Crazy statistics. Ironically it's the device that is killing the network. Millions of new data users wanting the iPhone meant whomever the carrier is would have to compensate with a huge demand of new power. While AT&T has certainly been raking in the dough they should also take responsibility for slowly adapting their network to such demand. However, dealing with zoning and building new towers makes it even more difficult. Hopefully another US carrier having rights to a network compatible iPhone will be a win/win for everyone (win for those wanting it on another network and win for AT&T customers that will have a less taxed network).
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.
Psystar Agrees to Pay Nearly $2.7 Million in Settlement With Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Crazy statistics. Ironically it's the device that is killing the network. Millions of new data users wanting the iPhone meant whomever the carrier is would have to compensate with a huge demand of new power. While AT&T has certainly been raking in the dough they should also take responsibility for slowly adapting their network to such demand. However, dealing with zoning and building new towers makes it even more difficult. Hopefully another US carrier having rights to a network compatible iPhone will be a win/win for everyone (win for those wanting it on another network and win for AT&T customers that will have a less taxed network).
Than do it by submitting a new thread or email Arn - dont interrupt a thread. Darned rude to interrupt - even if you dont agree with the discussion you are interrupting.
Things not to do:
And
Source
OK, I thought the single CPU Mac Pro had dual slots. Correction noted. Bafflefish pointed out the same thing.
I never tried to justify the fact that a Xeon CPU costs 3x as much as an i7 870, but it does. If you're saying the Xeon is a sham or something and that there's no real difference between it and the far less expensive i7, that's not a debate I want nor am equipped to get into. I assume there's a difference, otherwise they probably won't sell very well. My point is that if you're going to do a price comparison, you have to compare a roughly similar parts list. If we're going to base comparisons on machines that "feel" similar regardless of the actual parts, then I could compare a quad core iMac to a top of the line, Xeon-equipped Dell workstation with the most expensive monitor I can find and demonstrate what an incredible steal the iMac is.
Ah, I didn't quite get where you were coming from. If the single quad Mac Pro uses a different motherboard anyway (something I didn't realize earlier), why not offer a core i7 option? Yep, I'm on board. It makes sense.
But it sounds like you don't really care about the expandability of the Mac Pro(?). If that's correct, the quad core iMac seems like a great choice. Is the problem that you don't want a monitor or is the $2200 simply too much dough?
They tried this in the 90s It didnt work and Apple lost money. Why? Microsoft had (and still possesses) an ungodly large market share. Apple is not after a large market share - Jobs has said that publicly. Were Apple to do as you suggest, they would be competing with themselves - that is never a good idea.
Build one yourself, man. Use the specs in my sig as a reference. You can get it to come in at about $800 if you cut some corners.
Thank you. I already did that.
Also check on page 2 where a couple of posters are comparing their Dell fully-loaded computer to a MBP. Also OT.
I wouldn't be so dismissive about 'roll-over minutes,' a feature which gives AT&T a significant advantage, in terms of value, over other carriers.
Service on AT&T in the Tri-State area has been optimal, with very few dropped calls.
The high-speed data transfer rate of their 3G network is greatly appreciated; that, and the 'roll-over minutes,' will keep me on AT&T regardless of iPhone's move to other carriers.
Things will only improve further, after droves of customers defect to T-Mobile or Verizon, all the while AT&T's network continues to expand.
It really ain't all that bad, and shall be getting better, in time.
I thought some of the mentality of Hackintosh people isn't actually building a Mac OS in a non-Apple hardware cheaper than an authentic Mac, but the challenge of building it and the "Apple-says-we-can't-so-by-heck-I'm-gonna-to-do-it!" defiance sentiment... to which Apple will flex its legal muscles (hence the Psystar settlement).
Well, my guess would be the graphics card. The quad core iMac's best available graphics option is the mobile Radeon 4850. For anything that isn't graphically-demanding, it's fine when equipped with the 27" panel at 2560x1440. But since he's doing more graphically-intense work, the mobile Radeon would likely be a problem.
The ironic thing is that after the release of the original Mac in 1984, Bill Gates actually suggested to Apple that they license the ROMs and OS to a few other manufacturers in order to establish the Apple OS as the standard OS.
Apple of course did not and Microsoft eventually released Windows 1.0.
It'd have been interesting to see how history would have turned out if Apple had become the dominant company. Just imagine if Microsoft's role would simply have been as a provider of apps and such for the Apple OS.
Well, for me it was more of an "I want a tower I can upgrade, add many TB of storage without having many external drives cluttering up my desk, use more than ONE matched display, have a myriad of diagnostic tools to figure out what is wrong if something does go wrong, not have to pay almost the value of the machine when it almost certainly dies out of warranty to have it fixed because the motherboard isn't standard parts and not have to spend a minimum of $3275 to get a computer that fits my needs (Price of a Mac Pro where I live... taxes in)" kind of attitude.
Hell, I'm sure there's many more reasons I chose this route I just don't want my rant to become any harder to read.
I doubt that was ever in the cards. Microsoft got dominant thanks to IBM - Apple never got above a 20% market share - and that was at the Apple II. MS got really lucky with the IBM mentality of IT departments. I really doubt that Apple would have ever gotten bigger than 20% - after all we might as well argue about all the other competitors that MS essentially put out of business due to their anti-competive practices.
We will never really know, but Apple was never all that dominant to begin with. They were good - but IBM beat them by brand name alone.
Everyone seems to forget that Apple went to Intel to make it easier for switchers to install Windows on their Apple computers. Freakin' hypocrites.
First, they went to Intel because Intel had a better and more sustainable roadmap for CPUs. From wikipedia:
"Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs. In particular, he cited the performance per watt (that is, the speed per unit of electrical power) projections in the roadmap provided by Intel. This is an especially important consideration in laptop design, which affects the hours of use per battery charge.
In June 2003, Jobs had introduced Macs based on the PowerPC G5 processor and promised that within a year the clock speed of the part would be up to 3 GHz. Two years later, 3 GHz G5s were still not available, and rumors continued that IBM's low yields on the POWER4-derived chip were to blame. Further, the heat produced by the chip proved an obstacle to deploying it in a laptop computer, which had become the fastest growing segment of the personal computer industry."
Second, even if that wasn't true, that doesn't make them hypocrites. MS licenses their OS for use on any machine. Apple doesn't. In both cases Apple is being consistent in enforcing and obeying licensing restrictions.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/compatibility/
"It runs Windows, too" HYPOCRITES......right there on its own product page. Unprincipled. Boot Camp is a built in utility to siphon Windows users, and gamers—for that matter.
Everyone seems to forget that Apple went to Intel to make it easier for switchers to install Windows on their Apple computers. Freakin' hypocrites.
Umm... Boot camp didnt go into beta until April 2006 and was part of Leopard in August 2007. Apples first intel computer was released in January 2006. Four months apart and that was 6 months after the intel switch was announced.
The prime reason was not about switchers though:
Source
Again, I think you don't understand the term "hypocrite."
Apple encourages people to obey Windows' EULA and to obey Apple's EULA. Further, Microsoft doesn't care if you use bootcamp - it's just more money for MS.
What are you even babbling about?
Jobs often blows BS out of his mouth. He wanted the gamers to feel safe about switching. You really believe that they weren't working on Boot Camp as a strategy all along.
Yes. I really think they weren't working on Boot Camp as a strategy all along. There is no evidence that they were. If anything, they were probably working on red box.
The only one blowing BS out of his mouth is you. You say something, we prove you wrong, and you move on to the next random unsubstantiated accusation.
You have no clue what you're talking about, you don't know what simple words like "hypocrite" mean, and your conspiracy theories have no credibility.
That doesnt mean anything and it doesnt make Apple a Hypocrite. Read the definition, it has nothing to do with what Apple advertises. Apples ability to run Windows is a side affect of the intel transition, not its intention. Apple saw demand for running Windows, knew it was really easy to offer it, and knew that MS allowed for such scenarios bieng that MS business model was different.
Apple has never promoted their software to being offered the same as Microsoft - they have always said that their approach was different. Furthermore their business model of selling hardware and software together has largely been consistent throughout Apples history. Running two operating systems in a dual boot or virtualized environment is a relatively new phemonemon for Apple and they have never been against that.
Prove it. I have a cite that disproves your statement. Unless you can show that my statement is false and yours is true (I want factual articles and not opinions), back down. Put up or quiet down.
For Apple to be incensed that someone is selling a computer that can utilize OSX, while Apple builds all of theirs to boot Windows and even supplies a program to do so, BOOT CAMP. That's what hypocrisy is. Look it up.
An important point - Apple encourages people to obey software licensing. Imagine that! Pretty consistent with the Psystar case.