Big OSX fan, but I'm without a mac

[Faust]

sorry if that was too terse  

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
You might want to thank Apple for staying with PPC when Intel and AMD start integrating Palladium in their chips.

wise words.

however i won't be backing apple till they stop being mean bastards and open up their source code alike any decent company. their high performance success is the only thing keeping them from being microsoft in my opinion.

[xyle_one]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:


wise words.

however i won't be backing apple till they stop being mean bastards and open up their source code alike any decent company. their high performance success is the only thing keeping them from being microsoft in my opinion.

i still have faith in apple. give them time.

[bossesjoe]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
must not post while in a bad mood - original (offensive) post deleted.

what i'm saying is that apple may make their own x86 chips without the palladium bit. or they could just subcontract to intel/amd so that a "specialized" (cheaper) chip maker made the chips, and specify that apple chips must not hold DRM.  also i think the OS has to take advantage of the chip for it to work yeah, and i think apple is at least smart enough to avoid DRM.

[ May 28, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]

Whoa I never got to read the orginal post, but..

I am a mac user too, I am posting on a mac, I love my mac, its better then any of my friends computers. However the one thing I don't like is that I don't have as much choice as my friends when it comes to hardware. I know that there are third party PPC computers, and with PPC970 I am sure that IBM's chip that "was not designed for the Macintosh but can run OSX" will help expand the selection. If Apple had been making x86 I don't think they would put in palladium. Sorry if it sounded like I am a mac basher.

[Laukev7]

Calum, I think it's going too far to compare Apple with Microsoft. You are assuming that every company who publishes proprietary code are evil, as opposed to other "decent" companies (like SCO, for example       ) who open up their source, which, by the way, are not even the majority.

Apple happens to be in that minority. Their business model is even used as an example by Eric Raymond (sorry, I do not endorse Richard Stallman's ethical views). IBM is also quite decent, without opening all of their source.

Ethical business practices existed long before the open source / free software movement started, so it is completely illogical to blame a company on that basis. As Eric Raymond said, open source only makes sense if it benefits the company, and giving away the inferface of OS X would be corporate suicide.

I already said this, but I will repeat that Microsoft is an exceptionally treacherous company, unlike most other entreprises. It is not size or convictions that make a company good or evil. It is interesting to note that M$ was just as bad even when they were small (Bill Gates, for example, gave  IBM QDOS, a rip-off of CP/M, the OS of one of his own friends).

I can't resist the pun, but let's stop comparing apples with oranges.

[ May 28, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Calum, I think it's going too far to compare Apple with Microsoft. You are assuming that every company who publishes proprietary code are evil, as opposed to other "decent" companies (like SCO, for example        ) who open up their source, which, by the way, are not even the majority.

Apple happens to be in that minority. Their business model is even used as an example by Eric Raymond (sorry, I do not endorse Richard Stallman's ethical views). IBM is also quite decent, without opening all of their source.

Ethical business practices existed long before the open source / free software movement started, so it is completely illogical to blame a company on that basis. As Eric Raymond said, open source only makes sense if it benefits the company, and giving away the inferface of OS X would be corporate suicide.

I already said this, but I will repeat that Microsoft is an exceptionally treacherous company, unlike most other entreprises. It is not size or convictions that make a company good or evil. It is interesting to note that M$ was just as bad even when they were small (Bill Gates, for example, gave  IBM QDOS, a rip-off of CP/M, the OS of one of his own friends).

I can't resist the pun, but let's stop comparing apples with oranges.

[ May 28, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

Are you saying that oranges are evil..... JK

But lets also not forget that Microsoft makes shitty software and apple does not.

[Laukev7]

Exactly. One has to take in consideration the way the companie treats its customers.

[cocoamix]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Exactly. One has to take in consideration the way the companie treats its customers.

Good point.

[dont_have_one]

Yeah, I like OS X too, too bad I'm suffering eternal damnation in hell and I'm forced to use windoze 2000  

[Refalm]

quote:Satan's Minion #666: Yeah, I like OS X too, too bad I'm suffering eternal damnation in hell and I'm forced to use windoze 2000  

You're lucky, some bad guy who's now in Hell is forced to use Windows XP.

This means that Satan had to put you in Hell, but didn't really wanted to, otherwise you'd be using Windows XP. Talk to him, if you behave well, you maybe promoted to heaven (although that almost never hapends).

[sway]

i have a pretty simple answer to the apple prices. it might not be fully accurate, but what the hell.

when you buy a macintosh, you are paying for apple to also develop firewire, work with ibm/motorola on the powerpc processors, develop software, and so on. also, apple is in fact a "designer company" -- you pay a bit extra for the "shiny plastic"

[Laukev7]

Right on. Apple has to pay for the innovation and for the R&D.

But there's also the fact that Macs include all the good stuff. For example, if you compare an $799 USD eMac with a $399 Wintel, you'll notice that the wintel may not include a monitor, or use a celeron processor. And once you upgrade the computer to a level similar to that of the eMac, you often get about the same price, or even a higher price.

[Fett101]

Let's take a peek at Best Buy's weekly ad.

eMachines machine
2.2ghz
17" flat screen moniter
128 MB DDR
48x CD-Rom
40 GB HD

Aprox $600 (hard to read the small print)
$379.97 after rebates.

Emac
800mhz PPC G4
128 Sdram
40 GB HD
CD-Rom (No speed given.)
built in 17" flat screen
ATI Radeon 7500 32 MB DDR

$799

Though really, that's just happens to be one PC I ran across in the ads, and may not acurately reflect current market prices, but as far as I know... it does.

And despite such, MS has to spend on R&D too. Tab