Well, maybe for upgrade pricing $250USD would work. Right now a non-upgrade of XP Pro retails at $299.99. Ultimate is supposed to be even more expensive.
You are probably right. MS hoses users on system software. Hell, I know a lot of people still using Win2000. I could see vista getting a cool reception if it is priced as high as you're suggesting($300). OS X and iLife are a tremendous value.
Why don't you use multiple platforms? Most of us here have to use windows for something, ie games or apps not written for mac. Go get a windows machine and use it for games and keep your mac for internet and general stuff that's easier in the mac.
I've considered this before. It boils down to:
1. I'd like to see performance upgrades be reflected on both of my machines, which, of course, is impossible, so I'd like to do everything on one machine.
2. I'm a sophomore in high school and would like to regain as much capital out of the old computer as I can, since I don't make $70,000 a year.
Windows XP carries code from DOS days? Ha Ha Ha Ha. Not that I know of.
OK so from Win16 days maybe. But ONLY as a Win16 subsystem. Not used AT ALL unless you call it.
The other Windows product line include Windows NT, 2000 and XP, and the server products. This Windows family is better than the 9x/ME line; at least these versions use new (i.e. post-DOS) 32-bit code. Memory protection, resource management and security are a bit more serious than in Windows 9x/ME, and they even have some support for access restrictions and a secure filesystem. That doesn't mean that this Windows family is as reliable and secure as Redmond's marketeers claim, but compared to Windows 9x/ME its additional features at least have the advantage of being there at all. But even this Windows line contains a certain amount of 16-bit legacy code, and the entire 16-bit subsystem is a direct legacy from Microsoft's OS/2 days with IBM. In short, all 16-bit applications share one 16-bit subsystem (just as with OS/2). There's no internal memory protection, so one 16-bit application may crash all the others and the entire 16-bit subsystem, as well. This may create persistent locks from the crashed 16-bit code on 32-bit resources, and eventually bring Windows to a halt. Fortunately this isn't much of a problem anymore now that 16-bit applications have all but died out.
And:That guy isn't all correct either, since you can tell xp to run each win 3.1 program in it's own virtual machine. It's an option in the shortcut properties. That has it's drawbacks too, since the progrms think they are unning on a computer by themslveses, so they can't "talk" to each other
I think Groverat was talking about Front Row and DVR capability. There is some talk that maybe Jobs is resisting on DVR functionality because he wants everyone to buy the content through iTunes instead of recording it off cable. If that is what's going on, then I have to side with Groverat and say that Jobs is off his rocker.
It's the only logical explanation for Apple being so woefully behind the curve on this. I think Microsoft was behind the curve when they jumped on this train 3 years ago.
Now Microsoft is going to have CableCard support, which means that you'll be able to buy a Vista machine and record HD shows onto your computer. I think this is going to be a pretty big deal and Apple is absolutely nowhere to be seen.
Beyond that, Apple is only selling video content at pretty low quality, especially for those of us on newer generation display technology.
So is Jobs expecting people to ditch their massive TVs for tiny little iPods?
You don't just give up on a big market that wouldn't be terribly difficult to enter, it makes no sense. But you've got to think that Jobs sold his soul to big media getting iTunes music store and the TV shows rolling. They may have his balls in a vice here. Either way he's screwing up big.
Hopefully Apple drops 10.5 with CableCard support and a beefed-up Front Row, but even if they do it will be obvious that they are just (yet again) following.
Hopefully Apple drops 10.5 with CableCard support and a beefed-up Front Row, but even if they do it will be obvious that they are just (yet again) following.
it used to be a joke that Apple served as Microsoft's R&D department, but sometimes I'm not so sure. Sometimes, I think Apple lets a market evolve a bit, then looks at all the things everyone hates about that market, what they like, and then boils that down into a product (see also: iPod).
One could make the point that, while Microsoft and Vista might be the pioneers into this area, Apple may be letting them "take the arrows," confident that the 800 lb. gorilla will stomp a wide but very imprecise path until it's finally brought down by it's own weight and fatigue.. giving Apple just the right spot to come running up from the rear and leapfrog them.
or maybe we'll get the flower power mac mini. i'm not sayin' their PERFECT.
Windows may be expensive, but you only have to pay once for the life of the OS, and Windows XP is going on 4 years. They don't charge for service packs. Apple on the other hand has charged full price for every Mac OS X update. And frankly I think it could be argued that if the OS needed such extensive yearly updates that it warrants charging for them then perhaps the early releases were not quite ready for public consumption.
Yeah...WHEN is it EVER gonna come out?! Hasn't the release date been pushed back even farther? AND why are there SOOOOO many options and versions of it?! No normal consumer is going to know what to do! They'll probably just buy the "Ultimate" (yeah right) version because the guy in CompUSA told them to, or because it contains the word ultimate in it (thereby making it sound the best). Geez...
BTW, what does he mean, "but [Apple's] OS X has been doing that for years now, and it's still Windows underneath, right?" Windows underneath?! No, it's not. He must not know much about Apple and the Mac (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186454,00.html).
Well said. The only problem is Steve bloody Jobs and his attitude towards TV. Someone just needs to lock him in a cupboard and only let him out once DVR functionality is in Front Row and it's too late for him to do anything about it.
It's my attitude towards TV too, I don't really have any use for it. I'm perfectly content with Front Row.
Thanks for backing me up, Flounder and Mr. H. I just find Placebo's attitude sad. If you're going to use Mac OS on a PC, or attempt to, then can't we all just get along..even if you are a tenth grader arguing with a college sophomore like me? ?\
It's my attitude towards TV too, I don't really have any use for it. I'm perfectly content with Front Row.
I understand Jobs' attitude towards TV, it's his prerogative to think anything of it that he likes. The problem is that he needs to realise that his feelings about TV are very different from the market's.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
Thanks for backing me up, Flounder and Mr. H. I just find Placebo's attitude sad. If you're going to use Mac OS on a PC, or attempt to, then can't we all just get along..even if you are a tenth grader arguing with a college sophomore like me? ?\
Just for the record, I thought that Placebo was being rude, and that isn't the best way to make your point. I use both Windows and Mac OS (Mac OS a lot more, though) at home, and I don't agree completely with what you were saying.
Windows may be expensive, but you only have to pay once for the life of the OS, and Windows XP is going on 4 years. They don't charge for service packs. Apple on the other hand has charged full price for every Mac OS X update.
WTF? How much did you pay for updating 10.4 to 10.4.5? If you mean Apple charges for updating 10.3 to 10.4, have you noticed that updating Win2K to WinXP is not free? Stop this nonsense, please.
Quote:
And frankly I think it could be argued that if the OS needed such extensive yearly updates that it warrants charging for them then perhaps the early releases were not quite ready for public consumption.
It seems you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Windows 3, regardless of its version number, was an alpha version of a window manager slapped together by a bunch of drunk schoolboys who had never even seen a working window-based UI. So what? Mac OS X was a definitely pre-release version, too, but neither of them was free.
Back to the topic.
The mind-blowing pecularity of a ripp-off is that the actual origin of an idea/plot/tune/etc. matters only to lawers and historians. Apart from a dozen of crazy geeks, myself included, people who buy mice and keyboards don't give a damn about who invented them. Ditto GUI in general. Ditto GUI eye candy. Ditto ethernet, damn it. What bugs me much more is so-called pop music, for which people pay insane money without even noticing it's all the same tune in different arrangements. Yet people insist on choosing one clone artist over another. Why? Because the first is prettier and sexier, and because a buddy/room mate likes he/she/it.
Let people choose whatever crap they want. Believe me, I'm typing this on a Win2K box in a room filled with Windows fanboys who blatantly state that Windows is a standard open OS, whereas Mac OS and Linux are not. And I know that I will never again recommend Mac OS to anybody. Get what you like. Get what you dig. Get what you deserve.
I understand Jobs' attitude towards TV, it's his prerogative to think anything of it that he likes. The problem is that he needs to realise that his feelings about TV are very different from the market's.
Ohhkaay...
Think what you wish about Front Row, I won't badger you about it; it's your opinion. I also feel though, that if Microsoft wants to work with TV recording and gaming, that's their prerogative, just as Apple works with iTunes. I always thought that it was a good thing that these two companies worked on different markets; it'd be too malicious and unbeneficial were they to produce and capitalize on the exact same markets...but that's just me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Just for the record, I thought that Placebo was being rude, and that isn't the best way to make your point. I use both Windows and Mac OS (Mac OS a lot more, though) at home, and I don't agree completely with what you were saying.
It just upsets me when a tenth grade high schooler sits there and sarcastically calls me "sweetcakes" or "honey," as if I'm just some naive little girl. I'm a 21 year old woman.
If you guys want to run a Windows machine and a Mac, that's fine with me. I just have my opinions, like everyone else. We can agree to disagree, right?
WTF? How much did you pay for updating 10.4 to 10.4.5? If you mean Apple charges for updating 10.3 to 10.4, have you noticed that updating Win2K to WinXP is not free? Stop this nonsense, please.
If you were not so rabidly defensive of Apple perhaps you might have reasoned that I was talking about Apple charging for the 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 updates. A person that bought all 4 would have spent over $500. If you could control yourself and read my post more carefully you would see that I said Windows did not charge for XP updates, I mentioned nothing about Windows 2000, which was never a consumer OS release, it was geared towards business. And it gave them good value for the cost, many are still using it today 6 years later. Plus, applications written for XP work fine on 2000; how many applications for 10.4 will work on 10.2?
Quote:
Windows 3, regardless of its version number, was an alpha version of a window manager slapped together by a bunch of drunk schoolboys who had never even seen a working window-based UI. So what? Mac OS X was a definitely pre-release version, too, but neither of them was free.
Totally pointless rabid fan-boy comment not worth replying to except to say, even if true, two wrongs don't make it right.
It just upsets me when a tenth grade high schooler sits there and sarcastically calls me "sweetcakes" or "honey," as if I'm just some naive little girl. I'm a 21 year old woman.
You must be feigning stupidity. That's the only way I can rationalize it. Either that, or you think real-life seniority applies on the internet. Treat me with respect and I'll treat you with respect; a five-year spread in age doesn't justify you disrespecting me.
Sometimes, I think Apple lets a market evolve a bit, then looks at all the things everyone hates about that market, what they like, and then boils that down into a product.
You let someone else release a mediocre product into a market, learn from their mistakes, and release a superior product. That's called smart business.
Quote:
It's the only logical explanation for Apple being so woefully behind the curve on this. I think Microsoft was behind the curve when they jumped on this train 3 years ago.
Your arguement is predicated on the DVR market being successful. Which is not at all. Only a small portion of the Windows user base knows that Media Center even exists and even smaller portion actually uses it. The truth is that Media Center hasn't made a profit in 3 years.
Quote:
Windows may be expensive, but you only have to pay once for the life of the OS, and Windows XP is going on 4 years. They don't charge for service packs. Apple on the other hand has charged full price for every Mac OS X update. And frankly I think it could be argued that if the OS needed such extensive yearly updates that it warrants charging for them then perhaps the early releases were not quite ready for public consumption.
Honestly I don't see OS X upgrades and Windows service packs being synonymous.
10.2 - 10.3 -10.4 have consecutively offered vastly different features and functions from the previous OS. Its far more than just performance, stability and security.
Not only in functionlaity but under the hood improvements as Apple is slowly changing its entire API platform.
On the other hand no one has to upgrade to the next OS you can certainly get by with skipping one for the next.
There is also a strength in incremental OS upgrades. Apple is able to offer new features faster. The new OS gets into users hands faster which allows Apple to continuously fix problems.
It will more than likely take a couple of years before most of the bugs and discrepancies in Vista are worked out for every possibe PC configuration.
Comments
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Well, maybe for upgrade pricing $250USD would work. Right now a non-upgrade of XP Pro retails at $299.99. Ultimate is supposed to be even more expensive.
You are probably right. MS hoses users on system software. Hell, I know a lot of people still using Win2000. I could see vista getting a cool reception if it is priced as high as you're suggesting($300). OS X and iLife are a tremendous value.
Originally posted by backtomac
Why don't you use multiple platforms? Most of us here have to use windows for something, ie games or apps not written for mac. Go get a windows machine and use it for games and keep your mac for internet and general stuff that's easier in the mac.
I've considered this before. It boils down to:
1. I'd like to see performance upgrades be reflected on both of my machines, which, of course, is impossible, so I'd like to do everything on one machine.
2. I'm a sophomore in high school and would like to regain as much capital out of the old computer as I can, since I don't make $70,000 a year.
3. I don't want to buy a console.
Originally posted by ryaxnb
Windows XP carries code from DOS days? Ha Ha Ha Ha. Not that I know of.
OK so from Win16 days maybe. But ONLY as a Win16 subsystem. Not used AT ALL unless you call it.
The other Windows product line include Windows NT, 2000 and XP, and the server products. This Windows family is better than the 9x/ME line; at least these versions use new (i.e. post-DOS) 32-bit code. Memory protection, resource management and security are a bit more serious than in Windows 9x/ME, and they even have some support for access restrictions and a secure filesystem. That doesn't mean that this Windows family is as reliable and secure as Redmond's marketeers claim, but compared to Windows 9x/ME its additional features at least have the advantage of being there at all. But even this Windows line contains a certain amount of 16-bit legacy code, and the entire 16-bit subsystem is a direct legacy from Microsoft's OS/2 days with IBM. In short, all 16-bit applications share one 16-bit subsystem (just as with OS/2). There's no internal memory protection, so one 16-bit application may crash all the others and the entire 16-bit subsystem, as well. This may create persistent locks from the crashed 16-bit code on 32-bit resources, and eventually bring Windows to a halt. Fortunately this isn't much of a problem anymore now that 16-bit applications have all but died out.
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/micr...IhateMS_2.html
And:That guy isn't all correct either, since you can tell xp to run each win 3.1 program in it's own virtual machine. It's an option in the shortcut properties. That has it's drawbacks too, since the progrms think they are unning on a computer by themslveses, so they can't "talk" to each other
Originally posted by groverat
I think Jobs is pushing for everything to go through iTunes. He's delusional.
...?
Originally posted by Placebo
...?
I think Groverat was talking about Front Row and DVR capability. There is some talk that maybe Jobs is resisting on DVR functionality because he wants everyone to buy the content through iTunes instead of recording it off cable. If that is what's going on, then I have to side with Groverat and say that Jobs is off his rocker.
Now Microsoft is going to have CableCard support, which means that you'll be able to buy a Vista machine and record HD shows onto your computer. I think this is going to be a pretty big deal and Apple is absolutely nowhere to be seen.
Beyond that, Apple is only selling video content at pretty low quality, especially for those of us on newer generation display technology.
So is Jobs expecting people to ditch their massive TVs for tiny little iPods?
You don't just give up on a big market that wouldn't be terribly difficult to enter, it makes no sense. But you've got to think that Jobs sold his soul to big media getting iTunes music store and the TV shows rolling. They may have his balls in a vice here. Either way he's screwing up big.
Hopefully Apple drops 10.5 with CableCard support and a beefed-up Front Row, but even if they do it will be obvious that they are just (yet again) following.
Originally posted by groverat
Hopefully Apple drops 10.5 with CableCard support and a beefed-up Front Row, but even if they do it will be obvious that they are just (yet again) following.
it used to be a joke that Apple served as Microsoft's R&D department, but sometimes I'm not so sure. Sometimes, I think Apple lets a market evolve a bit, then looks at all the things everyone hates about that market, what they like, and then boils that down into a product (see also: iPod).
One could make the point that, while Microsoft and Vista might be the pioneers into this area, Apple may be letting them "take the arrows," confident that the 800 lb. gorilla will stomp a wide but very imprecise path until it's finally brought down by it's own weight and fatigue.. giving Apple just the right spot to come running up from the rear and leapfrog them.
or maybe we'll get the flower power mac mini. i'm not sayin' their PERFECT.
Pretty smart though: you get people to pay you for beta previewing your OS.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Well said. The only problem is Steve bloody Jobs and his attitude towards TV. Someone just needs to lock him in a cupboard and only let him out once DVR functionality is in Front Row and it's too late for him to do anything about it.
It's my attitude towards TV too, I don't really have any use for it. I'm perfectly content with Front Row.
Thanks for backing me up, Flounder and Mr. H.
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
It's my attitude towards TV too, I don't really have any use for it. I'm perfectly content with Front Row.
I understand Jobs' attitude towards TV, it's his prerogative to think anything of it that he likes. The problem is that he needs to realise that his feelings about TV are very different from the market's.
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
Thanks for backing me up, Flounder and Mr. H.
Just for the record, I thought that Placebo was being rude, and that isn't the best way to make your point. I use both Windows and Mac OS (Mac OS a lot more, though) at home, and I don't agree completely with what you were saying.
Originally posted by FotNS
Windows may be expensive, but you only have to pay once for the life of the OS, and Windows XP is going on 4 years. They don't charge for service packs. Apple on the other hand has charged full price for every Mac OS X update.
WTF? How much did you pay for updating 10.4 to 10.4.5? If you mean Apple charges for updating 10.3 to 10.4, have you noticed that updating Win2K to WinXP is not free? Stop this nonsense, please.
And frankly I think it could be argued that if the OS needed such extensive yearly updates that it warrants charging for them then perhaps the early releases were not quite ready for public consumption.
It seems you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Windows 3, regardless of its version number, was an alpha version of a window manager slapped together by a bunch of drunk schoolboys who had never even seen a working window-based UI. So what? Mac OS X was a definitely pre-release version, too, but neither of them was free.
Back to the topic.
The mind-blowing pecularity of a ripp-off is that the actual origin of an idea/plot/tune/etc. matters only to lawers and historians. Apart from a dozen of crazy geeks, myself included, people who buy mice and keyboards don't give a damn about who invented them. Ditto GUI in general. Ditto GUI eye candy. Ditto ethernet, damn it. What bugs me much more is so-called pop music, for which people pay insane money without even noticing it's all the same tune in different arrangements. Yet people insist on choosing one clone artist over another. Why? Because the first is prettier and sexier, and because a buddy/room mate likes he/she/it.
Let people choose whatever crap they want. Believe me, I'm typing this on a Win2K box in a room filled with Windows fanboys who blatantly state that Windows is a standard open OS, whereas Mac OS and Linux are not. And I know that I will never again recommend Mac OS to anybody. Get what you like. Get what you dig. Get what you deserve.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I understand Jobs' attitude towards TV, it's his prerogative to think anything of it that he likes. The problem is that he needs to realise that his feelings about TV are very different from the market's.
Ohhkaay...
Think what you wish about Front Row, I won't badger you about it; it's your opinion. I also feel though, that if Microsoft wants to work with TV recording and gaming, that's their prerogative, just as Apple works with iTunes. I always thought that it was a good thing that these two companies worked on different markets; it'd be too malicious and unbeneficial were they to produce and capitalize on the exact same markets...but that's just me.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Just for the record, I thought that Placebo was being rude, and that isn't the best way to make your point. I use both Windows and Mac OS (Mac OS a lot more, though) at home, and I don't agree completely with what you were saying.
It just upsets me when a tenth grade high schooler sits there and sarcastically calls me "sweetcakes" or "honey," as if I'm just some naive little girl. I'm a 21 year old woman.
If you guys want to run a Windows machine and a Mac, that's fine with me. I just have my opinions, like everyone else.
Originally posted by costique
WTF? How much did you pay for updating 10.4 to 10.4.5? If you mean Apple charges for updating 10.3 to 10.4, have you noticed that updating Win2K to WinXP is not free? Stop this nonsense, please.
If you were not so rabidly defensive of Apple perhaps you might have reasoned that I was talking about Apple charging for the 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 updates. A person that bought all 4 would have spent over $500. If you could control yourself and read my post more carefully you would see that I said Windows did not charge for XP updates, I mentioned nothing about Windows 2000, which was never a consumer OS release, it was geared towards business. And it gave them good value for the cost, many are still using it today 6 years later. Plus, applications written for XP work fine on 2000; how many applications for 10.4 will work on 10.2?
Windows 3, regardless of its version number, was an alpha version of a window manager slapped together by a bunch of drunk schoolboys who had never even seen a working window-based UI. So what? Mac OS X was a definitely pre-release version, too, but neither of them was free.
Totally pointless rabid fan-boy comment not worth replying to except to say, even if true, two wrongs don't make it right.
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
It just upsets me when a tenth grade high schooler sits there and sarcastically calls me "sweetcakes" or "honey," as if I'm just some naive little girl. I'm a 21 year old woman.
You must be feigning stupidity. That's the only way I can rationalize it. Either that, or you think real-life seniority applies on the internet. Treat me with respect and I'll treat you with respect; a five-year spread in age doesn't justify you disrespecting me.
Sometimes, I think Apple lets a market evolve a bit, then looks at all the things everyone hates about that market, what they like, and then boils that down into a product.
You let someone else release a mediocre product into a market, learn from their mistakes, and release a superior product. That's called smart business.
It's the only logical explanation for Apple being so woefully behind the curve on this. I think Microsoft was behind the curve when they jumped on this train 3 years ago.
Your arguement is predicated on the DVR market being successful. Which is not at all. Only a small portion of the Windows user base knows that Media Center even exists and even smaller portion actually uses it. The truth is that Media Center hasn't made a profit in 3 years.
Windows may be expensive, but you only have to pay once for the life of the OS, and Windows XP is going on 4 years. They don't charge for service packs. Apple on the other hand has charged full price for every Mac OS X update. And frankly I think it could be argued that if the OS needed such extensive yearly updates that it warrants charging for them then perhaps the early releases were not quite ready for public consumption.
Honestly I don't see OS X upgrades and Windows service packs being synonymous.
10.2 - 10.3 -10.4 have consecutively offered vastly different features and functions from the previous OS. Its far more than just performance, stability and security.
Not only in functionlaity but under the hood improvements as Apple is slowly changing its entire API platform.
On the other hand no one has to upgrade to the next OS you can certainly get by with skipping one for the next.
There is also a strength in incremental OS upgrades. Apple is able to offer new features faster. The new OS gets into users hands faster which allows Apple to continuously fix problems.
It will more than likely take a couple of years before most of the bugs and discrepancies in Vista are worked out for every possibe PC configuration.