PDA

View Full Version : New PCs for $300, how can Macs compete?


hvfsl
Jul 14, 2003, 12:33 PM
Here is the link to the story about WallMart selling $300 PCs. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1093&ncid=738&e=9&u=/pcworld/20030714/tc_pcworld/111557

Apple needs to make a cheap Mac to compete with these PCs, a 1Ghz G3 Mac with no monitor for around $500 would be good.

Sun Baked
Jul 14, 2003, 12:51 PM
Why does Apple have to compete with a cheap Linux Box?

Apple spend a lot of money developing the OS, and can't afford to compete in this market.

Heck the companies that have offered cheap Windows PC have kept running into deep financial trouble, this is a brutal section of the market in which to compete.

Low margins with zero room for error.

---

Now as far as the Linux PCs go, this is old news. And I haven't really heard how many mom and pop buyers with zero computer experience have handled the cheap Linux PC purchase.

And/or how many of these buyers have ended up dropping Windows on to the machines at a later date.

patrick0brien
Jul 14, 2003, 01:01 PM
- hvfsl

These rank down there with the ultra-cheap DVD players.

Key word is 'cheap'.

You get what you pay for, and I'm very interested in how long these $400 machines last - either by hardware failure, or by obsolecence.

I'm sure they make a dandy Email and Web surfing experience, and possibly som Office apps, but I think there the usefullness will become quite limited.

And forget decent games.

Das
Jul 14, 2003, 01:07 PM
I think the Linux boxes are cool, they really get Linux into the mainstream. Unfortunately, for the mainstream folk, they will be useless (most can't understand how to turn one on).

The mac has nothing to worry about there, but as for the 499 Dells with a monitor...well, that's another case.

Jerry Spoon
Jul 14, 2003, 01:32 PM
Apple isn't looking for the people who buy these $300 machines. They're looking for someone who wants some extras and then aren't afraid to spend a little more for a cool look.

jxyama
Jul 14, 2003, 01:36 PM
apple enjoys one of the highest profit margins on their hardware in the market. the company is healthy with a decent user base and a huge cash reserve. even if the marketshare is low, there's absolutely no reason for apple to venture into a market that is a gamble at best and a losing cause at worst.

instead of "apple needs to make cheap Macs to compete," perhaps you meant to say "apple needs to make cheap Macs so i can afford more stuff." :D

macktheknife
Jul 14, 2003, 01:36 PM
Honestly, I think a sub-$1,000 PC will get the job done if all you want is to surf and write simple documents. You could probably play a few games, but don't expect to play the latest and the great. And even if you use it for a year, you can easily upgrade to another better (and possibly) cheaper model. Given that the industry is headed toward commoditization, PCs will be as fungible as TVs or microwaves. If you have the expertise (or a good friend who has the expertise), you could easily build your own PC with the latest and greatest parts for less than $1,000. I built a PC with an Athlon 1800 XP processor with 1 GB of RAM, a 60 GB hard drive, and a 128 MB video card--it runs all my programs (including games) swiftly and without any hitches.

Before one points out that "Apple has the quality," one should remember that this probably applies only to the software and design. Some Mac users speak glowingly about the quality of a Mac as if the RAM and hard drives were handcrafted in Europe by some German artisan. The actual hardware that goes into a Mac (hard drive, RAM, etc.) all come from the same OEMs and factories in Asia that supply Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc.

Sun Baked
Jul 14, 2003, 01:42 PM
What happened to the $300 Lindows on Microtel boxes at Walmart?

Now we have the same pricepoint Linux on Microtel boxes at Walmart, but with OpenOffice.

Were the sales projection reached for Lindows? The additional OS is interesting.

Wonder how they'll compete...

Lanbrown
Jul 14, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Das
The mac has nothing to worry about there, but as for the 499 Dells with a monitor...well, that's another case.

At work I got a new Dell, out of the box, they think was well, unstable. XP had to go, so off to 2000 I went. The thing crashed during the install. Sometimes you cannot open the start menu unless you logout. At a previous employer we had Compaq's and they never had these type of problems. This Dell is just plain flakey. I can only imagine what the ones for $499 are like.

Apple is positioned at where the high-end Dells are. Getting into the cutthroat bargain, barrel scraping low-end is not where any reputable company wants to be. There is no money there and is very risky. Dell wants market share, so they are willing to go in the low-end. Wall street likes them to sell a lot of peecee’s. This helps them make the street happy.

Lanbrown
Jul 14, 2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by macktheknife
Before one points out that "Apple has the quality," one should remember that this probably applies only to the software and design. Some Mac users speak glowingly about the quality of a Mac as if the RAM and hard drives were handcrafted in Europe by some German artisan. The actual hardware that goes into a Mac (hard drive, RAM, etc.) all come from the same OEMs and factories in Asia that supply Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc.

Motorola sells G4's at differing speeds and Apple gets the higher end ones to Apple. Not all G4 processors are the same. The same holds true for other components. When it comes to RAM, they give a list of specifications to their suppliers. The memory is built to those specs. The generic memory may or may not work, not even in a peecee, even though the speed, parity, etc. are all correct. The HD is usually the same though. Apple could ask for a higher quality on the other components though. There is a difference between making something that will work and making something that will last. In electronics you have a lot of components, resistors, capacitors, etc. You can save some money by using components as close to the specifications you want, or you could overbuild the system to have greater durability. Both will work, one will last.

chewbaccapits
Jul 14, 2003, 02:08 PM
I know some people that will always want to buy cheap...No matter what. I believe that most people (talking out of my butt) would have a budget between $600-900 for a computer....I think people expect to buy a computer for that.....Apple's problem, in my opinion, is that more advertising needs to be done and who knows, they might be able to push those $600-900 peeps over to a little more cash for their products...

hvfsl
Jul 14, 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Why does Apple have to compete with a cheap Linux Box?

Apple spend a lot of money developing the OS, and can't afford to compete in this market.

Heck the companies that have offered cheap Windows PC have kept running into deep financial trouble, this is a brutal section of the market in which to compete.

Low margins with zero room for error.

---

Now as far as the Linux PCs go, this is old news. And I haven't really heard how many mom and pop buyers with zero computer experience have handled the cheap Linux PC purchase.

And/or how many of these buyers have ended up dropping Windows on to the machines at a later date.

But according to CNET, the best selling computers in China cost $300 to $500 and they can be plugged into a TV. $1000+ computers are fine for the developed world, but most of the planets population are in poor countries and need their computers to be as cheap as possible.

Das
Jul 14, 2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
At work I got a new Dell, out of the box, they think was well, unstable. XP had to go, so off to 2000 I went. The thing crashed during the install. Sometimes you cannot open the start menu unless you logout. At a previous employer we had Compaq's and they never had these type of problems. This Dell is just plain flakey. I can only imagine what the ones for $499 are like.

Apple is positioned at where the high-end Dells are. Getting into the cutthroat bargain, barrel scraping low-end is not where any reputable company wants to be. There is no money there and is very risky. Dell wants market share, so they are willing to go in the low-end. Wall street likes them to sell a lot of peecee’s. This helps them make the street happy.

Well I never said they were good computers, just cheap ;)

I've had that problem with Dells though and it's mainly solved with adding more ram. The one I got was useless without adding more than 256, it'd sputter like an old car and act like it was crashing then snap back together 10 minutes later. XP's a memory hog. Plus it came with a CD-ROM reader only...welcome to 1994...

Sun Baked
Jul 14, 2003, 02:35 PM
Big difference between the computer equivalent of a toaster, and the more expensive convection oven.

You may be able to live on the software equivalent of pop tarts, but every now and then it's nice to be able to eat a gourmet meal.

gopher
Jul 14, 2003, 02:47 PM
If you want a $300 Mac that compares, try the $350 G3 Blue and White G3s available at many of these used and refurbished shops:

http://www.macmaps.com/usedrefurbished.html

Try to get the Revision 2 of these Macs as they make it easier to expand hard drives internally.

Lanbrown
Jul 14, 2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Das
Well I never said they were good computers, just cheap ;)

I've had that problem with Dells though and it's mainly solved with adding more ram. The one I got was useless without adding more than 256, it'd sputter like an old car and act like it was crashing then snap back together 10 minutes later. XP's a memory hog. Plus it came with a CD-ROM reader only...welcome to 1994...

512MB in this one. Ram is not the issue. Doesn't seem very fast even though it is 2GHz.

gwangung
Jul 14, 2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
Apple is positioned at where the high-end Dells are. Getting into the cutthroat bargain, barrel scraping low-end is not where any reputable company wants to be. There is no money there and is very risky. Dell wants market share, so they are willing to go in the low-end.

Amen!

And I also think that cutting margins to gain market share is a strategy that works a lot better when you're in a position of market dominance or strength, like Dell is. That does not describe Apple's position at all...

Mav451
Jul 14, 2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
At work I got a new Dell, out of the box, they think was well, unstable. XP had to go, so off to 2000 I went. The thing crashed during the install. Sometimes you cannot open the start menu unless you logout. At a previous employer we had Compaq's and they never had these type of problems. This Dell is just plain flakey. I can only imagine what the ones for $499 are like.

Apple is positioned at where the high-end Dells are. Getting into the cutthroat bargain, barrel scraping low-end is not where any reputable company wants to be. There is no money there and is very risky. Dell wants market share, so they are willing to go in the low-end. Wall street likes them to sell a lot of peecee’s. This helps them make the street happy.

wow you must of had some bad luck there. My high school 4 years ago received dell p3's running windows 98 and they never crashed--which is pretty suprising even to me that your box would crash outta the box.

The fact that you got an XP that was unstable is pretty surprising--especially when you say that windows 2000 "crashed" during install (i.e. ram issues / heating / weak psu -- which are highly doubtful in office machines because they aren't overclocked)

Hardware error is the only thing that could possibly do this, and i find it a bit hard to belive that it was dell's fault. At my high school there were 100's of dells that haven't had hardware faults since the day they arrived.

Whenever a student "messed" up a Dell system (i.e. installed games), they ran a ghost program to restore it to it's out of the box default--all in less than 2 minutes.

Compaq's are pretty bad i have to admit...my brother purchased one a few years ago, "complete" with the "latest" geforce3 video card and all.

It couldn't even boot up half the time. A mom and pop store built the same computer with BETTER components and sold it for half the price of a compaq. The compaq retailed around 1500, the mom and pop store built it for less than 800 dollars--and built it with full version of windows, not the oem crap that the compaq had come with.

dswoodley
Jul 14, 2003, 06:03 PM
Years ago on the MacWorld forums someone posted a thread what if Apple got into the low end machine business. They could put in a slow, obsolete processor, small hard drive, crummy graphics card - all it would need is a fitting name - iCrap. Personally, i thank god that Apple is not in the low end business!

iJon
Jul 14, 2003, 06:08 PM
apple wont compete because that has never been their market. plus a 300 dollar computer wont sell that well. the sweet spot is about 700-800 dollars, a apple has that.

iJon

patrick0brien
Jul 14, 2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Mav451
pretty suprising even to me that your box would crash outta the box.

-Mav451

According to J.D. Power, Dell has a 10% out-of box faliure rate. Meaning one out of every ten Dell machines will not boot - brand new. And that's considered good in the WinTel world.

I'm surprised at your surprise that you didn't know this.

Mav451
Jul 14, 2003, 09:01 PM
Oh ok thanks for the clarification ;)

Could you point me to where you got this? I'd like to find more information on the topic.

tjwett
Jul 14, 2003, 09:32 PM
i just checked out the Walmart site and the machines are actually starting at $199! anyway, they are total junk. Apple shouldn't even stoop to this level. i don't want to see Apple make a throw-away Mac. Apple makes premium products for a premium price. yes, most of our Macs are turtles, but atleast they are high-quality turtles:)

Sun Baked
Jul 14, 2003, 09:41 PM
>tjwett

Looked at that $199 stuff...Note: Linux operating systems may not be compatible with some dial-up Internet services, such as AOL or Wal-Mart Connect. Microtel can only guarantee Linux-based OS compatibility with factory-installed components. Microtel will not be responsible for the installation and operation of third-party hardware or software used with its computers that have these operating systems.

The Linux-based operating system in these PCs is not compatible with any Microsoft Windows programs, however, it is great for basic operations such as email, Web browsing and instant messaging and can be easily upgraded for compatibility with Microsoft Office documents that have .doc, xls. or .ppt suffixes.Does this mean the warranty is VOID if you install Windows on the machine?

Flowbee
Jul 14, 2003, 10:56 PM
Does anyone here buy the very cheapest car available? The cheapest TV? The cheapest clothes? The cheapest beer?

No? Ask yourself why not. Then ask yourself why Apple would want to lump itself in with products that you routinely pass by or laugh at.

Sure I'd like to See Apple's prices come down a little more, but catering to a market that wants a $300 computer would hurt Apple's reputation in the marketplace more than help it.

ozubahn
Jul 14, 2003, 11:08 PM
A $300 Windows machine is not worth $300 to me. A $2000 Mac, on the other hand, is generally worth $2000 to me. That's how Apple can compete. Sure, I could get six or seven of the windows machines for the same price, but then I would just have six or seven junky machines lying around, none of which do precisely what I want.

straphound
Jul 14, 2003, 11:53 PM
It doesn't matter if we would like to see Apple stick to the upper crust; an inexpensive (not cheap!) Mac would make a lot of sense. I know that Apple needs to cover the costs or R&D and all but think what would happen in a few years if all the people who bought "cheap" Mac's were to upgrade. After a few years of experience with the Mac, it would be time to move up to a more powerful, expensive machine.

When I worked at Micro Center we sold more of the cheap PC's than anything else. This hit big when the 845 chipset hit (P4 with PC-133, cheap) and people could but a reasonably powerful Pentium 4 for $500. Also, back when MSN came out you could get a "free" Celeron computer after rebates and a subscription to MSN for 3 years. We had lines going out of the store for quite some time. Granted that the PC's were junk ( I worked in service and we repaired A LOT of them) but for many people it was either their starter system or they couldn't afford anything else. Now they are Windows users unwilling to budge because it was hard enough work for them to learn Windows.

If Apple could get a family or a person started on a Mac because it would be a viable option price wise they could hook many more people who, again, eventually upgrade to a more powerful Mac down the road. That's how Apple got me. I only paid $800 for my iBook new and am now looking to get a Power Mac as soon as my PC sells on e-bay.

Just my opinion. :D

pEZ
Jul 15, 2003, 12:28 AM
IMO, all of the iBlanks - Tunes, Cal, Photo, Movie, and DVD, more than make up for the price difference even if it only costs 50 bucks in the form of iLife. That's a freaking low price for some of the best software in the world.

A $300 linux box with very few extras, or an $800 eMac with a boatload of stuff? You decide.

MrMacMan
Jul 15, 2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
>tjwett

Looked at that $199 stuff...Does this mean the warranty is VOID if you install Windows on the machine?

No it means you don't get tech support if you do, contact microsoft.

Apple isn't competting, and has not competed.

When the REALLY cheap PC came out apple didn't buy it, they didn't do anything cause the PC's were ****.

Lanbrown
Jul 15, 2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Mav451
wow you must of had some bad luck there. My high school 4 years ago received dell p3's running windows 98 and they never crashed--which is pretty suprising even to me that your box would crash outta the box.

The fact that you got an XP that was unstable is pretty surprising--especially when you say that windows 2000 "crashed" during install (i.e. ram issues / heating / weak psu -- which are highly doubtful in office machines because they aren't overclocked)

Hardware error is the only thing that could possibly do this, and i find it a bit hard to belive that it was dell's fault. At my high school there were 100's of dells that haven't had hardware faults since the day they arrived.

Whenever a student "messed" up a Dell system (i.e. installed games), they ran a ghost program to restore it to it's out of the box default--all in less than 2 minutes.

Compaq's are pretty bad i have to admit...my brother purchased one a few years ago, "complete" with the "latest" geforce3 video card and all.

It couldn't even boot up half the time. A mom and pop store built the same computer with BETTER components and sold it for half the price of a compaq. The compaq retailed around 1500, the mom and pop store built it for less than 800 dollars--and built it with full version of windows, not the oem crap that the compaq had come with.

Why would Dell be any different then a Compaq, they are the same lousy architecture.

What does the P3 that your school received four years ago and the crap they ship today have to do with one another? Companies cut corners, quality slips, etc.

XP is just a great OS now isn't.

The only hardware error is that it's based on a design that is over 25 years old.

The ghost image you are talking about takes more then two minutes and you have to create it.

Do you Dell doesn't ship the OEM edition, sure they do. Comparing apples to oranges. What kind of warranty do you get with the mom and pop peecee? Will they come to your house to repair? What if you move out of state or town, what do you do then? You get what you pay for. The peecee is an antiquated architecture that needs a revamp. It should have received one in the 80's, but nope. With the 64-bit AMD, it will never get one.

On the same subject, why do you think peecees are so cheap? Old technology. Something 25+ years old should be cheap.

jxyama
Jul 15, 2003, 01:54 PM
i think some people have a misconception about what apple is out to doing...

apple is NOT out to:
1) sell os x
2) increase marketshare
3) sell more hardware
etc., etc., etc.

the only thing apple is concerned about is turning profits. mind you, HOW you turn the profit has many different methods, which makes apple "different" from, say, M$... but the bottom line is the same.

increasing marketshare is useless unless it leads to more profits. (NOT revenue)

if apple thought they'd make more money by selling cheap, sub-$500 computers, they would have done so. but historically, apple has stuck with selling "higher" (not "high") priced hardware... i don't think it's ever "necessary" for apple to sell the absolute cheapest computer.

even when apple was in a big financial trouble, they got out of it with crt imac, hardly the cheapest computer at the time.

Lanbrown
Jul 15, 2003, 02:32 PM
Actually, Apple does want more market share; Steve made a statement about that. If Apple didn't want to sell more hardware, then why bother with an iPod for windows or even iTunes for windows?

jxyama
Jul 15, 2003, 03:09 PM
i guess it's better to put it this way:

more marketshare and hardware sales, etc. are only useful if they increase profits. given the history and philosophy/business model apple operates under, it's is very unlikely that apple will try to increase the marketshare by selling sub-$500 macs because i believe apple regard that section of the market as not very profitable.

MacsRgr8
Jul 15, 2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Flowbee
Does anyone here buy the very cheapest car available? The cheapest TV? The cheapest clothes? The cheapest beer?

No? Ask yourself why not. Then ask yourself why Apple would want to lump itself in with products that you routinely pass by or laugh at.

Sure I'd like to See Apple's prices come down a little more, but catering to a market that wants a $300 computer would hurt Apple's reputation in the marketplace more than help it.

There is alot of truth in this.
I sounds like a "too easy" comparison, but it's absolutely spot on.
The only difference with the products you compare to the computers are:
People often recognize quality stuff when it comes to beer, cars and clothes, but not PC's.
Not really their fault as Apple doesn't really show people how GOOD their Mac's are. Only how "cool"....

visor
Jul 15, 2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Jerry Spoon
Apple isn't looking for the people who buy these $300 machines. They're looking for someone who wants some extras and then aren't afraid to spend a little more for a cool look.

Actually, apple is looking for the cheap mainstream market. this is exactly what the imac was made for - a cheap all in one box that you buy, put in a corner and use eventually without worrying about technics.

of course, if you buy a cheap linux box, you will end up caring for technics... however - upgrading is an incremental process that people don't recognize as expensive.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jul 15, 2003, 08:09 PM
Two words:

Build quality.

Mav451
Jul 15, 2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown

On the same subject, why do you think peecees are so cheap? Old technology. Something 25+ years old should be cheap.

I'm not sure if I should even respond to some of the most blatant and blind fanboyism i have ever seen in my life. "25 year old technology" --So, let me ask you. Where does that put apple technology? Aside from their G5 chip and Firewire 800, EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING is borrowed from the PC realm.

The 133mhz PCI-X slots. They're already on the Opteron motherboards that have been shipping since the beginning of June. AGP 8X? That's been available since early 2002 in the form of NForce2 and with the 865 intel chipset since May and the 875 chipset in April.

What about Serial ATA? Motherboards supporting this have been available from both AMD and intel for MONTHS. My own a7n8x has supported it, in the form of the deluxe version since the end of 2002. "8 GB of addressable memory space"? The Opteron can address 16GB and is limited only b/c of current limitations on DIMM sizes, not to mention that the Opteron has been avaialbe since June.

Gigabit Ethernet, USB2.0, and optical digital audio are all exisiting PC technology.

And what about the G5 chip itself? It is not an Apple creation, but an IBM one. IBM designed the cpu and it is doubtful that Apple had any significant input on its design.

nuckinfutz
Jul 15, 2003, 09:55 PM
"8 GB of addressable memory space"? The Opteron can address 16GB and is limited only b/c of current limitations on DIMM sizes, not to mention that the Opteron has been avaialbe since June.

You didn't happen to get that misinformaton from
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296

Did you?

Check page 72 of 94 on this Powermac G5 Architecture PDF (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/PowerMacG5/PowerMacG5.pdf)


The largest DIMM supported is a two-bank DIMM of 2 GB using 512 Mbit DDR

The Powermac G5 and Opteron address the same amount of memory. Apple just doesn't "officially" recognize 16GB in their literature until 2GB DIMMS are readily available.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

benixau
Jul 15, 2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Mav451
"8 GB of addressable memory space"? The Opteron can address 16GB and is limited only b/c of current limitations on DIMM sizes, not to mention that the

The G5 can read as much RAM as you can put in up to theoretically 4TB - like the Opteron. They are both limited by:
a)firmware (or BIOS)
b)DIMM sizes
c)slots on the Mobo.

Mav451
Jul 15, 2003, 10:05 PM
ok guys, thanks for the clarification. I guess it makes sense both can address up to 4TB as both are 64-bit processors :)

Horrortaxi
Jul 16, 2003, 12:44 AM
BMW needs to make a $13000 car to compete in the Dodge Neon/Ford Focus market. That would be cool. Maybe they should build some houses in really good neighborhoods and sell them for $50,000.

hvfsl
Jul 16, 2003, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Horrortaxi
BMW needs to make a $13000 car to compete in the Dodge Neon/Ford Focus market. That would be cool. Maybe they should build some houses in really good neighborhoods and sell them for $50,000.

Cars are very different from computers, you can run any car on a road and there is a speed limit (except in Germany) so there is not so much of a need for cars to go faster than that.

In the computer world, you can't just pick up any computer and run any software on it. Also computers are still not fast enough. In the PC world if you want a high end Windows machine you get a Sony, if you want a cheap one for basic tasks you get a eMachines. However in the Mac world, you have one company which only makes expensive machines and the low end ones are not as fast as PCs at the same price.

Although there is one area of cars you can compair it to. Imagine Apple was a hydro-power car and the Windows world were petrol (gas in the US) powered. You can get cheap petrol cars that can be used at any service station, however the hydro-powered cars can't be used everywhere, they cost more and are generally not as fast as the petrol ones.

jxyama
Jul 16, 2003, 08:40 AM
i often hear about how computers can't be compared to cars. i disagree. first of all, the comparison is showing is how different companies target different markets.

bmw, mercedez, etc. aren't clearly targeting the same market as hyundai and kia.

and for the most part, differences in computers sold to most consumers can reasonably be compared to differences in common cars. most consumer computers will run most programs used by most people at speeds that are acceptable. so i wouldn't dismiss the comparison entirely. it's just a comparison, not meant to be anything exact.

the main difference i can see is that computers are more of a commodity (where price is the primary differentiation point) than cars.

Horrortaxi
Jul 16, 2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by hvfsl
Cars are very different from computers, you can run any car on a road and there is a speed limit (except in Germany) so there is not so much of a need for cars to go faster than that.

I'm not talking about speed as much as handling and ride quality--the overall driving experience.

I would argue there is a speed limit on computers--it's the software. Intel could release a 25GHZ chip tomorrow. That would be really impressive but find me one piece of software that can use that much power.

I like my car analogy, but feel free to make your own if you don't.

Lanbrown
Jul 16, 2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Mav451
I'm not sure if I should even respond to some of the most blatant and blind fanboyism i have ever seen in my life. "25 year old technology" --So, let me ask you. Where does that put apple technology? Aside from their G5 chip and Firewire 800, EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING is borrowed from the PC realm.

The 133mhz PCI-X slots. They're already on the Opteron motherboards that have been shipping since the beginning of June. AGP 8X? That's been available since early 2002 in the form of NForce2 and with the 865 intel chipset since May and the 875 chipset in April.

What about Serial ATA? Motherboards supporting this have been available from both AMD and intel for MONTHS. My own a7n8x has supported it, in the form of the deluxe version since the end of 2002. "8 GB of addressable memory space"? The Opteron can address 16GB and is limited only b/c of current limitations on DIMM sizes, not to mention that the Opteron has been avaialbe since June.

Gigabit Ethernet, USB2.0, and optical digital audio are all exisiting PC technology.

And what about the G5 chip itself? It is not an Apple creation, but an IBM one. IBM designed the cpu and it is doubtful that Apple had any significant input on its design.

Look at the underlying architecture of the X86 architecture; it is over 25 years old.

Gigabit is not a peecee technology. It is a STANDARD in the COMPUTER industry. There is a difference. AGP is a specification from Intel and Ethernet is a STANDARD. Do you know who had Gigabit first? Companies like Cisco and other network hardware companies did. Using your thinking, it was "borrowed" from the likes of Cisco.

ATA is compromised on mainly storage companies and is a standard. The peecee companies didn't invent it. They didn't invent optical digital audio, that has been in some audio hardware for sometime now.

The G5 is also based upon a newer design then that of the IA-32 and the PowerPC architecture was designed to be 64-bit. The IA-32 never was. The Opteron is still using the IA-32 architecture though, which is over 25 years old.

Looks like you need to get your facts straight.

MacManDan
Jul 16, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Horrortaxi
BMW needs to make a $13000 car to compete in the Dodge Neon/Ford Focus market. That would be cool. Maybe they should build some houses in really good neighborhoods and sell them for $50,000.

Sorry to go off topic but ....

Besides the fact that I think that this is sarcasm (although I am not sure??) ... BMW is, in fact, rumored to be making a "1-series" for under $15,000. It's a subcompact I think, and I'm not talking about Mini Coopers. Just a slimlined 3-series ..

I agree with the car analogy. It's not exact, but more expensive cars GENERALLY equate to a better build quality, performance, overrall experience. Same with the computer world. A more expensive computer will GENERALLY give you a better quality machine with more solid performance and a decent experience. I don't think Apple should "lower" themselves to a sub-$500 market. What would happen to their excellent engineering? I think it would be reflected in the cost...

Mav451
Jul 17, 2003, 01:18 AM
lol are we even talking about the same thing? The only thing that is clear is that you are accusing that ALL PC technology as being 25 years old--while ONLY the x86 cpu architecture is, i agree with that.

What I am trying to say is that Apple should not be credited with having the newest technology EITHER. Whether or not PC's developed/invented it, the Apple was NOT at the front of the line with the technology.

Apple DID NOT make the G5.
IBM made it, and thus i give them credit for the technology. IBM is the one who is ahead of the curve, not apple. Apple designs a great OS and software, I'll give you that much.

But if your going to reduce ALL PC technology as being a "25 years old", then you are sorely mistaken, and need to get your facts straight.

tazo
Jul 17, 2003, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
- hvfsl

These rank down there with the ultra-cheap DVD players.

Key word is 'cheap'.

You get what you pay for, and I'm very interested in how long these $400 machines last - either by hardware failure, or by obsolecence.

I'm sure they make a dandy Email and Web surfing experience, and possibly som Office apps, but I think there the usefullness will become quite limited.

And forget decent games.
Hey don't insult 'ultra cheap' dvd players. I own a 75 dollar APEX dvd player, and it has worked great since the day i bought it last year. This dvd player has many features that higher end dvd players do not contain. Sure its not progressive scan, and doesn't come with the 'Sony' or 'Panasonic' name, but then again not all of the best things in life come with $300 price tag.

Look at the underlying architecture of the X86 architecture; it is over 25 years old.

Gigabit is not a peecee technology. It is a STANDARD in the COMPUTER industry. There is a difference. AGP is a specification from Intel and Ethernet is a STANDARD. Do you know who had Gigabit first? Companies like Cisco and other network hardware companies did. Using your thinking, it was "borrowed" from the likes of Cisco.

ATA is compromised on mainly storage companies and is a standard. The peecee companies didn't invent it. They didn't invent optical digital audio, that has been in some audio hardware for sometime now.

The G5 is also based upon a newer design then that of the IA-32 and the PowerPC architecture was designed to be 64-bit. The IA-32 never was. The Opteron is still using the IA-32 architecture though, which is over 25 years old.

Looks like you need to get your facts straight.


*puts on fire-retardent suit...*

Isn't it funny how when ever Apple implements something that has been available for a while on the pc side, it is
"borrowed"? Yet when pc manufactures began dropping floppy drives and adding 1394 ports, the idea(s) were "stolen" from Apple.

A double-standard? I think so...

-tazo

Lanbrown
Jul 17, 2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Mav451
lol are we even talking about the same thing? The only thing that is clear is that you are accusing that ALL PC technology as being 25 years old--while ONLY the x86 cpu architecture is, i agree with that.

What I am trying to say is that Apple should not be credited with having the newest technology EITHER. Whether or not PC's developed/invented it, the Apple was NOT at the front of the line with the technology.

Apple DID NOT make the G5.
IBM made it, and thus i give them credit for the technology. IBM is the one who is ahead of the curve, not apple. Apple designs a great OS and software, I'll give you that much.

But if your going to reduce ALL PC technology as being a "25 years old", then you are sorely mistaken, and need to get your facts straight.

Just the CPU? What about the BIOS? You know, the device that doesn't play well with other devices. Oh, want to boot of the network, it needs to pass that to the NIC. Oh, adding a SCSI card, well, the BIOS can't handle the SCSI controller to well as they act independently and have some communication with each other. Compare that to the OF standard that Sun and Apple both use. Sun calls it OB, and you can go into it, scan the PCI bus, scan the IDE bus and scan the SCSI bus among many other features. OB interfaces directly with the SCSI controller and they work together seamlessly. Compare that with the BIOS where you have go into the SCSI controller and not through the BIOS. What about the great IRQ subsystem that the peecees use? What a marvel of engineering that was. It was shortsightedness at best and needed to be replaced early in its day. Some systems built today from the major peecee companies have IRQ conflicts. They are rare, but still exist due to a lousy design. What about multi-card graphic support? The BIOS couldn't handle it, they have made some changes so it is better now, but not truly fixed. AGP 8X was the first to offer two AGP slots if the peecee company decided to use it, most just offer one. OB allows you to tell which is the main to use for itself during the boot messages, and then the OS takes over. Look at some of the peecees that have integrated graphics, some can upgrade to a PCI card, others cannot.

IBM didn't create the G5, IBM made the PowerPC 970 processor. G5 is a system class name, not a processor per se. In the PowerPC architecture, there were THREE participants. IBM, Motorola and Apple.

As you see, the core of the peecee has been relatively unchanged in over 25 years. Intel even thinks its time to go. Their goal at onetime was Itanic everywhere. You were using some technology that the peecee companies were using that Apple borrowed it, but yet the peecee companies borrowed it from others. Ethernet is a perfect example; no peecee companies involved there. PCI was first seen in servers. ATA is run by standards body and anyone can use/license it. SCSI is as well. Intel modified the PCI bus and created PCI-X because they needed more bandwidth. This will be replaced most likely by Infiniband, as well as PCI. Infinband is not a peecee technology.

So try again.

Das
Jul 17, 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
Just the CPU? What about the BIOS? You know, the device that doesn't play well with other devices. Oh, want to boot of the network, it ...blah blah blah...peecee...blah blha...rule the world...blah blah blah...So try again.

If it ain't broke, who the heck gives a rat's arse? So your beef is that PCs are cheaper because they use older technology that is currently the fastest available at a more affordable price? Oh crapple call Hitler, someone done stole his title!

Lanbrown
Jul 17, 2003, 12:02 PM
Ahh, how nice name-calling. Only kids do that, so you better check with your mommy before you access the Internet.

Go to any peecee support site, preferably the manufacturers and see how many complaints they have.
Especially upgrading the video card. If it's broke fix it, but the peecee world can't and keep 25 years of software intact.

Opens your eyes and when you see a company selling the same crap based on a 25 year old design, that shows a lack of innovation.

Rower_CPU
Jul 17, 2003, 12:50 PM
Keep it clean, guys.

Das
Jul 17, 2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
Ahh, how nice name-calling. Only kids do that, so you better check with your mommy before you access the Internet.

Go to any peecee support site, preferably the manufacturers and see how many complaints they have.
Especially upgrading the video card. If it's broke fix it, but the peecee world can't and keep 25 years of software intact.

Opens your eyes and when you see a company selling the same crap based on a 25 year old design, that shows a lack of innovation.

name calling? ehh? who...? Sorry if you got the impression that I was belittling you personally, not my intention.

Anyhoo, I guess I've dealt with PCs and macs long enough that I can work around traditional "computer" problems. I've gone through about 20 gfx cards with no problem unless you're talking video capture cards can be a pain with balancing OS updates and drivers. Really, it's one of the easiest things to do. At the most, (I'm talking 98 days) I've had to enter the BIOS and fix a few niggling options (mainly when upgrading memory). It may be built on old technology, but it's old technology that works dandy. I don't want an OSX of the PC world that renders old software useless, heck I'm still miffed that I now have to use an emulator to run Sam & Max.

Lanbrown
Jul 17, 2003, 02:11 PM
You mentioned Hitler.

Head over to HP and see how many people have success getting a PCI video card in the system that has integrated graphics. Some are successful and some have no luck at all. The BIOS is very crude and really needs an update. The IRQ subsystem needs to be thrown out as well. Getting rid of both would have a sever hindrance on compatibility. If Intel got the IA-32 compatibility right in the Itanic, they would have struck gold. If they could have gotten PIII at 1.4GHz performance, companies probably would have picked up on it. Getting about 500MHz is not very enticing, now you need two to three times the processors for the same task.

In some ways the peecee companies want a different platform and in others, they do not. When applications are truly portable (OS independent) I believe you will see a departure from the peecee world. Infiniband should open the door for more commonality between platforms and will solely rest on software. Once that barrier is broken, X86 will truly die down.

slightly
Jul 17, 2003, 04:34 PM
Macs don't compete on price. They compete on quality, ease-of-use, reliability, user satisfaction and loyalty, innovation, attention to detail, OS stability and cool factor.

That was an easy thread. What's next?

Matt

PS why is this in "Software Discussion"?

Rezet
Jul 17, 2003, 05:12 PM
Whoa! Big News!
They used to be called Emachines. for $400 the whole computer.
Let me tell you something about them. My cheapo frind got one of those. And Guess what. He replaced HDD already, CDRW died as well. Front side bus is like 100Mhz. And working on whooping 2.0 Ghz celeron.
Both fron USBs 1.1 stopped functioning. Sound card's output has crappy contact for some reason and and makes noise whenever u play music. Floppy jammed twice already. Programs for some reason don't see 10/100 ethernet at all, even though it is there.
It's impossible to upgrade because everything inside is so bulky, you have to take absolutely everything apart to even upgrade memory. It's noisy and something trembles inside, annoying the hell out of me and him.
Device manager in the control panel has some strange devices that it shows as there but are not installed properly.
It's running whopping Win XP Home that is for some reason so slow, that you literally have to wait 1 min when u launch MS Excel.
NOt to mention that it is loadded to commercial programs and other trash that takes a week to clean up. The number of times that computer froze is simply amazing.
Even If I wanted to find anything good about it, I couldn't except for the price. But Then again, if you think what I just told you worth 400 bucks, then maybe its a good deal.
at 2.0Ghz Celeron it cannot handle warcraft 3 on higher resolution than 640x480 normally.
And video card will take ur breath away. It uses same shared memory that is working on 100Mhz! Vey nice indeed! Even when you move the window, it is choppy.

You get what you pay for man. I wouldn't pay much attention to that walmart garbage. walmart isnt exactly known for selling hi quality items.
besides this mac for a few more hundreds will rape the hell out of any offered in walmart.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70906/wo/Yx6JaWCUfJTt2MmW1Jkt3PDiP1Q/1.0.7.1.0.5.19.1.0.19.3.1.1.0?35,3

Das
Jul 17, 2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
You mentioned Hitler.

Head over to HP and see ...

Nah, I was being sarcastic about the PC industry being so evil that they would challenge Hitler by giving fast stuff at a cheap price. He used IBMs ironically.


Anyhoo, of course you're going to have people that can't put in a video card correctly. Most would try putting a PC card in a mac if they could then complain about it not working. I've changed the video cards from 2 hps and one dell without any modification. One using ME on an athlon, one using 2000 on a p4 and one using xp on a p4. At the most, you'd only have to select the card in the BIOS and that's rare. Besides, on most of these cheap PCs, they don't offer AGPs, they only have integrated graphics and pci slots.

tazo
Jul 17, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Rezet
Whoa! Big News!
They used to be called Emachines. for $400 the whole computer.
Let me tell you something about them. My cheapo frind got one of those. And Guess what. He replaced HDD already, CDRW died as well. Front side bus is like 100Mhz. And working on whooping 2.0 Ghz celeron.
Both fron USBs 1.1 stopped functioning. Sound card's output has crappy contact for some reason and and makes noise whenever u play music. Floppy jammed twice already. Programs for some reason don't see 10/100 ethernet at all, even though it is there.
It's impossible to upgrade because everything inside is so bulky, you have to take absolutely everything apart to even upgrade memory. It's noisy and something trembles inside, annoying the hell out of me and him.
Device manager in the control panel has some strange devices that it shows as there but are not installed properly.
It's running whopping Win XP Home that is for some reason so slow, that you literally have to wait 1 min when u launch MS Excel.
NOt to mention that it is loadded to commercial programs and other trash that takes a week to clean up. The number of times that computer froze is simply amazing.
Even If I wanted to find anything good about it, I couldn't except for the price. But Then again, if you think what I just told you worth 400 bucks, then maybe its a good deal.
at 2.0Ghz Celeron it cannot handle warcraft 3 on higher resolution than 640x480 normally.
And video card will take ur breath away. It uses same shared memory that is working on 100Mhz! Vey nice indeed! Even when you move the window, it is choppy.

You get what you pay for man. I wouldn't pay much attention to that walmart garbage. walmart isnt exactly known for selling hi quality items.
besides this mac for a few more hundreds will rape the hell out of any offered in walmart.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70906/wo/Yx6JaWCUfJTt2MmW1Jkt3PDiP1Q/1.0.7.1.0.5.19.1.0.19.3.1.1.0?35,3

my brother and mom share a 633mhz celeron emachine and have had no probs, cept with winme, which we replaced with 2k pro. Runs fine now.

as for the upgradeability issue, that is the same on all towers from the big(ger) names.

The usb thing is obviously the same as with all comps, sometimes you get a defective model. There was aguy who posted about hwo his ehternet port was DOA. doesnt make all macs unreliable, he got a bad apple (heh pun). Do not implicate an entire company based on one bad machine based on your own personal experience.

-tazo

Rezet
Jul 17, 2003, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by tazo
my brother and mom share a 633mhz celeron emachine and have had no probs, cept with winme, which we replaced with 2k pro. Runs fine now.

as for the upgradeability issue, that is the same on all towers from the big(ger) names.

The usb thing is obviously the same as with all comps, sometimes you get a defective model. There was aguy who posted about hwo his ehternet port was DOA. doesnt make all macs unreliable, he got a bad apple (heh pun). Do not implicate an entire company based on one bad machine based on your own personal experience.

-tazo


The thing is that one bad experience would make me never want to deal with that company nor to recommend it to anyone. One experiance matters.

Lanbrown
Jul 18, 2003, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Das
Nah, I was being sarcastic about the PC industry being so evil that they would challenge Hitler by giving fast stuff at a cheap price. He used IBMs ironically.


Anyhoo, of course you're going to have people that can't put in a video card correctly. Most would try putting a PC card in a mac if they could then complain about it not working. I've changed the video cards from 2 hps and one dell without any modification. One using ME on an athlon, one using 2000 on a p4 and one using xp on a p4. At the most, you'd only have to select the card in the BIOS and that's rare. Besides, on most of these cheap PCs, they don't offer AGPs, they only have integrated graphics and pci slots.

And some of the systems do not recognize the card and thus it will not work. The peecee is based upon a lot of specifications, some follow them better then others.