While that's true, I know way too many people who consider an OS upgrade one involving buying a new computer. Most of them are home consumers who just want the thing to work and would rather not bother with being sure they have a minimum configuration or need to buy more RAM or a bigger HD.
In fact, a lot of businesses also follow this mentality. They only stick with Windoze because of back-end systems.
This is true as well. But mine was more of a practical answer; you can, indeed, just update while using your old hardware. If you choose to do so, is another matter.
These Mac OS X ads are kind of pointless in my opinion, as no x86 user can just purchase Tiger and be running it with no problems. No. People need to buy Apple hardware, not exactly a cheap thing to do, and then they are able to run Tiger or OS X.
Perhaps getting some mindshare is not bad, but not a lot of people are gonna buy Apple hardware just to run OS X. Some will. But not many.
Umm, Mac OS X is the ONLY reason why I finally decided to switch two years ago; and I'm so glad that I did.
I agree that Tiger ads will help to sell Macs. Usually only people who would consider themselves tech savy would buy just the operating system. Just look at how windows sells. I bet that there are way more copies that were sold with a new computer than just by itself. It's really only the people that build their own computers, that would buy it separately.
Also lately, Microsoft has been running a lot of campaigns advertising XP. They've got that whole "Your Potential. Our Passion." thing.
These Mac OS X ads are kind of pointless in my opinion, as no x86 user can just purchase Tiger and be running it with no problems. No. People need to buy Apple hardware, not exactly a cheap thing to do, and then they are able to run Tiger or OS X.
Perhaps getting some mindshare is not bad, but not a lot of people are gonna buy Apple hardware just to run OS X. Some will. But not many.
I'm sorry, while you're entitled to your opinion, that is one of the most stupid things I've read in a while.
Ask any switcher (such as myself) why they switched to Mac and OS X will be at the top of the list. OS X is the driving force of Mac sales growth. It doesn't matter how much the iPod Halo effect works, without a solid software platform, the sales wouldn't stick. I'm probably committing blaspheme(sp?) here, but OS 9 and below sucked big time.
Apple aren't necessarily trying to shift copies of Tiger with this advert (although they might want to mop up some sales to people still running 10.2 or 10.3), they're trying to sell the Platform as a whole. Whether you like it or not OS X is a major part of of the modern Macintosh platform (bigger than Ives' designs or the PPC I'd argue).
Hate to be a pesimest but Apple is shooting themselves in the foot, my 2 month old MacMini feels a tad more sluggish than an equily priced windows box. and shipping with tiger, 256 is not even a joke any more, it is just pathetic, 512 is a nice platue for most home users, as long as they dont launch all of iLife at once...but I cant imagine what Tiger must be like on 256 mb ram...and if people see the demo at 256 mb in the store they will run, if the demo is a gig and the boxed units are 256, the average consumer would buy it, notice how slow it is compared to the store model and upon being told that they need a ram upgrade 2 hrs after purchase, would return it and never do biz with apple again, or perhaps sue for bait and switch...Apple vets KNOW that apple includes just enough ram to boot up if you are lucky, but PC consumers dont know that.
Mac mini, ibook, imac should ship and dcemo with 512 mb, power books and macs should demo and ship with one gig minimum.
or perhaps a typo that was supposed to read "prominent".
It does say "prominent" for me.
Apple does need to advertise Mac OS X because I didn't get interested in the Mac platform until after I saw the WWDC2003 demo of Panther. I bought my first Mac (933MHz iBookG4) in November, 2003, and within a few months all my personal computing was moved to the Mac. Now my Windows machine is around solely for development purposes.
My iBook is running 10.4.1 and I showed her the slideshow feature of Mail and how I can get the photos into iPhoto just by clicking a button. I even did the "SJ slow-mo" demo and she was very impressed! I demonstrated iPhoto and I can tell she would have no problems switching to the Mac.
true, but Apple seems to ignore that 256 MAY be ok to use windows but not OSX.
WinXP is built to run on ~2000-2002 hardware, Macos tiger is built for 2004-2005 hardware, more ram is needed, am I wrong?
I have NO argument with you about the amount of RAM required. I can't agree about the hardware. I have several machines at home here. I'm not going to install 10.4.1 on anything critical yet, but the two that I have installed it on work fine.
The first machine is an old dual 533Mhz G4 with 1.125GB of RAM and an old NVidia GForce 2 MX card. This works VERY well. No problems with speed at all. The video card doesn't support Extreme of course, but otherwise is fine.
The other machine is an even older machine that my wife has that she won't let me replace. A 400Mhz G3 B/W with 640MB RAM, and a PCI ATI 7000 card. You would thing that this, certainly, would be a dog! But it's not. It's quite snappy. Like all machines I've installed OS X on over the years, it's performance gets better with each upgrade.
Now, I'm not talking about Doom 3 here, or HD H.264 decoding. But these technologies are not actually 10.4, though they may function better with it.
For most tasks a Mac has a much longer useful life than a PC.
But you need about 512MB of RAM to avoid too much disk swapping for virtual memory usage. XP fares worse in this regard than does the Mac. XP's virtual memory scheme is inferior. This is well known.
Don't forget that MS has been trying to get Longhorn out the door since 2004. It was supposed to be here in the middle of the year. MS's specs for a machine for it are WAY in excess of the machines available now to the PC buying public. By the time it comes out, though, PC's will have gotten closer to that point. But current ones won't meet the needs of anyone wanting to get the, as MS calls it, "Longhorn experience".
Well, it seems Apple is pretty confident with Mac OS X's features and abilities now and feel the platform is solid enough for mass advertising.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the mini being sold with 256MB of RAM. Apple is slowly moving to selling all of their computers with a default of 512MB of RAM. It's only a matter of time before the mini gets 512MB.
Well, it seems Apple is pretty confident with Mac OS X's features and abilities now and feel the platform is solid enough for mass advertising.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the mini being sold with 256MB of RAM. Apple is slowly moving to selling all of their computers with a default of 512MB of RAM. It's only a matter of time before the mini gets 512MB.
I'd like to be now rather than later. Reportedly, the Mini's sales have slowed. Apple should eat the extra $12 that the 256MB of RAM costs them.
Comments
Originally posted by Omega
Office? Or did you mean orifice?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
While that's true, I know way too many people who consider an OS upgrade one involving buying a new computer. Most of them are home consumers who just want the thing to work and would rather not bother with being sure they have a minimum configuration or need to buy more RAM or a bigger HD.
In fact, a lot of businesses also follow this mentality. They only stick with Windoze because of back-end systems.
This is true as well. But mine was more of a practical answer; you can, indeed, just update while using your old hardware. If you choose to do so, is another matter.
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
or perhaps a typo that was supposed to read "prominent".
Nah. Couldn't be.
Must mean that these rags are so popular that they "walk" off the racks.
After all promenade means to walk.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
These Mac OS X ads are kind of pointless in my opinion, as no x86 user can just purchase Tiger and be running it with no problems. No. People need to buy Apple hardware, not exactly a cheap thing to do, and then they are able to run Tiger or OS X.
Perhaps getting some mindshare is not bad, but not a lot of people are gonna buy Apple hardware just to run OS X. Some will. But not many.
Umm, Mac OS X is the ONLY reason why I finally decided to switch two years ago; and I'm so glad that I did.
Also lately, Microsoft has been running a lot of campaigns advertising XP. They've got that whole "Your Potential. Our Passion." thing.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
These Mac OS X ads are kind of pointless in my opinion, as no x86 user can just purchase Tiger and be running it with no problems. No. People need to buy Apple hardware, not exactly a cheap thing to do, and then they are able to run Tiger or OS X.
Perhaps getting some mindshare is not bad, but not a lot of people are gonna buy Apple hardware just to run OS X. Some will. But not many.
I'm sorry, while you're entitled to your opinion, that is one of the most stupid things I've read in a while.
Ask any switcher (such as myself) why they switched to Mac and OS X will be at the top of the list. OS X is the driving force of Mac sales growth. It doesn't matter how much the iPod Halo effect works, without a solid software platform, the sales wouldn't stick. I'm probably committing blaspheme(sp?) here, but OS 9 and below sucked big time.
Apple aren't necessarily trying to shift copies of Tiger with this advert (although they might want to mop up some sales to people still running 10.2 or 10.3), they're trying to sell the Platform as a whole. Whether you like it or not OS X is a major part of of the modern Macintosh platform (bigger than Ives' designs or the PPC I'd argue).
P.S. Cool sig - is it a true story?
just installed Tiger
... need a new iTunes widget though-volume control is whack yo.
but hat's off to Apple. now the world knows what a decent operating system is supposed to be.
with
10.4.1
on
iBook G4 933mhz 256mbRAM
Mac mini, ibook, imac should ship and dcemo with 512 mb, power books and macs should demo and ship with one gig minimum.
Hey Apple, RAM IS CHEAP!
Originally posted by a_greer
Hey Apple, RAM IS CHEAP!
Not if you buy it from the Apple store it isn't
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
or perhaps a typo that was supposed to read "prominent".
It does say "prominent" for me.
Apple does need to advertise Mac OS X because I didn't get interested in the Mac platform until after I saw the WWDC2003 demo of Panther. I bought my first Mac (933MHz iBookG4) in November, 2003, and within a few months all my personal computing was moved to the Mac. Now my Windows machine is around solely for development purposes.
My iBook is running 10.4.1 and I showed her the slideshow feature of Mail and how I can get the photos into iPhoto just by clicking a button. I even did the "SJ slow-mo" demo and she was very impressed! I demonstrated iPhoto and I can tell she would have no problems switching to the Mac.
Originally posted by a_greer
Hey Apple, RAM IS CHEAP!
Sh, don't shout it so loudly
Originally posted by PB
Sh, don't shout it so loudly
All computer manufacturers charge a lot for RAM. Apple has brought their prices pretty much in line with others.
Originally posted by melgross
All computer manufacturers charge a lot for RAM. Apple has brought their prices pretty much in line with others.
Originally posted by melgross
All computer manufacturers charge a lot for RAM. Apple has brought their prices pretty much in line with others.
true, but Apple seems to ignore that 256 MAY be ok to use windows but not OSX.
WinXP is built to run on ~2000-2002 hardware, Macos tiger is built for 2004-2005 hardware, more ram is needed, am I wrong?
Originally posted by a_greer
true, but Apple seems to ignore that 256 MAY be ok to use windows but not OSX.
WinXP is built to run on ~2000-2002 hardware, Macos tiger is built for 2004-2005 hardware, more ram is needed, am I wrong?
I have NO argument with you about the amount of RAM required. I can't agree about the hardware. I have several machines at home here. I'm not going to install 10.4.1 on anything critical yet, but the two that I have installed it on work fine.
The first machine is an old dual 533Mhz G4 with 1.125GB of RAM and an old NVidia GForce 2 MX card. This works VERY well. No problems with speed at all. The video card doesn't support Extreme of course, but otherwise is fine.
The other machine is an even older machine that my wife has that she won't let me replace. A 400Mhz G3 B/W with 640MB RAM, and a PCI ATI 7000 card. You would thing that this, certainly, would be a dog! But it's not. It's quite snappy. Like all machines I've installed OS X on over the years, it's performance gets better with each upgrade.
Now, I'm not talking about Doom 3 here, or HD H.264 decoding. But these technologies are not actually 10.4, though they may function better with it.
For most tasks a Mac has a much longer useful life than a PC.
But you need about 512MB of RAM to avoid too much disk swapping for virtual memory usage. XP fares worse in this regard than does the Mac. XP's virtual memory scheme is inferior. This is well known.
Don't forget that MS has been trying to get Longhorn out the door since 2004. It was supposed to be here in the middle of the year. MS's specs for a machine for it are WAY in excess of the machines available now to the PC buying public. By the time it comes out, though, PC's will have gotten closer to that point. But current ones won't meet the needs of anyone wanting to get the, as MS calls it, "Longhorn experience".
We're much better off.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the mini being sold with 256MB of RAM. Apple is slowly moving to selling all of their computers with a default of 512MB of RAM. It's only a matter of time before the mini gets 512MB.
Originally posted by MPMoriarty
Well, it seems Apple is pretty confident with Mac OS X's features and abilities now and feel the platform is solid enough for mass advertising.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the mini being sold with 256MB of RAM. Apple is slowly moving to selling all of their computers with a default of 512MB of RAM. It's only a matter of time before the mini gets 512MB.
I'd like to be now rather than later. Reportedly, the Mini's sales have slowed. Apple should eat the extra $12 that the 256MB of RAM costs them.
Originally posted by melgross
..... should eat the extra $12 that the 256MB of RAM costs them....
Originally posted by sunilraman
So, I assume you agree.