If you are wondering, I am an electronic engineer and have worked in new product development for more years that I care to admit. We go through a lot of cost accounting. Every company has its own little ways of doing things, so no one except an Apple employee could give you their procedure. Yes, I did work in computer workstation development too. I prefer to keep the company names out of this, but will say I have never worked for Apple or Dell. Since I have given no detailed figures, I have nothing to prove. It's just an overview of what is involved, that is all.
I think you are missing my point. I haven't denied that web surfing on a PC is faster than a Mac (though I am content on my iBook 600 w/Chimera).
Look at the number and the specs...
He says (again, probably not a formal measurement( that browsing on his 1.8GHz Celeron w/133MHz bus is THREE TIME FASTER than on his 400MHz G3 w/100MHz bus.
It SEEMS to me that the disparity OUGHT to be MUCH greater.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh man it's so darn important that your webpages load 0.1 second faster on your PC.
Frankly I didn't notice a difference on my 2 Ghz P4 compared to my 350 mhz iMac with OS X and Chimera 0.6. In fact some pages load FASTER on my iMac than they do on my 2 Ghz Pentium 4.
And the iMac is also a computer I can rely on, a PC is not. IE doesn't have Tabbed browsing so that sucks already for me!
Well, my browse speed is not much greater due mainly to my bottleneck of lousy land phone lines connecting me at 28.8 (both PC and my iMacs). I'd bet therein lies the rub.
If I had broadband, I could do a little more detailed analysis.
But, in general, the 1.8 Ghz Celeron is NOT more than twice as fast. It seems slowish for the Mhz. But, still, regardless, the purchase was based on price, again. If I would have found a new, 800 Mhz Windows PC at $250 for my wife to run her stuff, that would have been the one I would have bought. I didn't want to throw any more money at WinTel than I absolutely HAD to, to get her operating with her business software.
I think ALL the current Macs feel FASTER than this Celeron in overall performance. But, as many have pointed out, web browsing in particular is pretty spiffy. Just the nature of the beast.
Not really. I already said I would like to see prices reasonably lower but people seem to think that the eMac should cost $399 and its just not possible. And every positive point I bring up about the eMac is met with...
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
Face it, he is going out of his way to shoot down anything positive someone has to say. That is not constructive criticism, it is just pure negativity. I believe the eMac can be priced a little lower but there are expenses involved in making a computer and it is not as simple as adding up the components and leaving all the other factors out. Despite the name they do not grow on trees.
This week I am using a 1.2 Ghz P3 VAIO laptop with 512MB of ram and Windows XP. Granted it is not a P4 but it barely keeps up with my 500 Mhz PowerBook G4 with just 128 MB and OS X. It also crashes at least once a day and it seems to get corrupted quite a bit. Twice already I've had to delete a user account and start a new one from scratch just to get the computer working at all again. I don't have any such problems with Mac OS X and I cannot put a price on that.
I'm not saying Apple is perfect but a lot of people seem to think they have to be faster and cheaper than all the competition. It's not going to happen. It's not even possible.
Oh, and Stangnating Steve, I have used WMP this week and there is no way in hell it is better than iTunes as you suggest. No freakin way. A good third of the MP3s would not even play (played fine in RealPlayer and WinAmp though) as they were "not recognized" by WMP. And I just love how the preferences don't stick. Nice touch.
If releasing a shitty, low end, $399 computer, or even a $599 one, cannibalizes the sales of their pro machines, perhaps they should find a way to make the pro machines suck less for less money.
If you are wondering, I am an electronic engineer and have worked in new product development for more years that I care to admit. We go through a lot of cost accounting. Every company has its own little ways of doing things, so no one except an Apple employee could give you their procedure. Yes, I did work in computer workstation development too. I prefer to keep the company names out of this, but will say I have never worked for Apple or Dell. Since I have given no detailed figures, I have nothing to prove. It's just an overview of what is involved, that is all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. It was directed at others on this thread who disagree with yours and my views.
<strong>I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. It was directed at others on this thread who disagree with yours and my views.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. It was directed at others on this thread who disagree with yours and my views.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I thought it was very funny, and you were poking fun at the whole process of trying to set prices for Apple. Since I wasn't sure, I put in some extra stuff.
Comments
<strong>
Oh yeah!! Prove it!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, good one. I should have expected that.
If you are wondering, I am an electronic engineer and have worked in new product development for more years that I care to admit. We go through a lot of cost accounting. Every company has its own little ways of doing things, so no one except an Apple employee could give you their procedure. Yes, I did work in computer workstation development too. I prefer to keep the company names out of this, but will say I have never worked for Apple or Dell. Since I have given no detailed figures, I have nothing to prove. It's just an overview of what is involved, that is all.
<strong>
I think you are missing my point. I haven't denied that web surfing on a PC is faster than a Mac (though I am content on my iBook 600 w/Chimera).
Look at the number and the specs...
He says (again, probably not a formal measurement( that browsing on his 1.8GHz Celeron w/133MHz bus is THREE TIME FASTER than on his 400MHz G3 w/100MHz bus.
It SEEMS to me that the disparity OUGHT to be MUCH greater.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not in price. And that's where it counts.
mika.
Frankly I didn't notice a difference on my 2 Ghz P4 compared to my 350 mhz iMac with OS X and Chimera 0.6. In fact some pages load FASTER on my iMac than they do on my 2 Ghz Pentium 4.
And the iMac is also a computer I can rely on, a PC is not. IE doesn't have Tabbed browsing so that sucks already for me!
<strong>Oh man it's so darn important that your webpages load 0.1 second faster on your PC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uhm, how about playing Quake 3?
Not in price. And that's where it counts.
mika.[/qb][/QUOTE]
Well, my browse speed is not much greater due mainly to my bottleneck of lousy land phone lines connecting me at 28.8 (both PC and my iMacs). I'd bet therein lies the rub.
If I had broadband, I could do a little more detailed analysis.
But, in general, the 1.8 Ghz Celeron is NOT more than twice as fast. It seems slowish for the Mhz. But, still, regardless, the purchase was based on price, again. If I would have found a new, 800 Mhz Windows PC at $250 for my wife to run her stuff, that would have been the one I would have bought. I didn't want to throw any more money at WinTel than I absolutely HAD to, to get her operating with her business software.
I think ALL the current Macs feel FASTER than this Celeron in overall performance. But, as many have pointed out, web browsing in particular is pretty spiffy. Just the nature of the beast.
[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: JRC ]</p>
<strong>
he is to 1 extreme as you are to the other. who's to say he's wrong and you're not... you're being just as ridiculous and unopen as he is
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really. I already said I would like to see prices reasonably lower but people seem to think that the eMac should cost $399 and its just not possible. And every positive point I bring up about the eMac is met with...
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
Face it, he is going out of his way to shoot down anything positive someone has to say. That is not constructive criticism, it is just pure negativity. I believe the eMac can be priced a little lower but there are expenses involved in making a computer and it is not as simple as adding up the components and leaving all the other factors out. Despite the name they do not grow on trees.
This week I am using a 1.2 Ghz P3 VAIO laptop with 512MB of ram and Windows XP. Granted it is not a P4 but it barely keeps up with my 500 Mhz PowerBook G4 with just 128 MB and OS X. It also crashes at least once a day and it seems to get corrupted quite a bit. Twice already I've had to delete a user account and start a new one from scratch just to get the computer working at all again. I don't have any such problems with Mac OS X and I cannot put a price on that.
I'm not saying Apple is perfect but a lot of people seem to think they have to be faster and cheaper than all the competition. It's not going to happen. It's not even possible.
[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: iNub ]</p>
<strong>
Hey, good one. I should have expected that.
If you are wondering, I am an electronic engineer and have worked in new product development for more years that I care to admit. We go through a lot of cost accounting. Every company has its own little ways of doing things, so no one except an Apple employee could give you their procedure. Yes, I did work in computer workstation development too. I prefer to keep the company names out of this, but will say I have never worked for Apple or Dell. Since I have given no detailed figures, I have nothing to prove. It's just an overview of what is involved, that is all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. It was directed at others on this thread who disagree with yours and my views.
<strong>I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. It was directed at others on this thread who disagree with yours and my views.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the others! They're the bad ones!
<strong>
I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. It was directed at others on this thread who disagree with yours and my views.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I thought it was very funny, and you were poking fun at the whole process of trying to set prices for Apple. Since I wasn't sure, I put in some extra stuff.