Consumers don't care about MHz anymore - there's more than enough to go around now - and they aren't the point of this thread anyway. The problem, as the original poster saw it, was with the professional lines.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you may be right about the MHZ...definatly when the ghz barrier was reached and broken consumers only cared about mhz, but prior to that when the iMac was released consumers only cared about pretty colors, the new iMac is selling like mad...and its converting thousands of PC users, and I'm willing to bet the wintel world will be releasing their cheap copies pretty soon and then the consumers will only care about small dome shaped computers with arms
I think apple is in trouble with the g4...but if the latest g4 isn't just a load of steam we might be seeing a scalable and powerful processor to last at least to 1.6 ghz in which case the g5 could come in at like 2.0-2.4 and though by that time intel will be hitting 3+ ghz or so
but I really don't think it will matter even though there will still be a ghz difference....at those numbers .
one big problem for apple is that even if they did release a 1.8 ghz g5 tommorrow then they have a ghz difference between their pro line and their consumer line..and an even greater difference in their pro laptops...I think apple will wait for a big expo to release the g5 at lets say 1.4-1.8 ghz while simaltaneously releasing a 1.2 ghz iMac and 1 ghz tibooks(maybe 1.2 or so) using g4s...and perhaps have an 800 mhz g4 ibook...but I don't know....if the g5 is as cool as its supposed to be then maybe we'll see g5 powerbooks at the same time as towers.
at any rate alot is riding on the g5....if moto can produce enough, and if its powerful enough...then it could make or break apple
I definatly agree that apple is really hustling to get more sales and popularity...and they are doing a great job...but the numbers are hurting them greatly.
A quick point I'd like to make. my iMac DVSE setp. 2000 slot loading is still a totally awesome computer....and to be truthful the amount of joy and productivity it has brought me is worth ALOT more than 1500 dollars to me....however when I get my next computer it will be a tower with a bitchin studio recording soundcard and a geforce 4 ti!
Market share is still important. Apple may have a large installed base, but they continue to shrink relative to total computer sales. Since Jobs' return, Apple has not managed to increase it's market share even one fraction of a percent. That's not good. Perhaps it doesn't matter so much if you've got a community of 30 million or so users out there, but if the trend continues, eventually it just wouldn't be worth it for Apple to stay in the hardware business.
I'll tell you why.
Right now they need hardware to make money. But people don't buy the machines for the hardware, they buy it for the exclusive software solutions. So...
If Apple's market share continued to shrink, yet their user base continued to grow, that would mean that they're getting a smaller and smaller piece of a bigger and bigger market. Let's imagine that Apple increased it's unit sales to 10 million macs per year, but that total computer sales reached the billion units a year mark. Apple would have more users than it's ever had, but it would have exactly 1 percent of the computer market.
Why is this bad when plenty of small PC companies have even less than that? Answer, because at some point Apple is ignoring it's most valued asset -- software. By constraining itself to a niche platform, Apple would then incur the added cost of developing a hardware platform to sell to exactly 1 percent of people. 999 Million users out there aren't being exploited in any meaningful way! If you sold each of those computer users less than a tenth of the cost of a mac in retail/bundled software, you'd have exactly the same revenue! BUT you'd have MUCH higher profits, because, while it costs money to develop software, you have comparatively ZERO, NIL, NADA production costs compared to hardware!
At some point it isn't worth it to carve out your niche anymore, not if you can make more money selling software to an exponentially larger market.
If Mac's market share gets too small, but plenty of people want iMovie, DVD Studio, FCP, OSX, and whatever else Apple can cook up, Apple would be stupid not to try to give it to them without the expensive hardware production baggage.
I have a stupid question. From my understanding, the bus of the P4 is 100MHz, but it's quad-pumped. What the hell does quad-pumped mean? DDR makes sense, because it can read and write on both the rise and fall of the clock cycle, double what normal PC133 can do. Does RDRAM read and write twice on one clock cycle or what?
And, why is it called PC800 RAM if it's only a quad-pumped 100MHz? Wouldn't that equate to PC400 or something? Another possibility is that the "800" refers to the total bandwidth, similiar to PC2100 and such. But since PC2100 is DDR, and RDRAM is supposed to have the fatter bandwidth, that wouldn't make sense.
One take on the subject though: PCs are not the old crap all you guys make them out to be. The PC you use at school/library/whatever is not the same animal that you could build yourself...just like the slow abused Macs you see in use around you is not the way your Mac runs since chances are you have fine tuned it, kept your extensions managed (well, in classic anyway), kept your drivers updated, bought a quality monitor, etc. What makes you think a PC is so unreliable? Most of the Mac defectors I've seen (including myself) jumped ship because building was so enticing. A quality motherboard etc will be just as reliable as what you'd get in the Mac world. Plus, if it gets busted, you can go out and use that as an excuse to buy a brand spankin' new mobo with all the latest toys for $120. When my friend's iMac got its ethernet port fried, mobo replacement would have cost him $500.
I never thought I'd switch...I used to be the ultimate maclot. But once the RDF loses its hold on you, and you can see past all the gaussian blur benchmarks, you see what the Mac is: a proprietary platform that suffers because it's different. The more marketshare Apple loses, the more it will have to jack up prices for the loyalists. Eventually, when you're paying 3X (some would argue that is true now) for comparable hardware on the PC side, you will see. I ordered parts to make a PC that would give PowerMacs a serious run for the money.
How much did it cost? For less than the cost of the cheapest iMac (yeah, the CRT one).
Yeah I'm coming to your realization as well. Every penny less spent on a computer means a penny closer to home ownership or another trip to Europe. It also means a lower amount of my billings go to purchasing more hardware = more money in my pocket. With a lower expenditure my business looks better for a potential purchaser as well.
I've used Mac's for 10 years and I think they're the best PC's going, but they're too expensive to justify.
Resolution density is the fastest ROI I've found for my particular business, and Apple comes up short for the dollar.
That being said for home computing I continue to advice who ask to go Mac. I'm helping my cousin with his first computer, a combo ice iBook, and I love to see him really enjoying the experience. Last year he said PDA's were corrupting society and were evil. Today he want's a Clie 615c!!! he loves computers now and I can't wait to see what he produces.
[quote] What makes you think a PC is so unreliable? <hr></blockquote>
I don't know what you do on your PC but for anything demanding they are not reliable. I have extensive experience going back and forth from one OS to another on a daily basis. These are machines custom made to do audio and video production. I have also seen plenty of custom built servers and client machines in offices that required constant maintenance. Not so with a Macintosh. In fact the simple task of getting a machine ready for use in these applications takes a difference in time of weeks sometimes.
Trouble-shooting fire wire cards, sound cards, DVD/CD burners/software, NIC cards, video cards all these take a lot of time. Most of this stuff may work fine with most consumer level software like DVDit or Cinestream but if you start using stuff like ReelDVD and other high end apps that work closely with hardware, all kinds of incompatibilities come into play. Just getting two monitors and a video preview working on a Win2k box is a nightmare let alone getting all the software to play nice.
I have seen an ATI All in Wonder 8500/DV work in one PC and not work in what should be an indentical one. This took four days to resolve!
I have never had such problems on the Mac. In fact out of the box Macs have most of this stuff already and though there may be conflicts from time to time (like Discreet's DV CODEC not playing nice with Apple's) I have never seen something take 4 days to resolve.
So yeah. 2.4Ghz, that's fast but a reason to switch and a reason why Apple is ready to die? Hardly.
A custom built hardware setup can't make Windows better or erase the problem of other software problems either. Custom built or otherwise I have seen Wintel PC's fail at an amazing rate. Given the state of customer service these days I'm glad Macs are more reliable.
What most people here don't understand is that people don't want to deal with WINDOWS. Have you ever read Microsoft's XP license agreement? Most people would be stunned. Do you know what Microsoft plans to do with .net? I hope you enjoy renting your applications.
As for PCs being the 'ultimate gaming platform', look at Microsoft's XBox strategy. They want to moving gaming OFF of the PC and on to the console. Most people don't like that idea, but it's true. That way, they get even more money from you because you have to pay them a monthly fee to play your games online, you have to buy their hardware, their controllers, etc.
Microsoft's future is NOT consumer friendly, as will be VERY costly. When you get down to it, they want you to use your computer for Word Processing (You pay them to use Office), Multimedia (You pay them for Windows Media Player), and Internet access (You pay them for MSN, Hotmail, etc.) Plus, you have to pay for Windows! Sure, you'll be able to use applications like Photoshop and Maya, but they won't be optomized to run on Windows. Instead, Microsoft will want you to use some other alternative that they will buy/own.
As for gaming, look for LESS PC gaming support. Microsoft wants you to use the XBox.
So in the end, even though you might pay less for the hardware, you're still going to have to pay MORE for what you want to do. Go to Microsoft's website and read some of their ideas. You're going to be sending in a monthly bill to them that will shock you.
Speaking of doomed, let's talk x-box. Tey haven't sold as much as they'd hoped. About 4.5 million. Playstation2 continues to outsell them month after month and they're already at upwards of 25 million units sold. The hardware sells at a loss, software sales have dropped off, and a few devs are now talking about delayed xBox releases. Better to sell a game to a 30 million strong PS2 market, than a 5-7 million xBox market ,regardless of programming ease, no?
To add to the fire, the only thing that really seperates an xbox game from any other directX (PC)game is some fancy shmancy encrytion. How long do you think that's gonna last? Buy December of this year we'll be playing xBox games on a PC, guaraneed. It's going to be the third tier system, and it's gonna die. Sweet irony, i think, that for once M$ supplies the superior solution on the first try, and it is exactly that one time that they're going to get beaten, Badly beaten.
I doubt it Matsu. Remember that these XBox developers make MORE by selling the games as XBox exclusives. Plus, if you're talking about emulation, it's not going to happen. With Microsoft's 'legal strength', any type of unauthorized emulation will be shot down unbelievably fast. Sony took it's time in dealing with PS1 emulators, but you can bet that MS isn't going to fool around at all. Plus, emulating the graphics engine is going to be EXTREMELY difficult. The games on the XBox are optomized for that chipset. Emulating that on chipsets that aren't even fully supported yet will be tough.
Also, if you want to know why the XBox isn't selling, look at their games. They had a fairly strong launch, but the games since then have been pathetic! I couldn't buy a game to play if I wanted to because they are so bad. The next game on the horizon I'm looking at is Unreal Championship, but that's way out on the horizon. The online version of Halo would be next after that, but only because it has bots for multiplayer.
Other than that, there aren't a great number of games out. Compare that with PS2 which has a ton of AAA titles out, and Game Cube which has a much stronger multiplayer lineup with games like Super Smash Bros.: Melee, Super Monkey Ball, 007: Agent Under Fire (much better controls than PS2/XBox), and a strong future lineup.
Still, MS wants users to migrate from PC games to XBox, which admitedly, does have the best graphics right now. I really think that they can 'convince' people that they don't need to spend $1000 on a gaming PC when they can get an XBox for 1/3 of that. Just my thoughts.
Some enterprising software game manufacture(Bunge softare engineers recently leaving the evil empire) stumbles across the fact that Darwin has been ported to X86. An epiphany occurs.
Write a bleeding edge, must have game, based on Darwin, include Darwin with the game, it's is free right. Instant compatiblility with both Windows and Mac.
<strong>To add to the fire, the only thing that really seperates an xbox game from any other directX (PC)game is some fancy shmancy encrytion. How long do you think that's gonna last?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, its more than that... the DirectX HAL was largely removed so the games are much more directly tied to the hardware once they are compiled. I expect most games are also taking advantage of nVidia specific features as well, so even if you could get an emulator up and running you'd probably only be able to make it work properly on the nVidia Ti4. Even then performance would be very substandard due to the heavy use of the unified memory model.
<strong>From the left field bleachers comes a fly ball
Some enterprising software game manufacture(Bunge softare engineers recently leaving the evil empire) stumbles across the fact that Darwin has been ported to X86. An epiphany occurs.
Write a bleeding edge, must have game, based on Darwin, include Darwin with the game, it's is free right. Instant compatiblility with both Windows and Mac.
And they'd be simple games too, what with no 3D driver support on the PC. It wouldn't be Windows compatible either, you would have to boot into Darwin first -- which is hardly a friendly experience for the consumer who is accustomed to XP, and wouldn't know what hit him when a command-line Darwin booted up in front of him (no Aqua, remember).
I think your righ..mainly cause yours are very similar to my first impressions on the xbox and bill gates. unfortunatly for bill, the console market is NOT the desktop pc market, and the main supporters of the console market look for different things than a pc(countless times friends have told me...if I wanted to play games all day I'd buy a gamecube(or ps2)
I was expecting the xbox to be crap...but somehow I thought it would still manage to sell and infect the console market...but that doesn't semm to be happening.
I own a gamecube, and I love it, my friend has an xbox and he hasn't used it since the first month or so he got it.
M$ really are trying to get as much money as possible, and where this IS good business....once the people learn how much they are being screwed over by MS it may change things some.
I don't think apple is near death....they usually maintain a very stable existence...though its low in the chain, its stable...and apple IS doing so many things right currently. however if apple doesn't ramp up their hardware aspects some, they may be in for a bumpy 2003
Buy a goddamn PC then. If sheer speed/performance is your main desire and strongest requirement, you might be using the wrong platform.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You get my vote for the most original reply so far this year. If speed is low on your list, fine. But for most people speed is a huge issue, for 3d rendering, heavy graphical work etc. But sadly too many people are taking your advice, ie buying PC. And that IS Apple's biggest problem.
Comments
<strong>I only must say that this thread seems like a very General Discussion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So it does.
Moving...
<strong>
Consumers don't care about MHz anymore - there's more than enough to go around now - and they aren't the point of this thread anyway. The problem, as the original poster saw it, was with the professional lines.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you may be right about the MHZ...definatly when the ghz barrier was reached and broken consumers only cared about mhz, but prior to that when the iMac was released consumers only cared about pretty colors, the new iMac is selling like mad...and its converting thousands of PC users, and I'm willing to bet the wintel world will be releasing their cheap copies pretty soon and then the consumers will only care about small dome shaped computers with arms
I think apple is in trouble with the g4...but if the latest g4 isn't just a load of steam we might be seeing a scalable and powerful processor to last at least to 1.6 ghz in which case the g5 could come in at like 2.0-2.4 and though by that time intel will be hitting 3+ ghz or so
but I really don't think it will matter even though there will still be a ghz difference....at those numbers .
one big problem for apple is that even if they did release a 1.8 ghz g5 tommorrow then they have a ghz difference between their pro line and their consumer line..and an even greater difference in their pro laptops...I think apple will wait for a big expo to release the g5 at lets say 1.4-1.8 ghz while simaltaneously releasing a 1.2 ghz iMac and 1 ghz tibooks(maybe 1.2 or so) using g4s...and perhaps have an 800 mhz g4 ibook...but I don't know....if the g5 is as cool as its supposed to be then maybe we'll see g5 powerbooks at the same time as towers.
at any rate alot is riding on the g5....if moto can produce enough, and if its powerful enough...then it could make or break apple
I definatly agree that apple is really hustling to get more sales and popularity...and they are doing a great job...but the numbers are hurting them greatly.
and it will cost me....YIKES!
I'll tell you why.
Right now they need hardware to make money. But people don't buy the machines for the hardware, they buy it for the exclusive software solutions. So...
If Apple's market share continued to shrink, yet their user base continued to grow, that would mean that they're getting a smaller and smaller piece of a bigger and bigger market. Let's imagine that Apple increased it's unit sales to 10 million macs per year, but that total computer sales reached the billion units a year mark. Apple would have more users than it's ever had, but it would have exactly 1 percent of the computer market.
Why is this bad when plenty of small PC companies have even less than that? Answer, because at some point Apple is ignoring it's most valued asset -- software. By constraining itself to a niche platform, Apple would then incur the added cost of developing a hardware platform to sell to exactly 1 percent of people. 999 Million users out there aren't being exploited in any meaningful way! If you sold each of those computer users less than a tenth of the cost of a mac in retail/bundled software, you'd have exactly the same revenue! BUT you'd have MUCH higher profits, because, while it costs money to develop software, you have comparatively ZERO, NIL, NADA production costs compared to hardware!
At some point it isn't worth it to carve out your niche anymore, not if you can make more money selling software to an exponentially larger market.
If Mac's market share gets too small, but plenty of people want iMovie, DVD Studio, FCP, OSX, and whatever else Apple can cook up, Apple would be stupid not to try to give it to them without the expensive hardware production baggage.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Poor silly deluded Maclots...
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I have a stupid question. From my understanding, the bus of the P4 is 100MHz, but it's quad-pumped. What the hell does quad-pumped mean? DDR makes sense, because it can read and write on both the rise and fall of the clock cycle, double what normal PC133 can do. Does RDRAM read and write twice on one clock cycle or what?
And, why is it called PC800 RAM if it's only a quad-pumped 100MHz? Wouldn't that equate to PC400 or something? Another possibility is that the "800" refers to the total bandwidth, similiar to PC2100 and such. But since PC2100 is DDR, and RDRAM is supposed to have the fatter bandwidth, that wouldn't make sense.
One take on the subject though: PCs are not the old crap all you guys make them out to be. The PC you use at school/library/whatever is not the same animal that you could build yourself...just like the slow abused Macs you see in use around you is not the way your Mac runs since chances are you have fine tuned it, kept your extensions managed (well, in classic anyway), kept your drivers updated, bought a quality monitor, etc. What makes you think a PC is so unreliable? Most of the Mac defectors I've seen (including myself) jumped ship because building was so enticing. A quality motherboard etc will be just as reliable as what you'd get in the Mac world. Plus, if it gets busted, you can go out and use that as an excuse to buy a brand spankin' new mobo with all the latest toys for $120. When my friend's iMac got its ethernet port fried, mobo replacement would have cost him $500.
I never thought I'd switch...I used to be the ultimate maclot. But once the RDF loses its hold on you, and you can see past all the gaussian blur benchmarks, you see what the Mac is: a proprietary platform that suffers because it's different. The more marketshare Apple loses, the more it will have to jack up prices for the loyalists. Eventually, when you're paying 3X (some would argue that is true now) for comparable hardware on the PC side, you will see. I ordered parts to make a PC that would give PowerMacs a serious run for the money.
How much did it cost? For less than the cost of the cheapest iMac (yeah, the CRT one).
You get your cheap home built PC running yet?
Lost productivity matters to some more than others.
Just joshing ya kiddo.
Have fun.
Yeah I'm coming to your realization as well. Every penny less spent on a computer means a penny closer to home ownership or another trip to Europe. It also means a lower amount of my billings go to purchasing more hardware = more money in my pocket. With a lower expenditure my business looks better for a potential purchaser as well.
I've used Mac's for 10 years and I think they're the best PC's going, but they're too expensive to justify.
Resolution density is the fastest ROI I've found for my particular business, and Apple comes up short for the dollar.
That being said for home computing I continue to advice who ask to go Mac. I'm helping my cousin with his first computer, a combo ice iBook, and I love to see him really enjoying the experience. Last year he said PDA's were corrupting society and were evil. Today he want's a Clie 615c!!!
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: JasonPP ]</p>
I don't know what you do on your PC but for anything demanding they are not reliable. I have extensive experience going back and forth from one OS to another on a daily basis. These are machines custom made to do audio and video production. I have also seen plenty of custom built servers and client machines in offices that required constant maintenance. Not so with a Macintosh. In fact the simple task of getting a machine ready for use in these applications takes a difference in time of weeks sometimes.
Trouble-shooting fire wire cards, sound cards, DVD/CD burners/software, NIC cards, video cards all these take a lot of time. Most of this stuff may work fine with most consumer level software like DVDit or Cinestream but if you start using stuff like ReelDVD and other high end apps that work closely with hardware, all kinds of incompatibilities come into play. Just getting two monitors and a video preview working on a Win2k box is a nightmare let alone getting all the software to play nice.
I have seen an ATI All in Wonder 8500/DV work in one PC and not work in what should be an indentical one. This took four days to resolve!
I have never had such problems on the Mac. In fact out of the box Macs have most of this stuff already and though there may be conflicts from time to time (like Discreet's DV CODEC not playing nice with Apple's) I have never seen something take 4 days to resolve.
So yeah. 2.4Ghz, that's fast but a reason to switch and a reason why Apple is ready to die? Hardly.
A custom built hardware setup can't make Windows better or erase the problem of other software problems either. Custom built or otherwise I have seen Wintel PC's fail at an amazing rate. Given the state of customer service these days I'm glad Macs are more reliable.
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: CCR65 ]</p>
As for PCs being the 'ultimate gaming platform', look at Microsoft's XBox strategy. They want to moving gaming OFF of the PC and on to the console. Most people don't like that idea, but it's true. That way, they get even more money from you because you have to pay them a monthly fee to play your games online, you have to buy their hardware, their controllers, etc.
Microsoft's future is NOT consumer friendly, as will be VERY costly. When you get down to it, they want you to use your computer for Word Processing (You pay them to use Office), Multimedia (You pay them for Windows Media Player), and Internet access (You pay them for MSN, Hotmail, etc.) Plus, you have to pay for Windows! Sure, you'll be able to use applications like Photoshop and Maya, but they won't be optomized to run on Windows. Instead, Microsoft will want you to use some other alternative that they will buy/own.
As for gaming, look for LESS PC gaming support. Microsoft wants you to use the XBox.
So in the end, even though you might pay less for the hardware, you're still going to have to pay MORE for what you want to do. Go to Microsoft's website and read some of their ideas. You're going to be sending in a monthly bill to them that will shock you.
To add to the fire, the only thing that really seperates an xbox game from any other directX (PC)game is some fancy shmancy encrytion. How long do you think that's gonna last? Buy December of this year we'll be playing xBox games on a PC, guaraneed. It's going to be the third tier system, and it's gonna die. Sweet irony, i think, that for once M$ supplies the superior solution on the first try, and it is exactly that one time that they're going to get beaten, Badly beaten.
Also, if you want to know why the XBox isn't selling, look at their games. They had a fairly strong launch, but the games since then have been pathetic! I couldn't buy a game to play if I wanted to because they are so bad. The next game on the horizon I'm looking at is Unreal Championship, but that's way out on the horizon. The online version of Halo would be next after that, but only because it has bots for multiplayer.
Other than that, there aren't a great number of games out. Compare that with PS2 which has a ton of AAA titles out, and Game Cube which has a much stronger multiplayer lineup with games like Super Smash Bros.: Melee, Super Monkey Ball, 007: Agent Under Fire (much better controls than PS2/XBox), and a strong future lineup.
Still, MS wants users to migrate from PC games to XBox, which admitedly, does have the best graphics right now. I really think that they can 'convince' people that they don't need to spend $1000 on a gaming PC when they can get an XBox for 1/3 of that. Just my thoughts.
Some enterprising software game manufacture(Bunge softare engineers recently leaving the evil empire) stumbles across the fact that Darwin has been ported to X86. An epiphany occurs.
Write a bleeding edge, must have game, based on Darwin, include Darwin with the game, it's is free right. Instant compatiblility with both Windows and Mac.
Simple solutions for simple minds
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>To add to the fire, the only thing that really seperates an xbox game from any other directX (PC)game is some fancy shmancy encrytion. How long do you think that's gonna last?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, its more than that... the DirectX HAL was largely removed so the games are much more directly tied to the hardware once they are compiled. I expect most games are also taking advantage of nVidia specific features as well, so even if you could get an emulator up and running you'd probably only be able to make it work properly on the nVidia Ti4. Even then performance would be very substandard due to the heavy use of the unified memory model.
<strong>From the left field bleachers comes a fly ball
Some enterprising software game manufacture(Bunge softare engineers recently leaving the evil empire) stumbles across the fact that Darwin has been ported to X86. An epiphany occurs.
Write a bleeding edge, must have game, based on Darwin, include Darwin with the game, it's is free right. Instant compatiblility with both Windows and Mac.
Simple solutions for simple minds
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
And they'd be simple games too, what with no 3D driver support on the PC. It wouldn't be Windows compatible either, you would have to boot into Darwin first -- which is hardly a friendly experience for the consumer who is accustomed to XP, and wouldn't know what hit him when a command-line Darwin booted up in front of him (no Aqua, remember).
Next idea, please...
I was expecting the xbox to be crap...but somehow I thought it would still manage to sell and infect the console market...but that doesn't semm to be happening.
I own a gamecube, and I love it, my friend has an xbox and he hasn't used it since the first month or so he got it.
M$ really are trying to get as much money as possible, and where this IS good business....once the people learn how much they are being screwed over by MS it may change things some.
I don't think apple is near death....they usually maintain a very stable existence...though its low in the chain, its stable...and apple IS doing so many things right currently. however if apple doesn't ramp up their hardware aspects some, they may be in for a bumpy 2003
"with no 3D driver support on the PC"<hr></blockquote>
More work/money for programmers.
[quote]Programmer
"wouldn't know what hit him when a command-line Darwin booted up in front of him (no Aqua, remember)"<hr></blockquote>
Doesn't have to be Aqua or even Apua-like. Just enough GUI, like the front end of a playstation console game. More work/money for programmers
Any way didn't I say I had a simple mind?
<strong>
Buy a goddamn PC then. If sheer speed/performance is your main desire and strongest requirement, you might be using the wrong platform.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You get my vote for the most original reply so far this year.
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: Intelligent Dandy ]</p>
<strong>
You get my vote for the most original reply so far this year.
[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: Intelligent Dandy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Please, DO go buy a PC.
There's another original reply for you.