Posted on 11/29/2006 2:54:07 AM PST by Swordmaker
We've already been over the "better" thing. But, yes, not allowing that does allow for much better quality control for Apple. They don't have to consider thousands of possible motherboard and chipset configurations, just the ones they produce. Apple wants to sell you a pleasant, productive and coherent computing experience from the moment you get the box home until after you've got your computer all set up. They can't achieve that by selling the OS itself for non-Mac systems.
Then there's also the fact that OS X is out-of-the-box incompatible with pretty much every non-Mac x86 system sold these days.
Indeed I have as well, just not many recently and more rare is someone who will quantify that. I will also (sometimes) buy the argument that it won't save any money, in fact it'll cost money, but it will provide more/better business intellegence that can't be assigned a dollar value.
As far as I know, it's 'run' by software to the same extent as any hard drive. The two drives are striped or mirrored just as one would do a straight format or a partition.
Now admittedly, I've never sat down and watched for cpu cycle variance between a striped array and a single drive.
It worked. It noticeably increased capacity and performance. And that was the limit of my concern.
"IF you want extreme 3D or Video…" Yep. If. That's the kicker right there. I don't do large format video editing, and I can't wrap my head around the hard core gaming thing. Just not my thing.
SP2 contains lots of bug fixes, changes to the security model and hardware compatibility, but the only real additions are a cheap personal firewall in a "security center," a few tweaks to bring IE up to the standard of a couple of years previous, and a few security tweaks to Outlook Express. .NET 2.0 isn't part of SP2, and IIRC neither is WMP. Other improvements did include fixing the wireless, bluetooth support and a few other interesting things.
The first paid upgrade to OS X got you over 150 improvements, including vastly improved speed both by OS tuning and by moving the GUI compositing onto the video card (you're paying for a feature like this in Vista), system-wide address book, spam filter, zero-configuration networking, iChat (not an upgrade, an actual new app), etc.
In fact, many of the improvements in OS X upgrades over the years are incorporated into Vista. Pre-Intel Mac users have been paying for more than one upgrade, but then they've been able to use these features for years.
most of it works, Apple needs to do A LOT of work on it though.... LOTS of people want to run OSX but DO NOT want their generic hardware(with NO CONTROL OVER IT) and then have to pay a premium price to top it all off.
I got windows PRE-SP1 and have been slip-streaming... SP1, SP2 then then .net's then direct x upgrades, media player upgrades, IE upgrades all free for 5 years and all devices work.... 3 Upgrades and still humming along... getting ready for a 4th... on that machine(not a major upgrade that would require a new OS anyhow just a processor this time) the others were mobo/processor/memory/video card/PS upgrades that went along the line into other machines.(those mostly have linux on them)
Pretty much.
Only it's silver.
Was the dell on the market a year ago?
I have no idea...
Apple doesn't need to do any work in that area. People who don't buy Macs simply are not Apple's computer customers, so Apple doesn't need to care.
people want to run OSX but DO NOT want their generic hardware(with NO CONTROL OVER IT)
Apple's hardware is not generic. And it depends on what level of control you need (note need, not want). Can I put in new memory, hard drives and cards, depending on what I bought the computer for? I'm happy.
then have to pay a premium price to top it all off.
We've already established that Apples are price-competitive with other OEMs, and that a Mac Pro is far cheaper than the equivalent Dell, and even cheaper than the retail parts needed to build it.
'Cause that was a big part of the buying decision.
It was the biggest monitor we could find (for any price) in October/November of 05.
Apple still releases minor updates for all of their systems in much the same way MS still releases minor updates for windows 2000. And just like may choose 2k over XP some still use 10.1 or 10.2 over 10.4 or 10.5
System Requirements
PC or Macintosh computer running Windows 98SE, 2000, Me, XP or Mac OS 10.2.6 & higher with powered USB port, CD-ROM drive & color monitor. nik Color Efex Pro 2 IE requires Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 (included) or Photoshop 7 & higher. Corel Painter Essentials 2 requires Windows 2000, XP, or Mac OS 10.2 & higher.
There's a huge difference between wants and needs. A lot of people can get by with 10.1 or 10.2. Does the guy really need the wacom? Probably not.
He knows if he wants it, he'll have to look into an upgrade. That's where he has to determine whether he really needs the upgraded OS X (IOW--if the tablet's the only reason to upgrade and it's isn't necessary to work--is it really worth it)
Heck, I'd personally be happy to take a Mac running 10.2 (Jaguar). I don't need Panther, Tiger, or Leopard (while that would be nice, it's not necessary).
Second, I know a couple people who still run OS 9.x on their Macs--yes, they're old (and they probably can't run OS X natively), but they do what they need it to do. So, they're satisfied.
It's one of those things that requires you to weigh the pros and cons of upgrading...
Meh, he is bashing..
If he can try to spin Microsoft's complete inability to release a new operating system after 7 years of working on it as an asset he is obviously not interested in a serious conversation about it
When bill gates decides to let anyone who buys vista or some of his server products post benchmarks then you can scream he is the defender of consumer freedom..
It sounds as if Vista is going to be a nightmare -- requires twice as much or more RAM than current XP machines and there will be seven (7) versions (IIRC) for just about every type of user instead of the two for XP. I read an article on here that chronicles how long it took to decide how many "off" buttons are shown after a user hits "start" to beginning shutting down the machine.
Someone pointed out that having too many versions, as Vista will have, complicates a buyers decision making to the point that he/she will either go somewhere else (a MAC??) or put off the purchase completely. XP will be around for several years yet. Just as MS stopped supporting Win98, XP will one day not be supported. If Mac can get a replacement computer out that will compete with the complex Vista operating system and runs Windows programs easily, maybe they will once again become a real competitor to the Microsoft giant.
My experience is that software 0 or 1 is not all that bad on the cpu just stay away from parity..
And I was forced to go from 98 to windows 2000 for some speech recognition software that, at the time, I needed. The *only* reason cutting edge games run on XP is because MS has been unable to finish the new os they started working on before the millennium turned over.
WinXP October 2001
Win Server 2003 was released in March 2003...
WinXP 64bit Pro was released in April of 2005...
Windows Vista: On November 8, 2006, Windows Vista development was completed and is now in the release to manufacturing stage; Microsoft has stated that the scheduled release dates are currently November 30, 2006 for volume license customers and worldwide availability on January 30, 2007. Windows Vista English Edition was released to MSDN subscribers on November 16, 2006
LOL! yea... so did WinXP if you remember and it over 80% of the computer market! LOL
and there will be seven (7) versions (IIRC) for just about every type of user instead of the two for XP.
Some of those wont even apply to us those are for Europe(N), these are the ones we have
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.