Hey I was just wondering what all your thoughts are on the possibility of Apple licencing clones again(Including build your own from scratch)? I would really like to have a desktop mac that costs less than 3000 dollars. I know thats an exageration but once you buy a moniter customize even the lowest end PM its at least almost that much. I was looking the other day at building my own PC and for less than 1500 bucks I could build a freakin gaming machine which all I really need it for ne ways. that includes the moniter albeit its not a flat screen. N E ways just your thoughts on the matter?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Mac Clones???
- Thread starter cocopelli
- Start date
- Sort (Likes)
Re: Mac Clones???
do it yourself would kik major arse. Then again, apple did lose major mula when they started licensing their stuff to people like umax and stuff. Im kinda hoping they license the use of the g3 to a smaller company so we can have cheap, beige g3s like before taht cost almost nothing and have like ten million drive bays and almost endless expansion options. Also, putting g4 componenets into an x-86 Pc case wouldnt be a bad idea either. Those purdy Antec cases (think alienware) would be perfect. Large, paintable, customizable, 3 drive bays, what else do u need?
It seems to me that now would as good of time as any with OSX out. I know so many people that like the operating system but not the hardware price. If someone could build a system compareable to the 1 GHz duel for 1500 or less including moniter I know there would be a he!! of a lot more switchers.
apple makes most of it's money on hardware, osx and finalcutpro dont pay the bills. they found this to be painfully true when they started licensing the architecture to clones in the os7 days; after all, who would pay a premium price for an apple when they could get a better system from powercomputing for $500 less? it sucks that there's no competition to drive down the prices, but that's the only way apple can stay in buisness.
what would be incredibly cool is if apple and ibm worked out a deal where apple made the software (perhaps osx on top of a souped up version of aix?) and did product design, while ibm made the hardware, giving us cheaper, more powerful desktops with the sleek styling that we love.
what would be incredibly cool is if apple and ibm worked out a deal where apple made the software (perhaps osx on top of a souped up version of aix?) and did product design, while ibm made the hardware, giving us cheaper, more powerful desktops with the sleek styling that we love.
now that is an idea since apple's defining feature these days is os x, hands down...hardware has been toned way down
in 1998, bondi blue represented apple with colored plastic being the norm shortly after
in 1984, the all in one macintosh represented apple
in the late-70s, apple II represented apple
let's get out clones and spread the mac os/os x gospel, but keep apple's hardware a viable choice, too, for those who want both the os x and the cool apple industrial design on their machine
There won't be any clones as long as Steve Jobs is in charge. If all you want to do is play games, then buy a PC.
Yea and if all you want to do is kik some pc ass in just about everything, then get a mac. Also, i heard taht EACH and i mean EACH 1.25 GHz G4 chip (and remember that the g4 tower has TWO of them) has enough power to smoke a 2.5 GHz p4 (source: macaddict, I believe). Now that makes you look at it a whole nother way, doesnt it?
I'd recommend backing things like this up with links with the 'facts' The only reason Apple is using more than one processor is because they 2 to even compete against the upper end pcs.....
http://desktopvideo.about.com/gi/dy...ng.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm
This is an older comparison, sorry, but its a dual 1 GHz Mac running 10.1.3 vs at top of the line PC with rendering - it basically gets smoked. Now the dual 1.25 will do better, but I haven't seen any results. A little searching found only people asking for a comparison - so if you have one of the fast machines, go here and help the cause.
D
i am very wary of "links" myself since you can find anything you want to hear on some "slick" website somewhere
i like the three networks the best, but even though i watch cnn, it is the equivalent of the national enquirer, but on television...i guess when you are reporting 24/7, the truth only makes up a few hours at most, so the rest is fluff and a lot of that fluff is pure unstrained bull****
sometimes the slicker the website/webpage, the stronger the "agenda" the author has and the more erroneous or exaggerated the "facts" are
