Probably most Mac users have better reading comprehension than you. I agree, the hardware is the same and no more reliable than PC parts of reasonably good quality. But what he actually said was "hardware configurations". So tell me, how many different graphics cards does Apple offer? Hundreds? Uh...no. It is indisputable that MS's software has to run on many more configs than Apple, which tightly controls and limits the variations. And probably the G4's will be end-of-lifed in the next 3 or 4 years. Apple is far from perfect, but this is definitely one of their reliability advantages.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I didn't say they were copyrighting hardware. Read my post again. And Apple isn't suing anyone - they are lodging a legal protest. There is a huge difference. Maybe Apple themselves aren't sure what their legal footing is. I suspect it's not very good.
IBM used to be known as "BIG BLUE".
Rich
That's just the point, MOST people that buy computers don't "Know" Intels line, heck I have a degree in computer science and stay up on a lot of the latest in computers and don't know Intel's complete product line. Only real computer geeks keep up on that and they are a VERY small market for Apple or any other computer company as geeks tend to build their own. I mentioned this earlier but I do agree the mini is the one that needs really suped up specs.
If Apple was to create this tower that some of you want at what price do you think Apple would charge for it? Given the fact that Apple's pricing scheme has never historically been cheap by any means. I have a feeling that if Apple created this so-called mid-range tower it's gonna piss off the whiners on this board for either being too low in specs or too high in price. Remember Apple would have to make sure that it wouldn't compete with the cheapest Mac Pro.
Apple's EULA = DRM
With the way DRM has gone for the music industry, it could be the beginning of the end for Apple's EULA restriction on limiting OSX installations to Mac hardware. DRM failed because people didn't want to be limited to putting music in one format and device.
Now, I know that is kind of like comparing apples to oranges (pun intended). DRM failed because many people were complaining. Not nearly enough people are complaining about wanting to put OSX on non-Mac hardware, so Apple will inevitably win out on this occasion.
With the way DRM has gone for the music industry, it could be the beginning of the end for Apple's EULA restriction on limiting OSX installations to Mac hardware. DRM failed because people didn't want to be limited to putting music in one format and device.
Now, I know that is kind of like comparing apples to oranges (pun intended). DRM failed because many people were complaining. Not nearly enough people are complaining about wanting to put OSX on non-Mac hardware, so Apple will inevitably win out on this occasion.
We used to have this machine, it was called the PowerMac. It sold for between $1299 and $1699. The only whiners it anger are the ones who buy Macs not because of the better OS, but because of counterculture aspect. The universe is not going to implode just because a different group of users (who used to be Apple's core base BTW) get their needs met as well.
Apple will win in court because not a lot of people are complaining. Your reasoning is funny.
The word "right" implies "choice", my choice, your choice. As someone posted earlier in this thread, the courts agree:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...desk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html
How it is done is up to the markets and a "fair" defense of our rights and choices. My contention is that Apple is limiting my choices, your choices. Yes, Mac OS is Apple's, they can chose how and what they sell, my right and choice is to fight them if I chose to.
Weren't most Mac users on the other side of the argument when it came to Microsoft's monopolistic ways? I have always been one of them. Apple's monopoly is as bad if not worst.
I do hope Psystar fights Apple, I hope they win benefiting us all.
Update the mini so it can also run a 30" ACD. I already have a 24" iMac and a 17" MBP Hi-Res. I do not need that much raw power of the MP, however I want the option to run a 30" ACD with what the Mini offers.
Then again this is
they cripple anything that brings in new customers to lure them into spending more. 
No 30" ACD support will means I will be building my own **you get the drift where this is going**
This is foolish talk at best. I wouldn't normally even comment but you said it in such a mean spirited way, I just had to correct you.
By "class" you probably mean market segment, but the argument is wrong either way.
- There is no consumer market segment of any size that Apple does not service with it's computers, it's just that the product they sell in that segment is an "all-in-one." The vast majority of consumers within this market segment (the "desktop market"), who are looking at buying an Apple computer have no problems with said "all-in-one" desktop computer (iMac).
- There *are* segments of the phone market Apple is currently not servicing, i.e. the lower end handsets.
Basically you are confusing the fact that some small subset of the desktop segment is not happy with *some* of the features of the product Apple sells in that segment, with the idea that the whole segment is being somehow ignored. Not the same thing at all.
This is similar to how Apple *does* produce a product for the "smart-phone" segment of the phone market, but that it lack features that *some* want, like a physical keyboard etc.
A small group of users within the desktop market segment who would prefer buying a cheap-ass mini-tower instead of a slightly more expensive iMac is being overlooked because there is no profit in it. End of story.
Exactly, well said! Go hackintosh!
And they care about a 2.4 vs a 2.0 Core 2 Duo? I tried this exact argument with one person, who said (correctly IMHO) it's a Core 2 Duo, 2gb of ram (I was already impressed they knew a CPU type). This was $800 LESS than a mac, it's not worth it to me to check email and view pics that difference.
Most of the Fan boys here are brainwashed into the RDF, willing to spend they top dollar on inferior hardware and sketchy drivers. Drones if you ask me.
Where is the Mini Tower,
? Apple's monopoly is much worse, their integration is much more tightly controlled. The difference is, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the computer market by far, and thus they don't have the kind of responsibility that Microsoft does when it comes to restricting users' choices.
I hope they don't. I'm all for Apple releasing a cheaper Mac, but one reason why Macs are better in many ways is the tight control Apple has over the hardware and the software and its integration.
If others start building clones, we're going to get just as many incompatibility problems etc as is the case with so many Wintel machines out there.
A Mac is a Mac, and to me that is the combination of hard and software made by Apple, not one OR the other, it's BOTH combined.
So to all other computer builders, stop cloning, and innovate instead, and to Apple, please give us a lower cost mid size tower, and update the Mini!
Apple is a hardware company, and when they experimented with the Microsoft model it nearly shut them down. However, the only justification I can think of for waiting this long was to view it as an experiment to see the demand for a Mac OS on non-Apple hardware. I'd like the meet the bean-counter who convinced Jobs to wait it out. I think it's entirely possible that Apple was considering putting OS X out in the marketplace, not for the old clone prices, but in a way that captures the Apple Tax, i.e., OS 10.6 or 10.7 for $700, legally and supported by updates.
They do not represent freedom but the thugs that promote piracy and complete disrespect of other people's right to ownership.
Majorities do not justify being right.
They are stealing a proprietary technology and reselling it for their own good. I bet you that in the future if Psystar gets big (i highly doubt this) and have proprietary systems of their own then they will do the same thing.
Supporting Psystar is condoning piracy and robbery...if this is your freedom well we're all in trouble.
A $500 mini-tower could easily be more powerful than the MacBook.
For example, a $400 Dell mini-tower:
Intel® Core2 Duo Processor E4600 (2MB L2 Cache,2.4GHz,800 FSB)
1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 1DIMM
250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache
Integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3100
Nearly identical to the base MacBook.
Why must the newer group of Mac users be so narrow minded and cling to stereotypes? This is NOT about some $400 cheap Dell. A Mini with a 3.5" hard and the iMac would serve that crowd well. We are talking about people have needs above that but are not movie producers and do not need a $2500 xeon workstation. The user who kept Apple afloat before the teenager jumped on board. The ones who see Mac OS X as a useful tool and not just something to show off to your friends. The ones who for their loyalty were rewarded by being kicked to the curb.
If the term "too greedy" seems inappropriate to you just look at Microsoft. Apple's market is growing, yes due to a better OS, not necessarily because we have better hardware choices. Mostly due to Vista.
If Apple were less greedy, I argue their market share would be even larger today and growing faster. There is a missing link in their hardware offerings, many in these forums express as much, more small businesses and corporations would consider a Mac.
Furthermore, it is not only about fewer and/or wrong offerings, it is about the fact the Mac market has stifled due to too few choices. It took 18 months to refresh the Mac Pro, its been 4 years since the displays have had a refresh. Competition in its own turf would be very good for Apple and for its customers.
I hope they don't. I'm all for Apple releasing a cheaper Mac, but one reason why Macs are better in many ways is the tight control Apple has over the hardware and the software and its integration.
If others start building clones, we're going to get just as many incompatibility problems etc as is the case with so many Wintel machines out there.
A Mac is a Mac, and to me that is the combination of hard and software made by Apple, not one OR the other, it's BOTH combined.
So to all other computer builders, stop cloning, and innovate instead, and to Apple, please give us a lower cost mid size tower, and update the Mini!
I believe the customer knows when buying a clone you could have reliability issues with the OS and its not
fault, however a choice you chose to invest and tinker with.If you are a new user and still want to experiment with a clone, do so at your own risk.
Options are good.
I share the same idea. Lately Apple have been making big compromises specially with the iPhone. I will not be suprised to see a low priced Mac being offered in the future, what with the cost of components going down.
Apple is a company in transition, the first step for them is to break the Microsofst stranglehold. I believe this have been done, more people now know that there is an alternative to Windows.
Now that they have proven that the demand is there for a cheap (albeit dodgy) Mac then Apple will get their R&D guys to come up with an affordable Mac. Their developemnt is focused on the iPhone right now and they have learned a lot of things from it, things like being able to COMPROMISE.
It's not a small group of users. You completely overestimate how much the "average person" is willing to spend on a computer.
Also, there is profit in it. The margins aren't as enormous as in the iMacs and Mac Pros, but Dell certainly isn't losing any money when it sells a $300-500 mini-tower.