It's an academic debate anyway, because if you privately break the Apple EULA in your own home, Apple is not going to hunt you down and sue you.
This is true, but your observation that "if you privately break the Apple EUlA...Apple is not going to...sue you" has more to do with real world pragmatism then it does with ethics and law; this does not change the fact that breaking the EULA is illegal despite all of the rationalizations suggesting otherwise, which was my point. Your observation does not change this. I don't believe in the "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around" mentality that you cannot break the law unless you are caught.
This is true, but your observation that "if you privately break the Apple EUlA...Apple is not going to...sue you" has more to do with real world pragmatism then it does with ethics and law;
Ethics and law are not the same thing. I assume that, since you chose the nick "Neruda," you are aware of this.
Quote:
Originally posted by Neruda
this does not change the fact that breaking the EULA is illegal despite all of the rationalizations suggesting otherwise, which was my point. Your observation does not change this. I don't believe in the "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around" mentality that you cannot break the law unless you are caught.
This is not an abstract discussion about "should you break a law if you can get away with it?" I always hated those discussions. "What law are we talking about?" is always what I want to ask. A citizen has the right--in fact the duty--to protest and/or break laws that are unjust. Stupid laws deserve our contempt.
The whole suite of laws cropping up under the rubric of "intellectual property" is one of the signs that our civilization is due for a badly needed kick in the ass. They are not the "natural evolution" of democratic rights in accordance with what suits the needs, interests, and desires of the people; these laws are designed for one thing: to insure the flow of cash continues to those who it is already flowing towards. The argument that music/movie/etc. piracy is "stealing" is the most laughable nonsense. If people could come into my house and take a copy of something (food, clothing, whatever), leaving the original, my door would open 24/7.
This is getting off topic, so I'll leave it there. The main point is: I think Apple would be better served if it can manage to shift to allowing OS X to be run on any garden variety PC, instead of imposing artificial restrictions and relying on twisted technicalities about patents and IP to ensure its bottom line.
Ethics and law are not the same thing. I assume that, since you chose the nickname "Neruda," you are aware of this.
I don?t know what the point of this statement is, but where exactly did I say law and ethics were the same thing? If I thought law and ethics were the same thing then I would not have listed them as separate considerations (?law and ethics?). But now we?re getting into semantics. And while I love Neruda?s poetry I could not disagree more with the man?s politics. Anyone who praised Stalin is not someone that I would agree with politically. But now we are getting into a tangent.
[i]"What law are we talking about?" is always what I want to ask. A citizen has the right--in fact the duty--to protest and/or break laws that are unjust. Stupid laws deserve our contempt.[/B]
?What law are we talking about?? is an excellent question in light of your view that ?citizens [have the right and duty to break/protest unjust laws]?. We are talking about intellectual property, right? Are we now equating piracy (which you find laughable, so I probably know you?re answer already) with Thoreau?s concept of civil disobedience (the active refusal to obey certain laws/oppressive government through non-violent resistance to fight against segregation, colonialism, and disenfranchisement (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html)? Maybe there are parallels between the two, but I don?t see any. And while the concept of civil disobedience against laws that you find unjust may be appealing, what do you think would happen if everyone personally chose what laws to follow? Would such a society still have a legal system?
Quote:
[i]They are not the "natural evolution" of democratic rights in accordance with what suits the needs, interests, and desires of the people[/B]
A lot of these questions call for the balancing of many competing interests so that there is no uniform ?needs?, ?interests?, or ?desires of the people?, as you call it. Are not the rights of artists and intellectual property creators as important as those of consumers? You may argue that the balance has shifted considerably in favor of one group or the other, but I think that there are problems with whichever extreme you choose.
Quote:
[i]The argument that music/movie/etc. piracy is "stealing" is the most laughable nonsense. If people could come into my house and take a copy of something (food, clothing, whatever), leaving the original, my door would open 24/7.[/B]
[Can I have your address ] This is one of the core differences between real and intellectual property; real property is exhaustive (if I take your food I am depriving you of it) while intellectual property is not. Your comment that ?if anyone comes into my house and could take a copy of something leaving the original? then your door would be open 24/7, while taking notice of the fact that IP property is not exhaustive, shows a gross ignorance of the intellectual property business. How much time, effort, and money is spent in making that original? Do you think that production costs nothing? Also, have you personally made any movies/songs? Would you still keep your door open 24/7 if people were taking work that you personally created? You can, if you choose, place any creative work in the public domain, but conversely, artists can choose to retain and enforce their IP rights.
Quote:
[i]The main point is: I think Apple would be better served if it can manage to shift to allowing OS X to be run on any garden variety PC[/B]
No matter how much you think this is so, Apple does not have to listen to your suggestions about how it uses its IP. It is their property--they can pretty much do whatever they want with it.
Quote:
[i]instead of imposing artificial restrictions and relying on twisted technicalities about patents and IP to ensure its bottom line. [/B]
Artificial restrictions and twisted technicalities? Property rights are one of the fundamental rights protected in the US Constitution (the right to contract, the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, etc). Art. I, ß 8, cl. 8 of the Constitution seeks to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
This is true, but your observation that "if you privately break the Apple EUlA...Apple is not going to...sue you" has more to do with real world pragmatism then it does with ethics and law; this does not change the fact that breaking the EULA is illegal despite all of the rationalizations suggesting otherwise...
Perhaps, but as you know, the original intent of federal copyright law was to prohibit these types of use restrictions, as well as allow certain sorts of private, non-commercial copying. Whether that's the current legal reality is a different question.
And I've never seen a EULA that functions as a patent license.
Perhaps, but as you know, the original intent of federal copyright law was to prohibit these types of use restrictions, as well as allow certain sorts of private, non-commercial copying.
Yes, Section 1008 of the copyright act allows such copying for private, non-commercial uses. However:
(1) as I mentioned earlier, software is unlike other kinds of intellectual property (as hmurchison put it, ?Software is not a book?) so that hacking OS X to run on non-Apple sanctioned hardware, even if one could deem this ?private? or ?non-commercial?, would still be a violation of the EULA. What is allowable ?copying? or ?private? and ?non-commercial? uses differs greatly if your talking about a book as opposed to software, and these differences are greater between copyright and patent law. In patent law, for instance, any unauthorized use of a valid patent (no matter how private or non-commercial) is an infringement. Patent law has its own exceptions, such as experimental use, but even these exceptions are subject to narrowing limitations. Software can be copyrighted or patented (making the issue that much more complex).
(2)The courts have rightly decided that putting a song/movie on a P2P network for millions of people to download is not private or non-commercial use. A balance must be struck between allowing personal, non-commercial types of copying and piracy. While I agree that DRM shifts the balance too far, I would not agree that artists should not be afforded any protection.
(3) Since the issue here is whether Apple should allow its OS to run on non-Apple hardware (a). They are perfectly within their legal right not permitting this, and (b) Hacking/altering OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, while probably illegal in an of itself (not 100% sure but pretty certain), is definitely a violation of their EULA.
Quote:
[i]Whether that's the current legal reality is a different question.[/B]
Yes, that is entirely debatable (and an excellent point, I may add). I agree with you, btw (see no. 2, above). I discussed this briefly in this thread.
[i]And I've never seen a EULA that functions as a patent license. [/B]
Perhaps not, but EULA and patent licenses are both types of contracts, and as such, are both governed by similar (but not the same) principles of contract law. The use of patented software can be controlled through EULA?s (large software vendors specifying terms of use to end users) or licenses (one company using another?s software). In any case, the point I was making is that patents and copyrights are not the same, and that books and software are not the same, that EULA?s and licensees are not the same....so making analogies across these categories without knowing the distinctions doesn?t really prove anything (from a legal standpoint, at least). Read a_greer?s posts for examples (I can read books under any light that I want therefore I should be able to run OS X on whatever hardware I choose, or I can put whatever engine I want in a corvette so I should be able to run OS X on whatever hardware I choose.....).
Okay, so back on topic: should I buy a MacBook now or wait until September
Pirating movies, software, and music is in alternative to buying the media legitimately and paying money to the creator and the studio. By downloading, a person is getting the product free of charge instead of paying. That is stealing. "yeah but the person wouldn't have bothered buying it anyways if they couldn't pirate it" Great, it's now an excuse to steal something if you can't afford it?
I predicted $2200 for a Quad 2.0 low-level model. Bite Me.
Seriously guys, this isn't that important. Some of us were right, some of us were wrong. Those of us who were right could be wrong next time (and prolly will be) and vice versa.
My point is that for Adobe, to get UB, you need to buy CS3. There isn't a "cross-grade" option via a patch or trade-in. Since CS3 will also be out on PCs, as well as most other non-Apple pro software, if HP sells a dual-Woodcrest machine for $500 less, pros might be tempted. My point is that pros are looking for a platform to run applications, whereas consumers who look at macs are attracted more by the OS and the experience. Therefore, the high-end is more price-elastic than the low end.
It's just a theory, but it's my reason to hope. I'm in no way trying to troll. I have an iBook, and want a Mac Pro, and definitely think the "Mac Tax" is worth it, but some people might not.
i disagree. as a professional art director and graphic designer i wouldn't switch to windows for many reasons. a $500 difference is not a lot compared to the income i make using my computer (less than a day's work). so that's not enough of a difference to sway most people. graphics people tend to think mac only and they find the machine that fits their needs more than optimizing their price/performance ratio. i have another friend who is a freelance art director and he bought a 20" imac because it fit his budget. he didn't even consider buying a workstation-type windows computer. he simply bought the apple computer that fell in his price range. omst graphics folks are like that.
other fields, like film, web and animation aren't as platform loyal.
i disagree. as a professional art director and graphic designer i wouldn't switch to windows for many reasons. a $500 difference is not a lot compared to the income i make using my computer (less than a day's work). so that's not enough of a difference to sway most people. graphics people tend to think mac only and they find the machine that fits their needs more than optimizing their price/performance ratio. i have another friend who is a freelance art director and he bought a 20" imac because it fit his budget. he didn't even consider buying a workstation-type windows computer. he simply bought the apple computer that fell in his price range. omst graphics folks are like that.
other fields, like film, web and animation aren't as platform loyal.
Historians, on the other hand, are mad for ease of use, language flexibility, international compatiblaity in current and cycles, and love it because Macs are one of the few luxuries we can afford to spring for and enjoy for more than a few hours! I've been Mac since 1984!
My prediction for an all quad lineup was good. My price point prediction was pretty close...I was hoping for a $2000 quad 2.0 GHz but we're getting something a bit pricier instead.
To me, it makes no sense that the quad 2.0 is over 2000 dollars. I mean come on, the 2.6 GHz is only 300 dollars more expensive.
As always, Apple always creates desirable configs. The low end PowerMac were always a gyp. The medium was almost always an excellent deal. The high end was sometimes a decent deal.
If I had to guess, I'd have to say history is repeating itself. The default config (which is what I ordered) seems like a killer deal and the 2.0 GHz config seems like a mediocre deal...it probably should have been around 2000 dollars. Oh well.
The 3.0 GHz config is 800 dollars more than the 2.6 GHz config...you get 0.66GHz more as opposed to 1.32 GHz more (for a mere 300 dollars)...the TDP of the 3.0 is 80 while all the other Xeons are 65. I dunno if the cooling system differs when you order the 3.0 config but I'm sure these puppies will run hotter and/or more noisily.
IMO, the 2.6 is the best deal. Someone can try to bring something I missed to my attention though and prove me wrong. Although, like I said in another thread, someone can always go the 2.0 route...and then 1 or 2 years down the road, buy a CPU upgrade (3.0 or 3.2 GHz when they're cheap enough).
The whole suite of laws cropping up under the rubric of "intellectual property" is one of the signs that our civilization is due for a badly needed kick in the ass. They are not the "natural evolution" of democratic rights in accordance with what suits the needs, interests, and desires of the people; these laws are designed for one thing: to insure the flow of cash continues to those who it is already flowing towards. The argument that music/movie/etc. piracy is "stealing" is the most laughable nonsense. If people could come into my house and take a copy of something (food, clothing, whatever), leaving the original, my door would open 24/7.
But the fact remains: software, digital music files, et al, ARE someone else's property, and food, clothing, etc. cannot be simply duplicated and given away for free. Perhaps this leads to a new axiom: The virtual world is also the real world.
Intellectual property rights are free to be defined as rigorously or loosely as the property owner wishes. If you are not that property owner, you can always negotiate with the owner, perhaps even convince them it is in their best interest to "give away" their property... BUT, I really get steamed when someone thinks they "deserve" or have a right to something that isn't theirs.
By the way, in case you didn't hear, the U.S. is not a democracy. It's a republic. There is a difference. The way you phrase your sentences suggests you are from the U.S. ... If you are not, I stand corrected.
I hesitate to call it a gyp. I'd rather go for the 2.66 GHz model, but I'm in a budget situation. I'm a student and I want a workstation. It's nice to know I can save $300 and go for the low-end one, or trade processor speed for a decent graphics card.
It makes decent sub-$3k set-ups with a monitor and a cozy amount of RAM possible.
To me, it makes no sense that the quad 2.0 is over 2000 dollars. I mean come on, the 2.6 GHz is only 300 dollars more expensive.
As always, Apple always creates desirable configs. The low end PowerMac were always a gyp. The medium was almost always an excellent deal. The high end was sometimes a decent deal.
IMO, the 2.6 is the best deal. Someone can try to bring something I missed to my attention though and prove me wrong. Although, like I said in another thread, someone can always go the 2.0 route...and then 1 or 2 years down the road, buy a CPU upgrade (3.0 or 3.2 GHz when they're cheap enough).
You're right. There's something odd in Apple's pricing. It's true that we don't know what Apple pays for the Intel chips, but if you look at the bulk price of the Xeon chips:
2.00GHz = $316, in pairs $632
2.33GHz = $455, in pairs $910 (premium $278...)
2.66GHz = $690, in pairs $1380 (premium $748 from 2.00GHz)
3.00GHz = $851, in pairs $1702 (premium $322 from 2.66GHz, $792 from 2.33GHz)
Apple's premium for going from 2.00GHz to 2.66GHz is "only" $300, while it should be around $800, and the premium from 2.66GHz to 3.00GHz is a big $800, while it should be around $300. But if you'd use the 2.33GHz as the middle/standard model, it makes sense: around $300 to go from 2.00 to 2.33GHz and around $800 to go from 2.33 to 3.00GHz.
Again, we don't know how much Apple pays for the chips, maybe they bought enough 2.66GHz chips to pay the 2.33GHz price...?
Anyway, I still believe the price range is great: $2199-$3299 for quad-cores between 2.0 and 3.0Ghz. The case is better with 4 HD spaces and 2 opticals, I'd just hoped Apple would redesign a little the exterior so it could be rackable (2.x inches too tall to fit in a standard 19" rack), maybe for the next revision...
Now I think there is even more room for another line of Macs using Conroe (and I don't mean the iMac) with at least 2 price points: $1499 and $1999 (if not a 3rd close to $1000).
Smaller case, 2 HDs, 1 optical, 3 PCIe slots, up to 2.93GHz Conroe, nvidia nForce 590 SLI Intel edition chipset.
In case people didn't notice - Apple has completly done away with online retail models. Everything is customized. The suggested model by Apple is acutally a mid level Mac Pro, NOT a lower level. If you drop the hard drive from 250 to 160 and the processor from Quad 2.66 to Quad 2.00 you have a $2000 computer.
In case people didn't notice - Apple has completly done away with online retail models. Everything is customized. The suggested model by Apple is acutally a mid level Mac Pro, NOT a lower level. If you drop the hard drive from 250 to 160 and the processor from Quad 2.66 to Quad 2.00 you have a $2000 computer.
Thats EDU pricing btw. At any rate though, the suggested configuration is still Mid-Level
Comments
Originally posted by IntlHarvester
It's an academic debate anyway, because if you privately break the Apple EULA in your own home, Apple is not going to hunt you down and sue you.
This is true, but your observation that "if you privately break the Apple EUlA...Apple is not going to...sue you" has more to do with real world pragmatism then it does with ethics and law; this does not change the fact that breaking the EULA is illegal despite all of the rationalizations suggesting otherwise, which was my point. Your observation does not change this. I don't believe in the "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around" mentality that you cannot break the law unless you are caught.
Originally posted by Neruda
This is true, but your observation that "if you privately break the Apple EUlA...Apple is not going to...sue you" has more to do with real world pragmatism then it does with ethics and law;
Ethics and law are not the same thing. I assume that, since you chose the nick "Neruda," you are aware of this.
Originally posted by Neruda
this does not change the fact that breaking the EULA is illegal despite all of the rationalizations suggesting otherwise, which was my point. Your observation does not change this. I don't believe in the "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around" mentality that you cannot break the law unless you are caught.
This is not an abstract discussion about "should you break a law if you can get away with it?" I always hated those discussions. "What law are we talking about?" is always what I want to ask. A citizen has the right--in fact the duty--to protest and/or break laws that are unjust. Stupid laws deserve our contempt.
The whole suite of laws cropping up under the rubric of "intellectual property" is one of the signs that our civilization is due for a badly needed kick in the ass. They are not the "natural evolution" of democratic rights in accordance with what suits the needs, interests, and desires of the people; these laws are designed for one thing: to insure the flow of cash continues to those who it is already flowing towards. The argument that music/movie/etc. piracy is "stealing" is the most laughable nonsense. If people could come into my house and take a copy of something (food, clothing, whatever), leaving the original, my door would open 24/7.
This is getting off topic, so I'll leave it there. The main point is: I think Apple would be better served if it can manage to shift to allowing OS X to be run on any garden variety PC, instead of imposing artificial restrictions and relying on twisted technicalities about patents and IP to ensure its bottom line.
Originally posted by DCQ
Ethics and law are not the same thing. I assume that, since you chose the nickname "Neruda," you are aware of this.
I don?t know what the point of this statement is, but where exactly did I say law and ethics were the same thing? If I thought law and ethics were the same thing then I would not have listed them as separate considerations (?law and ethics?). But now we?re getting into semantics. And while I love Neruda?s poetry I could not disagree more with the man?s politics. Anyone who praised Stalin is not someone that I would agree with politically. But now we are getting into a tangent.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilit...idArticle=4328
[i]"What law are we talking about?" is always what I want to ask. A citizen has the right--in fact the duty--to protest and/or break laws that are unjust. Stupid laws deserve our contempt.[/B]
?What law are we talking about?? is an excellent question in light of your view that ?citizens [have the right and duty to break/protest unjust laws]?. We are talking about intellectual property, right? Are we now equating piracy (which you find laughable, so I probably know you?re answer already) with Thoreau?s concept of civil disobedience (the active refusal to obey certain laws/oppressive government through non-violent resistance to fight against segregation, colonialism, and disenfranchisement (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html)? Maybe there are parallels between the two, but I don?t see any. And while the concept of civil disobedience against laws that you find unjust may be appealing, what do you think would happen if everyone personally chose what laws to follow? Would such a society still have a legal system?
[i]They are not the "natural evolution" of democratic rights in accordance with what suits the needs, interests, and desires of the people[/B]
A lot of these questions call for the balancing of many competing interests so that there is no uniform ?needs?, ?interests?, or ?desires of the people?, as you call it. Are not the rights of artists and intellectual property creators as important as those of consumers? You may argue that the balance has shifted considerably in favor of one group or the other, but I think that there are problems with whichever extreme you choose.
[i]The argument that music/movie/etc. piracy is "stealing" is the most laughable nonsense. If people could come into my house and take a copy of something (food, clothing, whatever), leaving the original, my door would open 24/7.[/B]
[Can I have your address
[i]The main point is: I think Apple would be better served if it can manage to shift to allowing OS X to be run on any garden variety PC[/B]
No matter how much you think this is so, Apple does not have to listen to your suggestions about how it uses its IP. It is their property--they can pretty much do whatever they want with it.
[i]instead of imposing artificial restrictions and relying on twisted technicalities about patents and IP to ensure its bottom line. [/B]
Artificial restrictions and twisted technicalities? Property rights are one of the fundamental rights protected in the US Constitution (the right to contract, the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, etc). Art. I, ß 8, cl. 8 of the Constitution seeks to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Originally posted by Neruda
This is true, but your observation that "if you privately break the Apple EUlA...Apple is not going to...sue you" has more to do with real world pragmatism then it does with ethics and law; this does not change the fact that breaking the EULA is illegal despite all of the rationalizations suggesting otherwise...
Perhaps, but as you know, the original intent of federal copyright law was to prohibit these types of use restrictions, as well as allow certain sorts of private, non-commercial copying. Whether that's the current legal reality is a different question.
And I've never seen a EULA that functions as a patent license.
Originally posted by IntlHarvester
Perhaps, but as you know, the original intent of federal copyright law was to prohibit these types of use restrictions, as well as allow certain sorts of private, non-commercial copying.
Yes, Section 1008 of the copyright act allows such copying for private, non-commercial uses. However:
(1) as I mentioned earlier, software is unlike other kinds of intellectual property (as hmurchison put it, ?Software is not a book?) so that hacking OS X to run on non-Apple sanctioned hardware, even if one could deem this ?private? or ?non-commercial?, would still be a violation of the EULA. What is allowable ?copying? or ?private? and ?non-commercial? uses differs greatly if your talking about a book as opposed to software, and these differences are greater between copyright and patent law. In patent law, for instance, any unauthorized use of a valid patent (no matter how private or non-commercial) is an infringement. Patent law has its own exceptions, such as experimental use, but even these exceptions are subject to narrowing limitations. Software can be copyrighted or patented (making the issue that much more complex).
(2)The courts have rightly decided that putting a song/movie on a P2P network for millions of people to download is not private or non-commercial use. A balance must be struck between allowing personal, non-commercial types of copying and piracy. While I agree that DRM shifts the balance too far, I would not agree that artists should not be afforded any protection.
(3) Since the issue here is whether Apple should allow its OS to run on non-Apple hardware (a). They are perfectly within their legal right not permitting this, and (b) Hacking/altering OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, while probably illegal in an of itself (not 100% sure but pretty certain), is definitely a violation of their EULA.
[i]Whether that's the current legal reality is a different question.[/B]
Yes, that is entirely debatable (and an excellent point, I may add). I agree with you, btw (see no. 2, above). I discussed this briefly in this thread.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=61558
[i]And I've never seen a EULA that functions as a patent license. [/B]
Perhaps not, but EULA and patent licenses are both types of contracts, and as such, are both governed by similar (but not the same) principles of contract law. The use of patented software can be controlled through EULA?s (large software vendors specifying terms of use to end users) or licenses (one company using another?s software). In any case, the point I was making is that patents and copyrights are not the same, and that books and software are not the same, that EULA?s and licensees are not the same....so making analogies across these categories without knowing the distinctions doesn?t really prove anything (from a legal standpoint, at least). Read a_greer?s posts for examples (I can read books under any light that I want therefore I should be able to run OS X on whatever hardware I choose, or I can put whatever engine I want in a corvette so I should be able to run OS X on whatever hardware I choose.....).
Okay, so back on topic: should I buy a MacBook now or wait until September
What did you do to my thread?
WHAAA! WHHHAAAAAAAAAA! [continues throwing toys out of pram]
David
Price drop? Price drop? Ha ha! Someone hasn't learned from recent history.
Mark my words, the replacement to the Power Mac will start in the $2100-$2500 range.
Okay, I hate to rub it in, but...
Mac Pro
Standard config $2500
Cheapest you can custom-configure it? $2124.
Looks like I called it pretty much exactly...
Price Drop?
NO!
The MacBook Pros got MORE expensive
And that would be the quote.
Seriously guys, this isn't that important. Some of us were right, some of us were wrong. Those of us who were right could be wrong next time (and prolly will be) and vice versa.
My point is that for Adobe, to get UB, you need to buy CS3. There isn't a "cross-grade" option via a patch or trade-in. Since CS3 will also be out on PCs, as well as most other non-Apple pro software, if HP sells a dual-Woodcrest machine for $500 less, pros might be tempted. My point is that pros are looking for a platform to run applications, whereas consumers who look at macs are attracted more by the OS and the experience. Therefore, the high-end is more price-elastic than the low end.
It's just a theory, but it's my reason to hope. I'm in no way trying to troll. I have an iBook, and want a Mac Pro, and definitely think the "Mac Tax" is worth it, but some people might not.
i disagree. as a professional art director and graphic designer i wouldn't switch to windows for many reasons. a $500 difference is not a lot compared to the income i make using my computer (less than a day's work). so that's not enough of a difference to sway most people. graphics people tend to think mac only and they find the machine that fits their needs more than optimizing their price/performance ratio. i have another friend who is a freelance art director and he bought a 20" imac because it fit his budget. he didn't even consider buying a workstation-type windows computer. he simply bought the apple computer that fell in his price range. omst graphics folks are like that.
other fields, like film, web and animation aren't as platform loyal.
i disagree. as a professional art director and graphic designer i wouldn't switch to windows for many reasons. a $500 difference is not a lot compared to the income i make using my computer (less than a day's work). so that's not enough of a difference to sway most people. graphics people tend to think mac only and they find the machine that fits their needs more than optimizing their price/performance ratio. i have another friend who is a freelance art director and he bought a 20" imac because it fit his budget. he didn't even consider buying a workstation-type windows computer. he simply bought the apple computer that fell in his price range. omst graphics folks are like that.
other fields, like film, web and animation aren't as platform loyal.
Historians, on the other hand, are mad for ease of use, language flexibility, international compatiblaity in current and cycles, and love it because Macs are one of the few luxuries we can afford to spring for and enjoy for more than a few hours! I've been Mac since 1984!
To me, it makes no sense that the quad 2.0 is over 2000 dollars. I mean come on, the 2.6 GHz is only 300 dollars more expensive.
As always, Apple always creates desirable configs. The low end PowerMac were always a gyp. The medium was almost always an excellent deal. The high end was sometimes a decent deal.
If I had to guess, I'd have to say history is repeating itself. The default config (which is what I ordered) seems like a killer deal and the 2.0 GHz config seems like a mediocre deal...it probably should have been around 2000 dollars. Oh well.
The 3.0 GHz config is 800 dollars more than the 2.6 GHz config...you get 0.66GHz more as opposed to 1.32 GHz more (for a mere 300 dollars)...the TDP of the 3.0 is 80 while all the other Xeons are 65. I dunno if the cooling system differs when you order the 3.0 config but I'm sure these puppies will run hotter and/or more noisily.
IMO, the 2.6 is the best deal. Someone can try to bring something I missed to my attention though and prove me wrong.
The whole suite of laws cropping up under the rubric of "intellectual property" is one of the signs that our civilization is due for a badly needed kick in the ass. They are not the "natural evolution" of democratic rights in accordance with what suits the needs, interests, and desires of the people; these laws are designed for one thing: to insure the flow of cash continues to those who it is already flowing towards. The argument that music/movie/etc. piracy is "stealing" is the most laughable nonsense. If people could come into my house and take a copy of something (food, clothing, whatever), leaving the original, my door would open 24/7.
But the fact remains: software, digital music files, et al, ARE someone else's property, and food, clothing, etc. cannot be simply duplicated and given away for free. Perhaps this leads to a new axiom: The virtual world is also the real world.
Intellectual property rights are free to be defined as rigorously or loosely as the property owner wishes. If you are not that property owner, you can always negotiate with the owner, perhaps even convince them it is in their best interest to "give away" their property... BUT, I really get steamed when someone thinks they "deserve" or have a right to something that isn't theirs.
By the way, in case you didn't hear, the U.S. is not a democracy. It's a republic. There is a difference. The way you phrase your sentences suggests you are from the U.S. ... If you are not, I stand corrected.
It makes decent sub-$3k set-ups with a monitor and a cozy amount of RAM possible.
Not that I won't shoot for 2.67 Ghz, though.
To me, it makes no sense that the quad 2.0 is over 2000 dollars. I mean come on, the 2.6 GHz is only 300 dollars more expensive.
As always, Apple always creates desirable configs. The low end PowerMac were always a gyp. The medium was almost always an excellent deal. The high end was sometimes a decent deal.
IMO, the 2.6 is the best deal. Someone can try to bring something I missed to my attention though and prove me wrong.
You're right. There's something odd in Apple's pricing. It's true that we don't know what Apple pays for the Intel chips, but if you look at the bulk price of the Xeon chips:
2.00GHz = $316, in pairs $632
2.33GHz = $455, in pairs $910 (premium $278...)
2.66GHz = $690, in pairs $1380 (premium $748 from 2.00GHz)
3.00GHz = $851, in pairs $1702 (premium $322 from 2.66GHz, $792 from 2.33GHz)
Apple's premium for going from 2.00GHz to 2.66GHz is "only" $300, while it should be around $800, and the premium from 2.66GHz to 3.00GHz is a big $800, while it should be around $300. But if you'd use the 2.33GHz as the middle/standard model, it makes sense: around $300 to go from 2.00 to 2.33GHz and around $800 to go from 2.33 to 3.00GHz.
Again, we don't know how much Apple pays for the chips, maybe they bought enough 2.66GHz chips to pay the 2.33GHz price...?
Anyway, I still believe the price range is great: $2199-$3299 for quad-cores between 2.0 and 3.0Ghz. The case is better with 4 HD spaces and 2 opticals, I'd just hoped Apple would redesign a little the exterior so it could be rackable (2.x inches too tall to fit in a standard 19" rack), maybe for the next revision...
Now I think there is even more room for another line of Macs using Conroe (and I don't mean the iMac) with at least 2 price points: $1499 and $1999 (if not a 3rd close to $1000).
Smaller case, 2 HDs, 1 optical, 3 PCIe slots, up to 2.93GHz Conroe, nvidia nForce 590 SLI Intel edition chipset.
In case people didn't notice - Apple has completly done away with online retail models. Everything is customized. The suggested model by Apple is acutally a mid level Mac Pro, NOT a lower level. If you drop the hard drive from 250 to 160 and the processor from Quad 2.66 to Quad 2.00 you have a $2000 computer.
Thats EDU pricing btw. At any rate though, the suggested configuration is still Mid-Level
David