies. You can try to challenge the laws (as this company is trying to do with their Open Computers) but until the laws change (and they are not likely going to be), you need to understand how these laws work.
Again, you are buying the right to use ... you do not buy ownership of the product.
I understand the intricacies of copyrights and the right to use concept, I just thought it was too dull to talk about here
My point was that if they sell the items in the proper order (Machine, then software, then installation) that any violation of user agreements has passed to the consumer and the Apple would probably not go after the consumers directly. But like someone else mentioned, if they pre-install OSX then it seems like they have crossed the line.
Yes, the dell includes RAID.
Nope. Host based (software) RAID:
Integrated LSI 1068e SAS/SATA 3.0Gb/s controller supports host based RAID 0, 1
The original poster was therefore being a little bit dishonest in his comparison as he failed to mention the monitor that Apple will charge you $600 for and the RAID that Apple will charge you $800 for. A fair comparison should be done on a like for like basis.
The T7400 is $4277 with the 320GB and 20" WS UltraSharp.
The Mac Pro is $3398 with the 20" ACD.
Both with software RAID.
Even if you deduct the 20" Ultrasharp the Dell is still $3,928.
I'm glad you now seem to understand somewhat, but not completely. You can be sued for any reason, by anyone. The EULA does not give someone special permission to sue you. It simply shows that the software maker expected you to read it and is operating under the assumption that you agreed to it. That's all. It has no legal authority over someone who buys a copy of the software, and like you said you are not breaking any laws by violating any restrictions that are not laws. And breaking that assumed contract (again, nobody can prove you read it and actually agreed to it, which is why EULAs are joke compared to real contracts) in a manner which does not violate any laws does not give anyone legal precedent to claim damages they otherwise couldn't claim with or without an EULA.
EULAs are mostly just "you can't sue me if we deny you warranty or tech support for doing xxx" and "if you sue us we can use this to say we warned you." It's about denying liability. It has absolutely zero legal authority over you. If they want to sue you for non-illegal violations, it doesn't help them at all, nor do they require it just to file a lawsuit.
I NOW seem to understand? That's actually funny! I haven't changed what I said, only explained it more completely to you, so that now YOU seem to understand somewhat. But, not entirely.
The EULA does give the holder the right to sue you. The EULA is a binding document, as are all contracts. Or don't you believe in contract law?
Most states even have the "shrink-wrap" contract law, in which you agree to the EULA (contract) as soon as you open the wrapper, without even having seen it, much less read it!
It's not that you are breaking the law, in the way you seem to think some of us are saying, but that the law does back the legality of contracts. Otherwise, there would be no civil couart system in place where it could be inforced. It would simply be a provate agreement, with no penalties possible.
You can go to trial, where a real judge, and a real jury decides whether the contract was violated. And, as the case, the EULA is recognized as a valid contract. If it weren't recognized by law, that wouldn't be the case.
As you are so set against this, why don't you provide some legitimate links proving your point, as you seem to be avoiding reading the information provided by mine, which contain the actual laws in question?
This won't be such a big problem if Psystar installs Tiger instead of Leopard on their systems.
There most likely won't be any more updates to Tiger, so they can be sure that there won't be any iPhone-style bricking, and Leopard hasn't added very much functionality anyways (other than boot camp, biweekly fixes and lots of crashing...)
I'm still getting Security Updates from Apple for Tiger.
It may be a contract but it is not really enforceable because it is not a signed and legally executed document. Breach of contract is a very minor issue especially when the terms and rights claimed are written as broadly as these EULAs usually are. Yes it is a contract, but a very weak one.
It isn't a "weak" contract. If it can be proven to have been violated then it can be taken to court. It's then up to the jury to decide, as it is with everything, unless both sides agree to have a judge decide instead.
This is one reason why the RIAA, ill advised as it may be, can do what it's doing. Sometimes it wins, and sometimes it loses, you're right as it's a matter of proof. But, if the proof is there, they will win.
Same here.
There is an old saying:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
It actually holds up in court.
The drive makes a very small difference in price.
And YES the Dell system does include RAID. The Non-Raid configuration is there because there is only one hard drive configured in the system, If you want to add more drives to the system the RAID controller is already there included in the base price. (A quick look at the system on the Dell website will confirm this).
With the Mac Pro you can also add more drives but in order to have RAID you must pay $800 for the RAID controller.
The only way to do a true comparison must be to perform a like for like comparison otherwise it is useless as a comparison. So i make the Dell $400 cheaper than the mac.
The argument could be that Dell force you to pay for a RAID controller whether you want one or not whereas Apple give you the option and it is a fair argument. But I would imagine that Dell have taken the approach that anyone using systems this powerful and expensive would have something pretty serious running on the hard drives and therefore not using RAID would be a pretty silly thing to be doing. I would probably go along with that viewpoint to be honest.
Hey, don't get me wrong, $400 more for a system like this? I would go for the Mac Pro, It is a nice system and runs OSX. This is not an anti-Apple post, but this is 'be realistic' post, if you truly believe that the Mac is the better deal then great, say so. But be honest about it, by fudging the figures it makes you look like you do not really believe what you are saying and just trying to be the blind Apple fanboy.
You don't need to have a controller to have RAID on a Mac, any Mac, even the Mini.
I understand the intricacies of copyrights and the right to use concept, I just thought it was too dull to talk about here
My point was that if they sell the items in the proper order (Machine, then software, then installation) that any violation of user agreements has passed to the consumer and the Apple would probably not go after the consumers directly. But like someone else mentioned, if they pre-install OSX then it seems like they have crossed the line.
The interesting thing here is that they can sell the machine, but must be a licensed dealer to sell Apple products as new.
If Apple were to give them an agreement to be a licensed dealer of the OS, then they could sell that as well, otherwise no.
But, under no circumstances could they install the software themselves.
Even if the are allowed, bt Apple, to sell the software, they can't say that the customer should buy their machine for the express purpose of doing so, as that would lead them to be the cause of their customers violating the software license, and as they were profiting from those sales, they could be held to a higher standard of copyright violation, that MAY be elevated to the criminal level. That's difficult to say, but, at least, they could be sued out of business.
As to the price of memory and upgrading video cards, well anyone who has been using a Mac for a while knows you don't buy these things from Apple.
Not entirely true.
Apple has always been accused of 'over' pricing and often it is an 'over' simplication of the truth.
For example as shown here, most often comparative price shopping has not been accurately tabled. Turns out the Mac is cheaper than a 'comparative' Dell and the Psystar may not represent the true value as declared.
Having bought/procured hundreds of new Macs for myself, my company and my clients, buying them off the shelf fully 'loaded' from Apple can be a lot cheaper and faster than sourcing, purchasing, transporting, installing, testing and guaranteeing options than doing it myself or hiring or outsourcing service personnel.
Upgrading is another matter. Providing of course you know what you are doing. And more often than not, most aren't in the 'capable' category.
And before anybody challenges my opinion, just how many of us buy a 'basic' car and go to Cosco for the tires, or buy a frame house and join Direct Buy (and that is joke) to finish it.
In any event, Apple has made it exceptionally easy to upgrade RAM. Something I wouldn't hesitate to do myself. My wife is another matter.
The display is $200, meaning it's still $800 cheaper. And you really don't need to quote images.
An apple display is $200?.. can you please post that link?..
An apple 19 inch widescreen (or close, i'd take 20 inch) is $200?..
Apple has never sold a monitor for $200 in the history of it's existence.
That is blasphemy, you should be ashamed of yourself.. which self respecting mac zealot would buy a monitor that cheap?.
Hope you weren't comparing a used mac monitor with a new monitor dell supplies with it's computers..
We are all waiting for this link to a $200 apple monitor. I have an old monitor i need replacing.. i am waiting with abated breath.
To be even more precise one has to go to Newegg and order 800Mhz ECC Dual Fully Buffered RAM:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148188
$151.99
That of course makes the price even worse for DELL.
hehe
yeah, we are on the same page here. Apple, with the switch to Intel, has been holding the position as the lowest price Xeon workstations.
Where is the monitor for the mac?.
go pick up a shiity 19" LCD at Best Buy for $120 - it'll be better than the "free" 19" you get with teh dell. for $1000 more than the apple. with a smaller hard drive. and "worse" ram.
It isn't a "weak" contract. If it can be proven to have been violated then it can be taken to court. It's then up to the jury to decide, as it is with everything, unless both sides agree to have a judge decide instead.
This is one reason why the RIAA, ill advised as it may be, can do what it's doing. Sometimes it wins, and sometimes it loses, you're right as it's a matter of proof. But, if the proof is there, they will win.
Same here.
There is an old saying:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
It actually holds up in court.
Melgross, you are usually a smart guy but you are wrong in this one aspect.. EULA's are extremely weak. For example, what if the EULA was in English but I only understood Spanish?. Can a court force somone to agree to a contract that they didn't understand?... if that was so, the Pre-nup that Jack Kent Cook signed with his ex-wife would have held up.. i believed she argued something similar (that becuase she did not have a lawyer, she did not understand the contract as it was drawn up). Yes, it's still a contract but it's weak. I suspect companies do not challenge it because all companies have EULA.. why would microsoft for example challenge the EULA of another company when they too have EULA's?. Acually, by PsyStar challenging apple EULA, they are setting themselves up (if the court agree with them) for consumers to ignore their EULA, not something any company would look forward to.
To be honest, I suspect if an individual hired a top lawyer and took a company to court for it's EULA, they would have a very good chance of winning. It depends on whether PsyStar has a very good lawyer.
go pick up a shiity 19" LCD at Best Buy for $120 - it'll be better than the "free" 19" you get with teh dell. for $1000 more than the apple. with a smaller hard drive. and "worse" ram.
That's not adequate.. dell is giving you a dell monitor. If i buy an equivalent apple system, i expect then an apple monitor. If you want to take that argument to the extreme.. then i could compare the dell system without any ram and no network card, etc just to get it cheaper than the mac and then buy those from best buy.
We are comparing systems here from the original vendor. Apple Zealots always state that apple monitors are better than any other monitors.. why if i am buying an apple instead of a dell would i want some shiity 19'' LCD from best buy?. I'd want an apple monitor right?. Is it Dell fault their monitors are cheaper than Apple (dell doesn't work in the apple pricing department).
Naw, sorry, you don't get away with comparing a mac with a dell and then say buy some generic monitor. That's not how systems comparison works.
To be honest, I suspect if an individual hired a top lawyer and took a company to court for it's EULA, they would have a very good chance of winning. It depends on whether PsyStar has a very good lawyer.
Except that folks have done that (well, you'll have to assess whether they had a "top" lawyer or not) and lost. Likely the EFF has at a minimum "decent" laywers (who have defended cases all the way to SCOTUS) and they lost the BNet case based on EULA and DMCA.
If PsyStar had a good lawyer they'd likely have advised them better thus far.
We are comparing systems here from the original vendor. Apple Zealots always state that apple monitors are better than any other monitors.. why if i am buying an apple instead of a dell would i want some shiity 19'' LCD from best buy?. I'd want an apple monitor right?. Is it Dell fault their monitors are cheaper than Apple (dell doesn't work in the apple pricing department).
Naw, sorry, you don't get away with comparing a mac with a dell and then say buy some generic monitor. That's not how systems comparison works.
Too bad it's still cheaper for the mac:
The T7400 is $3928 with the 320GB and free 19" monitor.
The Mac Pro is $3398 with the 20" ACD.
With the Dell UltraSharp 20"WS it's $4277.
This is from the post several messages back that you convienently ignored.
updated to add the monitors and equalize the hard drives...
1GB on the Dell should be 2GB.
It isn't a "weak" contract. If it can be proven to have been violated then it can be taken to court. It's then up to the jury to decide, as it is with everything, unless both sides agree to have a judge decide instead.
Many legally executed binding agreements have language such as the following:
"In the event that any portion of this Agreement is held unenforceable, the unenforceable portion shall be construed in accordance with applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of the parties, and the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full force and effect."
The whole notion that by clicking a button, you are bound to the terms and the stated rights claimed by the EULA is a little shaky. It would be much stronger if you signed it in blue ink and it was witnessed, dated, notarized etc. Of course that would be ridiculous, but it would be stronger. So relatively speaking it is weak.
1GB on the Dell should be 2GB.
dammit. it should be... ah well.
i think the point is fairly well heeled though, that the rep from the "clone" "manufacturer" is *completely* off base when it comes to Apple pricing (or the other major manufacturers are running 2-3x Apple's supposed 80% margins..
Certainly, Apple has no (or few) products in certain ranges, but the Mac Pros are full workstation systems for a darn good price - and a better price (fully outfitted) than any of the other majors.