PDA

View Full Version : Trying to take the credit again?


chewbaccapits
May 18, 2003, 07:44 PM
Damn that m$...Funny how they try to pass this feature as if they developed it...

"The individual windows in Longhorn will be semi-translucent, making it possible to discern the contents of one window hidden behind another.

The trick is in the degree of opacity -- completely transparent windows atop one another would turn information into a jumble of letters and graphics, while more opaque ones might defeat their own purpose. "



BOO....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030518/tc_nm/column_pluggedin_dc_2

baby duck monge
May 18, 2003, 09:05 PM
"Although Windows XP, the most current version of Windows, is just 20 months old, the world's largest software maker is betting that users will be ready to upgrade within the next couple of years as personal computers become more powerful, faster and affordable."

man, this just really strikes me as funny for some reason. the newest version of windows is almost two years old, and maybe in a few years people might think it's time for a new one. ha! maybe yearly updates are a bit much, but 4 or more years between updates? geez...

m$ is really stretching to keep people interrested, and i can't believe how much of a positive response they're getting. i don't mean to sound like a zealot, but how far behind will they be when this is finally released? apple will have had plenty of time to just keep on innovating and working out any kinks that might turn up.

of course, microsoft will probably continue doing what they seem to love doing so much - passing the ideas of others off as their own. in the academic world, we call that plaigerism. oh well... hopefully they will continue to implement shoddy versions of good ideas.

Stelliform
May 18, 2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by baby duck monge
"Although Windows XP, the most current version of Windows, is just 20 months old, the world's largest software maker is betting that users will be ready to upgrade within the next couple of years as personal computers become more powerful, faster and affordable."



This is a prime example of how M$ is out of touch with its consumers. I now have about 10 XP machines in the hundreds that I maintain. I have one client that purchased software assurance and gets free XP upgrades, and the are planning on implenting the upgrades to XP maybe later this year. They just purchased three new laptops and checked with me first to see if XP was a problem.

I would say that of my clients I have
60% Win 2k
20% Win 95/98/Me (well 4 Me machines)
15% Win NT
5% Win XP

And they are pushing for a new OS? I think they should wait for XP to be adopted first. I am sure on the home end XP ranks high, but look at the unreliable alternatives (95/98/Me). I have seen very slow adoption of XP, and I don't see many signs of it picking up soon.

Thom_Edwards
May 18, 2003, 11:56 PM
from my personal observation, windows users don't update like *we* do. well, they do and they don't. let me explain...

for starters, they take whatever is on their machine when they get it, and just ride it out. the latest and greatest box will have the latest and greatest ms os (whatever that may mean), so when their pee 2 peters out they "upgrade" the os when they but a new computer. just a guess, i would say almost all of xp adoption is due to new computer sales.

second, as many stupid critical updates as ms has to put out, people think they are upgrading the os. i guess windoze users have a reality distortion field, too. :p maybe they have a point... service packs could equal the . versions we see.

i won't go to xp. i've used it a couple of times on other people's computers, but i've got no use for it. win2k server for me on my wintel box and i seriously doubt that will ever change, except for in the morning when i have to install the windohs media player security update...

chewbaccapits
May 19, 2003, 01:18 AM
So another OS is justified because its their biggest source of cash??? You think?

MorganX
May 19, 2003, 08:17 AM
The most meaningful quote from the article that Apple should hear is:

>>"Longhorn sort of continues Microsoft's insistence and belief that the desktop personal computer is best served by a fully high-powered device," said Dwight Davis, a strategist at Summit Strategies. <<


They really do need to kill the silly consumer/prosumer designation.

Flickta
May 19, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by MorganX

They really do need to kill the silly consumer/prosumer designation.

Perhaps, it's not quite right. Prosumer/consumer makes perfect sense.

Consumer /SHOULD BE/ line equipped with decent hardware - rivaling consumer PC's, while Professional - competes (and outperforms /AGAIN SHOULD/ PC workstations /with dual P4 Xeons... yeah.../.

It's just that Apple can't make Pro models nowadays.

MorganX
May 19, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Flickta
Perhaps, it's not quite right. Prosumer/consumer makes perfect sense.

Consumer /SHOULD BE/ line equipped with decent hardware - rivaling consumer PC's, while Professional - competes (and outperforms /AGAIN SHOULD/ PC workstations /with dual P4 Xeons... yeah.../.

It's just that Apple can't make Pro models nowadays.

I think MS has it right. Fully high powered desktop. Apple cripples their top of the line consumer machines.

I mean, If I buy a $2000 consumer machine it should be top of the line across the board. The same $2000 will get me a "workstation" with as much as that will buy me. The components will be different, i.e. Geforce Quaddro in lieu of an FX, RAID instead of just the fastest single IDE drive., etc.

But top of the line PCs are not running CPUs without cache, or with slower FSBs, etc. Most high end consumer machines in PC land are more loaded than most workstations.

And if Doom III supports SMP, you'll see Dual Xeons on the desktop. Right now there really isn't much of a need but when their is, you won't see PC makers overprice workstations to force and imaginary performance gap between the two.

Flickta
May 20, 2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by MorganX
I think MS has it right. Fully high powered desktop. Apple cripples their top of the line consumer machines.

I mean, If I buy a $2000 consumer machine it should be top of the line across the board. The same $2000 will get me a "workstation" with as much as that will buy me. The components will be different, i.e. Geforce Quaddro in lieu of an FX, RAID instead of just the fastest single IDE drive., etc.

But top of the line PCs are not running CPUs without cache, or with slower FSBs, etc. Most high end consumer machines in PC land are more loaded than most workstations.

And if Doom III supports SMP, you'll see Dual Xeons on the desktop. Right now there really isn't much of a need but when their is, you won't see PC makers overprice workstations to force and imaginary performance gap between the two.

Surely, Macs are overpriced. And surely, consumer machines crippled in some way are terrible. Fast and Powerful Machine is not necessarily a Pro.
But the Pro should be Ultrafast and Powerful. PowerMacs are Hig-End Desktops, after all, and should be compared not to the P4 but Xeons/Opterons etc. Why shuld I buy a workstation to play U2k3? And I surely won't need one to run OS & apps smoothly...

The division is justified. The implementation isn't!

MorganX
May 20, 2003, 09:53 AM
>>PowerMacs are Hig-End Desktops, after all, and should be compared not to the P4 but Xeons/Opterons etc.<<

I disagree here strongly. I don't think there's a PowerMac in existence that outperforms a high end P4. Based on price however, you are correct, PowerMacs are in the Xeon Workstation price range.

>>Why shuld I buy a workstation to play U2k3? And I surely won't need one to run OS & apps smoothly...<<

In PC-land, you don't need a workstation, because high-end desktops are just as if not more powerful. Workstations get you business and task specific enhancements like extra OpenGL horsepower, raid, and disk throughput as well as cache. Cache that PowerMacs need just to compete with P4s which probably accounts for some of the cost.

We agree that there does need to be a division, but I think it needs to be based on budget. There's a Sub $1000 Pc market, and then there's the as much as you can get for a given amount of money.

wdlove
May 20, 2003, 10:50 AM
Mac users are just more sophisticated and computer savy. We like to have the latest and most innovative software.

Flickta
May 20, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by MorganX
>>PowerMacs are Hig-End Desktops, after all, and should be compared not to the P4 but Xeons/Opterons etc.<<

I disagree here strongly. I don't think there's a PowerMac in existence that outperforms a high end P4. Based on price however, you are correct, PowerMacs are in the Xeon Workstation price range.


Yes, they can't outperform them. But yes again, they just need to! Thus the need for a new cpu etc.

Originally posted by MorganX

>>Why shuld I buy a workstation to play U2k3? And I surely won't need one to run OS & apps smoothly...<<

In PC-land, you don't need a workstation, because high-end desktops are just as if not more powerful. Workstations get you business and task specific enhancements like extra OpenGL horsepower, raid, and disk throughput as well as cache. Cache that PowerMacs need just to compete with P4s which probably accounts for some of the cost.

We agree that there does need to be a division, but I think it needs to be based on budget. There's a Sub $1000 Pc market, and then there's the as much as you can get for a given amount of money.

I completely agree with you here. No need to clarify it more, everyone here welcomes lower prices (for faster machines) and faster machines (for lower price) But is it possible for Apple to sell decent sub $1000 machines nowadays? How will they pay for the design, programming of iApps and OS X etc. etc.? They could sell cheaper machines, but without OS X preinstalled (with 9.1 for instance), without iLife etc. Possible. Still, they would have to charge us extra, 'cause they do not sell enough machines for the "economy on scale" to work. So, where do you think is the way out?

melchior
May 20, 2003, 09:34 PM
the current pricing structure is quite accepable in my mind. there is no need to for lower prices. the problem i the performance you get for those prices is not justified.

everyone is hoping we will get our hope and savior in the 970. well, i think everyone is hoping too much. performance increases will be... minimal.

in time we will see the benefits of the 970 and in 2004 the 980 (maybe) as clock speeds are increased, production cost comes down, etc... the real issue that no one talks about is that apple is no longer making use of the latest technologies. no usb 2.0, no HyperTransport, using outdated video cards (especially in the consumer models!), as others have said the lack some cache, and front side bus technology as lacking horribly while we, on Apple machines STILL don't have true DDR. doesn't anyone else find that strange?

there is nothing apple can do about the raw processor speeds. that's ok. not their fault other than a poor relationship with Motorolla. however, apple shows no signs of interest in making up for that with other places. frankly, these days, the processor speed is not so important. not important at all. we have bottlenecks in ram, video, and of course, hard drives.

i don't give a damn about the 970. i want to see apple really, and honestly, pick up the ball here!

Flynnstone
May 20, 2003, 10:50 PM
Macs are not over priced if you factor in support costs (IT departments, anti-virus software etc).
One thing Apple Severly lacks is cross platform targeting tools. Apple needs a tools the support OS X primarily and Windows secondarily.

LethalWolfe
May 20, 2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by MorganX
I think MS has it right. Fully high powered desktop. Apple cripples their top of the line consumer machines.


Part of how every manufacturer creates mid level and low end product is by "crippling" their high end products. It's much more cost effective to build a high end product and cripple it to make it a lower-end product than to make two or more distinctly seperate products.


Lethal

yzedf
May 21, 2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by chewbaccapits
So another OS is justified because its their biggest source of cash??? You think?
Unlike Apple of course... ;)

*cough* Jaguar for $129 *cough*

chewbaccapits
May 22, 2003, 01:42 AM
Don't you think that's a little different though? Apple does both hardware and software...

OutThere
May 22, 2003, 08:21 AM
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Why ? Evil Evil Evil Evil

melchior
May 22, 2003, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
Unlike Apple of course... ;)

*cough* Jaguar for $129 *cough*

oh come on. you're not really still complaining? are you ready to complain about panther yet?

xp home edition upgrade is $99. that's an os upgrade at 4 years apart. then you get useless(security fixes) service packs.

on OS X? you get 10.2.x releases with improved support, new features and performance enhancement. security fixes are seperate and don't even get counted as point upgrades.

think of you $129 as 1 year of service upgrades. :rolleyes: ketchi