Just how many songs are in your iTunes lib? ;-)
Posted on 08/28/2009 1:22:02 PM PDT by Swordmaker
If you already have a Windows partition you will not need to reinstall Windows via Bootcamp after upgrading to Snow Leopard.
Just how many songs are in your iTunes lib? ;-)
There has been some decent progress in getting EULA terms that represent abuse of copyright judged unenforceable. Copyright is what protects their works so they can't have more power through a EULA than copyright gives -- unless of course the government goes unconstitutional, which they've been known to do from time to time (like every other minute).
Unfortunately the current big-news case involves an apparently dishonest company. That makes bad precedent. The Universal v. Reimerdes DMCA case was largely lost because of who the defendant was even though he had a great free speech defense.
> Lets say Apple authorized Dell to sell dual boot computers. After they checked out OSX for a while I'm sure most users would end up using Windows 7 most of the time
Hodar, your wish shows that you don't understand that Apple is a SYSTEMS company, that makes their money on their hardware, not their software. Apple can't "compete directly against Windows" -- they make and sell SYSTEMS. Not just software. Totally different business model. It's like wishing that a football player would model lingerie -- it just doesn't work that way.
Dennis, I agree with you that eyeball-to-eyeball, most users would end up with Windows rather than OS-X. But the reason is that most users (90%) presently use Windows, and most Windows users have at least one Windows-only application they depend on. They won't switch arbitrarily to Mac.
It has nothing to do with which OS is "better", or "prettier", or "easier to use", or "stabler", or "more secure". The decision would be made, most of the time, on the basis of "Does it run my Windows-only application that I'm used to?", answer = "No", result = stick with Windows.
Users like that don't want to hear about VMware or Parallels or BootCamp, either. So arguments that they can have BOTH Windows and Mac cut no ice.
i’ll never buy an ibm again - OSX is awesome
305 albums, 19.5 days worth of listening time, 43.66 GB. This is after I trimmed out albums I stopped listening to; my library used to top 75GB.
Regardless, iTunes 8 is not 64-bit while most of Snow Leopard is. Even Safari is 64-bit. Heck, even Finder is 64-bit now, after it was completely rewritten in Cocoa. iTunes needs the same treatment. A total rewrite in Cocoa, clear out all the old code, slim its memory footprint down, improve its performance (especially when loading album covers in Grid and Coverflow views), etc etc.
iTunes needs the update. I hope iTunes 9 delivers it. Probably won’t, though.
Unfortunately, I think you are correct. Most users would opt to stick with Windows due to the critical mass of applications that are available for Windows.
However, I think you are overlooking the silent majority; Mom and Dad who are close to, or in retirment who only want to send email, read the news and maybe put together a photo-album DVD of their family vacation.
My parents are in their 70’s; and teaching them to use Windows - alone - it a very frustrating experience. The ease of use, and base elegance that is OS X makes this a great candidate for this demographic.
Now, is this demographic 90%? No, but it’s far greater than the ~6% that Apple currently enjoys.
It's slowly changing, but there's a lot of resistance, and Apple doesn't particularly want to compromise their elusive "user experience" factor (which, to be fair, I enjoy myself!) just to gain access to a bunch of dowdy-but-familiar Windows apps.
I run mostly Macs these days, with VMware and BootCamp to support my Windows, Linux, and other OS needs. But I'm not a typical user by any means...
> However, I think you are overlooking the silent majority; Mom and Dad who are close to, or in retirment who only want to send email, read the news and maybe put together a photo-album DVD of their family vacation. My parents are in their 70’s; and teaching them to use Windows - alone - it a very frustrating experience. The ease of use, and base elegance that is OS X makes this a great candidate for this demographic.
That's a very good point.
> Now, is this demographic 90%? No, but it’s far greater than the ~6% that Apple currently enjoys.
Interesting thought -- Macs have long had the reputation of being toys for young'uns, but I'll bet you're right, that older folks are good candidates.
My mom just turned 85, and has been using Windows for years, having migrated up from DOS in the early 90's through Win95, 98, and into XP. Switching to a Mac would be tough on her at this point, since her experience has all been Microsoft mindset. When I visit with my MacBook, she looks at it, chuckles, and says, "that's nice looking, but it doesn't make sense to me".
So there's a familiarity factor in there too...
But I agree with you that long-distance tech support of a Mac would be a lot easier.
Your drive will not be changed in any way except that Snow Leopard will be installed on it. If you are using VMWare Fusion or Parallels 4 (I hear that Parallels 3 or lower does not work with Snow Leopard) with a virtual Windows PC Hard Drive file, you will not have to partition your drive to run Windows.
If you prefer to boot into Windows, then, yes, you should repartition the HD but that can be done after installing Snow Leopard.
I disagree. I have no desire or need to dual boot, except if the other OS is Linux.
The US government has decided that Microsoft can strangle any opposition, so I suppose it's not surprising there isn't opposition in any in brick and mortar stores. Apple tying Mac OS X to their own hardware is self defense.
The eternal defense of an indefensible system. Can you name three?
Why sure. I’m running an HP with a 64 bit Phenom 2.5 quad-core, 6 gigs of ram, 512 meg nvidia gpu. built in wireless, raid ready, 640 gig hd, lightscribe DVD.
The mac that comes closest is the Mac pro,$2499 2.6 quad-core, 3 gigs of ram, 512 meg gpu. Oh, but wait, I have to get the built in wireless to equal my hp +$700, and a DVI adapter $29, and three more gigs of ram $150. just to make it close.
that puts my HP at $599 plus shipping.
Mac pro at $3428 plus shipping.
It’s actually well over five times the cost.
This would be an upgrade slightly, as the clock speed of the CPU would be slightly higher.
Or, I could pop over to the refurb side and buy a dual quad-core for $3299 plus shipping, but that one only has two gigs of ram. I’d most likely need to upgrade that, plus add in the wireless. so that takes it off the table for comparison purposes.
lol bro
> The eternal defense of an indefensible system. Can you name three?
Sure:
My central work desktop is XP installed on the metal. It also has VMs of Win7, Vista, Fedora Linux, CentOS Linux, and NetBSD.
My work laptop is a MacBook with Leopard, a BootCamped XP install, and a VM of Win7.
I've been at this a long time.
Home is a different matter.
One MacBook and two MacMinis, with a varied mix of Leopard, WinXP, Win7, Win2K, Win98/MSDOS, Fedora, CentOS, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc., mostly VMs of course. Plus older PC hardware with metal installs of WinXP, Win2K, Win7, Fedora Linux, etc. Plus older iMacs with OS 9.2.
I spend 90+% of my time in OS-X; the rest are for Windows-only apps and special project work.
You will have to forgive me, I’m having trouble finding your computer on the HP Web site. The one I saw one that is $599 has a 2.3GHz processor that retails on Newegg for $109. Swordmaker would know better than I, but it looks like the Mac Pro’s chip retails for $280. I believe it is the next model up that has the $1000 dollar chip in it.
This HP also allowed the free upgrade to 6GB of RAM, DDR2-800MHz. The Mac Pro does only come with a base of 3GB, but it is DDR3-1066MHz.
Now in some ways, the differences may become a wash, but I wouldn’t say these are immediately comparable computers. Especially considering the different markets each are designed for.
I would think a better comparison would be an iMac.
Way back in the day, when Mac was about the only company that as pushing into the education market (which was a burst of briliance, familiarize the young) - your lowly Kindergarten teacher was the IT support person for the entire school.
Now, with Windows - while prices have plummeted - technological expertise in these matters has skyrocketed. What the untrained Kindergarten teacher used to do for free, now requires a certified and trained IT professional.
I would like to be able to go to Costco (Amazon, whatever) and purchase the MacOS and load on my home PC. Just as in the old days, today we have no choice but to buy whatever computer Mac has deigned to offer us.
I beg to differ. I’m the consumer, I should tell them what hard drive, what size monitor, what speed, how much memory, ect, that I think I need, and at a price point I think is reasonable. Back when Mac was a tailor made piece of hardware, they could justify their exorbinate prices - today, they use the same design, the same silicon and the same mounting hardware that everyone else uses - and charge prices that are out of line with the competition.
So, they can sit with 5-7% marketshare and make a profit; or they can potentially hit 30% marketshare on lower profit margins - but then the snow ball will gather speed. While software developers are not motivated to migrate software to compete to pick up 5-7% marketshare - they will be more likely to migrate to pick up 20-30% marketshare.
I believe that the untapped population (poor students who cannot afford the luxury of Apple’s price, non-IT users who do not need AutoDesk or custom software, the elderly who want to keep pace and keep in contact with distant family ) will gladly embrace a stable, easy to use OS like the Mac.
I think it is a mistake for Apple to insist that the only population who will buy thier OS, are those who are heavily invested in their hardware.
Ya, me too. It's a discontinued model apparently. Some 9500 series, but I"ve seen the same computer with the same numbers with a variety of different configs. I ca'nt remember the exact model number, but when I first bought it, I was googling and found different descriptions.
Now in some ways, the differences may become a wash, but I wouldn’t say these are immediately comparable computers. Especially considering the different markets each are designed for.
I'm comparing hardware regardless whatever market it's designed for. My point stands: To get a similarly equipped Mac, I have to pay over five times as much for the same power. The only advantage to me is to get a new OS. Not worth it in any scenario in MY market. When I can afford a Mac, I can have a LOT more computer in a PC. Macs just don't fit.
THe HP site wasn’t working for me for a few. Here’s a comparable computer to what I have:
But I don’t see my processor and it’s shorter of RAM.
One thing I don’t like about mine is the weenie power supply. One of these days, I’ll replace it.
How much is having 4 hard drive bays worth? How much is the design of the internals of the computer for easy expansion of everything worth? In a quantifiable cost, how much is an aircraft grade aluminum case worth?
Again, I’m not sure why an iMac isn’t the closer comparison. It won’t bring the cost of the two computers into exact comparison, but it starts out much cheaper with similar specs to what you have. It doesn’t have a RAID option, but I’m not sure the necessity of that for home use when you have programs like Time Machine built in. A 20in. iMac with a 2.66GHz processor, with 4GB Ram (again the faster RAM, than what you likely have this can add a lot to a price) and a 640GB HD is only 1,374. That includes a screen though and again an aluminum case.
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.