[geeks] can't wait for Vista

[velociraptor]

On 11/6/06, Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com> wrote:
> Or, since the Pro probably uses a socket that can take a wide range of
> CPUs, why not offer Pentium D dual core as options and shave $1000 of
> the base price?

I with the exception of disk bandwidth, I'd disagree.  I consider the
Mac laptops/iMacs are mid-range.

> No one using a low-end Mac has it upgraded to a newer or current
> generation, you can't do it without replacing the machine.
>
> I've been doing Mac upgrades for 15 years now, and most of them were CPU
> upgrades since that's about all there is.
>
> They are nothing like what is out there in the PC market.

You mean swapping out a whole motherboard?  I don't really consider
that an "upgrade", I call that building a new computer.   Now, if you
mean that the *variety* of "upgrades" is larger on the PC side of the
house, yeah, that's true.  However, outside of I/O, CPU, RAM, audio
and video, I consider these to be enhancements, not "upgrades".  The
limited types of enhancements (as well as upgrades) available for a
Mac is entirely reliant on the size of the market.  Just like with
Suns, or any other "niche" market.

On the flip side, go look for DSP or DVP hardware for x86 machines
made prior to, oh '95 or so.  Yeah, pretty much Mac only.  So,
frankly, I think your making a specious argument.  Even *before* OS X,
a Mac was good for a lot longer than an x86 box--you didn't *need*
upgrades.  In fact, a machine designed for an entirely different OS
architecture (the Pismo) ran 3 revs of the new OS (up to 10.3) with
zero problems.  Try that on the x86 side of the house with the "major"
OS.

You either like the Mac well enough to lay out a little extra to get a
longer lived machine, or well enough to compromise and buy a used box
to stay in your budget.  Or, you don't like it well enough and
continue to complain about Apple's pricing structure.

> > Not to mention the fact that with PPC boxes, the newer versions of OS
> > X have actually improved performance (outside of graphics, easily
> > cured with a new card).
>
> So have most versions of UNIX, like Solaris, NetBSD, Linux, and FreeBSD.
>
> It's why I'm able to keep old PCs and UNIX workstations running for
> years after they've been EOLd.
>
> You are talking about software here.

Yes, I am.  But hardware is not useful without software.  One does not
exist without the other.

> > Case in point: My current home Mac desktop was built in '01 and
> > handles 10.4 fine. On the other hand, the work PC I had when I started
> > $curr_job, a Dell built in '02, labored under 6 xterms and 1 instance
> > each of FFox, T-bird and oCal running under KDE. Admittedly, my Mac
> > has 2x as much RAM (512MB vs 256MB) and a newer ATA HD.
>
> In other words, you ran two totally different software loads on two
> totally different machines and you are trying to compare them.

On reflection, the ATA drive in the work machine is as new as the one
in the Mac.  In fact, the work machine has a *better* ATA controller.
My point was that an older PPC machine runs an "equivalent" recent
vintage OS better than a more recent x86 box.

> That wouldn't even work if both were Mac systems.

Arguably I could install PPC Linux on the Mac and compare them, but I
see no point.

> Here you describe a broken Dell.
>
> I ran a higher load than that on my old PC, a 700MHz 32-bit AMD with
> 256MB of RAM, all the time.
>
> Note: I'm not saying my old PC was worth a damn, just that something was
> bad wrong with your 2002 Dell if it was having trouble.

Well, it *is* a Dell so it goes without saying.  I'd guess that my Mac
and the '02 Dell listed for similar prices, though.  I'd also say that
it's a lot easier, IME, to pinpoint what's not working right an Apple
(or a Sun) than it is on an x86 box, regardless of the OS.  But that
can be blamed on the mishmash of drivers and "integrated" motherboard
goo.  So, in my opinion, there are benefits as well as negatives when
you have a narrower market as you have with Macs.

> People that need a tower system and want an upgradable system need
> something between the Mini/iMac and the Pro.

Buy a used G5 still under Applecare.

> I don't know what kind of bias you were guessing at, but I'm fairly sure
> you are wrong.

To be honest, on another list, I'd peg you for a troll and not bother
responding.  Comparing Apples to "normal" x86 boxes, in spite of the
hardware architecture change of Macs, is not a reasonable thing to do
due to the lack of support from 3rd party vendors.  You'd be better
off comparing Apples to Suns.

> Also, most of the comments I'm making about Apple are not my own.  They
> are from a very, very biased group of people: die-hard Apple users.

Frankly, I could give a rat's behind what other die-hard Apple users
think.  These so-called "die-hard" Apple users are the ones who bought
the line of BS that IDE drives in Firewire cannisters would be "just
as good" as SCSI for DVP.  So, I don't put a lot of credence into
their opinions.  I decide what I want based on my own analysis.  Yes,
Macs have issues, but for the most part those issues are small
potatoes compared to the craptacular commodity x86 market.

Macs are a tool in the toolbox.  I'll pay the premium or buy used, and
do without certain types of enhancements because they "just work".  My
ongoing battle with my self-built x86 box and Linux (fscking made one
change in the xfce X Windows interface and the boxes load shot up to
4+ and took about 4-5 minutes to recover) has done nothing but
reinforce my attitude--and will keep me a Sun proponent if I stay in
IT.  I may work on Linux, but I don't have to like it or encourage it.

The long and the short of it: you either value your own time enough to
grok that having something that "just works" is a good thing because
the computer stays out of your way, or you don't.

=Nadine=