alent1234
Apr 11, 02:42 PM
That is what the 49$ 3GS is for...
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
ergle2
Sep 19, 12:56 PM
thx for your reply,
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
DDR and FB aren't mutually exclusive technologies. Current FB-DIMMs use DDR2 chips. Newer FB-DIMMs will use DDR3 chips but due to the way FB-DIMMs work -- the buffer and control hardware essentially sit between the memory and the MCH -- you should still be able to use them in a Mac Pro. Note, should, not will.
You won't be able to use regular DDR3 DIMMs just like you can't use regular DDR2 DIMMs tho'. That's something that'd require a major design change to the motherboard.
So, memory will still be damn' expensive compared to that found in the cheap desktops...
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
DDR and FB aren't mutually exclusive technologies. Current FB-DIMMs use DDR2 chips. Newer FB-DIMMs will use DDR3 chips but due to the way FB-DIMMs work -- the buffer and control hardware essentially sit between the memory and the MCH -- you should still be able to use them in a Mac Pro. Note, should, not will.
You won't be able to use regular DDR3 DIMMs just like you can't use regular DDR2 DIMMs tho'. That's something that'd require a major design change to the motherboard.
So, memory will still be damn' expensive compared to that found in the cheap desktops...
nighthawk
Jul 20, 09:03 AM
At some point your going to have deminished returns. Sure multimedia apps can take advantage of a few more cores, but I dont see Mail running faster on 4 cores, nevermind 2! The nice thing about intel is that they seem to realise that, and have invested in improved IO as well, look at Pci express and SATA, you can have the fastest processor in the world, but if your running it with 512megs of memory your going to slow down fast!
prom hair updos 2011. prom
prom updo hairstyles 2011
LanPhantom
Mar 31, 04:03 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
I have to disagree with you. The Apple come back isn't a fad. It's a product of good engineering and great marketing. Apple makes good equipment, so does Motorola and the such. However it's the combine EcoSystem that ties it all together. I admit, once you jump in the Apple lake, it make sense to keep swimming in that water since most things don't interoperate very well. So if you buy Apple products and accessories you can bet they will work perfect together.
The arguement that it's a closed system is getting long in the tooth. Toyota is a closed system. What if you want Nissan seats in your Toyota truck, they probably won't fit and if they do, will probably void your warranty. Toyota sells a TON of cars because people like them and they are built great. Same thing can be said about Apple. Yes they are a closed EcoSystem, but it has proved to be a good thing when it comes to the customer experience and revenue for Apple.
What reason can someone give for me to trade that off and go with an "Open" system? I don't need the stuff on my handset that isn't allowed. Yes Free Tethering would be nice, but that wasn't Apples decision, AT&T prevented it. I unlocked my phone so I could get the MIFI app from Cydia and it worked ok but when I tried to VPN into my work it failed. When the next update came out for the iPhone I reverted back to a locked phone and I'm happy. 20.00 down the drain.
The bottom line is, most people want a system that provides them with what they NEED and a lot of what they want. That it is what Apple is trying to do. They do it on multiple fronts, Movies, Music, Apps, and Hardware. It's the combine system that no one can touch, not even come close to. If M$ would just start making their own PC's, buy Dell, HP, Levono, etc and get on board with Hardware and Software combined system, they would go much farther and be more competitive against this comeback from Apple.
So when it comes down to it, all great things exist in a closed system. Cars exist in a closed system, the Roads they drive on are like the Internet. We buy cars because the company who makes them, makes the complete car and stands behind their creation. Not just the Motor, or Seats or Rims and Tires.
-LanPhantom
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
I have to disagree with you. The Apple come back isn't a fad. It's a product of good engineering and great marketing. Apple makes good equipment, so does Motorola and the such. However it's the combine EcoSystem that ties it all together. I admit, once you jump in the Apple lake, it make sense to keep swimming in that water since most things don't interoperate very well. So if you buy Apple products and accessories you can bet they will work perfect together.
The arguement that it's a closed system is getting long in the tooth. Toyota is a closed system. What if you want Nissan seats in your Toyota truck, they probably won't fit and if they do, will probably void your warranty. Toyota sells a TON of cars because people like them and they are built great. Same thing can be said about Apple. Yes they are a closed EcoSystem, but it has proved to be a good thing when it comes to the customer experience and revenue for Apple.
What reason can someone give for me to trade that off and go with an "Open" system? I don't need the stuff on my handset that isn't allowed. Yes Free Tethering would be nice, but that wasn't Apples decision, AT&T prevented it. I unlocked my phone so I could get the MIFI app from Cydia and it worked ok but when I tried to VPN into my work it failed. When the next update came out for the iPhone I reverted back to a locked phone and I'm happy. 20.00 down the drain.
The bottom line is, most people want a system that provides them with what they NEED and a lot of what they want. That it is what Apple is trying to do. They do it on multiple fronts, Movies, Music, Apps, and Hardware. It's the combine system that no one can touch, not even come close to. If M$ would just start making their own PC's, buy Dell, HP, Levono, etc and get on board with Hardware and Software combined system, they would go much farther and be more competitive against this comeback from Apple.
So when it comes down to it, all great things exist in a closed system. Cars exist in a closed system, the Roads they drive on are like the Internet. We buy cars because the company who makes them, makes the complete car and stands behind their creation. Not just the Motor, or Seats or Rims and Tires.
-LanPhantom
neko girl
Mar 5, 03:18 AM
From what I understand:
updo hairstyles for prom 2011.
half updo hairstyles for prom.
short updos for prom for short
prom hair 2011 half up half
half updos for prom
prom hairstyles 2011 for long
half updo hairstyles for prom.
prom hair 2011 half up.
half updos for prom
updo hairstyles for prom 2011.
Hairstyle Prom Half Updo
curly updos for prom 2011.
half updos for prom
braided updos for prom 2011.
Daringescape
Aug 12, 10:49 AM
If this phone would affect Nano sales, do you think that could be the reason Apple is giving them away with MacBook and MacBookPro sales? Trying to get rid of extra stock before the iPhone is released?
just a thought
Russ
just a thought
Russ
zap2
Apr 6, 04:22 PM
I have something better than a MacBook Air. It's called an iPad 2.
Honestly, they aren't very comparable. Yes, the iPad takes the place of many people's general computing, but I couldn't survive well with just my iPad. My Air in the other hand does a great job replacing my 15" MBP.
Honestly, they aren't very comparable. Yes, the iPad takes the place of many people's general computing, but I couldn't survive well with just my iPad. My Air in the other hand does a great job replacing my 15" MBP.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 04:46 PM
well said. it's hard to even have a civil conversation here anymore. not sure what the majority of the age group here is now, but the discussions since i've joined here just a couple of years ago seem to be on the decline with immaturity. there are a handful of respectful and open minded people who do back up their thoughts with details and sense, but you'd have to wade through a lot of "fanboy" (i hate that term) jargon to sift the ones worth replying to.
True. The debate gets too personal, and starts loosing credibility after a while.
If this was a live debate, there would have been a shootout already.
Cool off people, and provide solid arguments to sustain your point.
True. The debate gets too personal, and starts loosing credibility after a while.
If this was a live debate, there would have been a shootout already.
Cool off people, and provide solid arguments to sustain your point.
Silentwave
Aug 26, 10:42 PM
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
yes, but they were significantly hotter, consumed much more power, and worst of all were incredibly inefficient per clock versus C2D. If memory serves, when the Conroe/Allendale (the codename for C2D desktop chips under 2.4GHz with 2MB L2) benchmarks first came out after the NDA lifted, the best Pentium Extreme Edition (3.73GHz Pentium D Presler core, dual core, 2x2MB L2, 1066 FSB, 130W TDP) was in many of the tests at least equaled by the Core 2 Duo E6300, a chip with the following specs:
Speed: 1.86 GHz Dual core
2MB L2 Cache
1066 MT/S FSB
TDP 65W
So a much slower, far cheaper C2D chip matches the best Pentium D Extreme Edition, though both are dual-core, have the same FSB speed, the Pentium D has a bigger L2 Cache, and each core is clocking at twice the speed of the Core 2 chip.
The C2D chips with the sole exception of the Core 2 Extreme X6800 version have a TDP of 65W- HALF that of the Pentium D series. Even the X6800 only has an 80W TDP.
To give you an idea of pricing, the *retail* version of the Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $193.
The retail version of the Pentium Extreme Edition dual core 3.73GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $1,015.
The rest of the Pentium D line has been dropped in price significantly since Core 2 Duo came out, its almost a fire sale. then again, they are much hotter, less efficient processors by far.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
yes, but they were significantly hotter, consumed much more power, and worst of all were incredibly inefficient per clock versus C2D. If memory serves, when the Conroe/Allendale (the codename for C2D desktop chips under 2.4GHz with 2MB L2) benchmarks first came out after the NDA lifted, the best Pentium Extreme Edition (3.73GHz Pentium D Presler core, dual core, 2x2MB L2, 1066 FSB, 130W TDP) was in many of the tests at least equaled by the Core 2 Duo E6300, a chip with the following specs:
Speed: 1.86 GHz Dual core
2MB L2 Cache
1066 MT/S FSB
TDP 65W
So a much slower, far cheaper C2D chip matches the best Pentium D Extreme Edition, though both are dual-core, have the same FSB speed, the Pentium D has a bigger L2 Cache, and each core is clocking at twice the speed of the Core 2 chip.
The C2D chips with the sole exception of the Core 2 Extreme X6800 version have a TDP of 65W- HALF that of the Pentium D series. Even the X6800 only has an 80W TDP.
To give you an idea of pricing, the *retail* version of the Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $193.
The retail version of the Pentium Extreme Edition dual core 3.73GHz chip at Newegg is listed at $1,015.
The rest of the Pentium D line has been dropped in price significantly since Core 2 Duo came out, its almost a fire sale. then again, they are much hotter, less efficient processors by far.
alent1234
Mar 23, 10:04 AM
If you ever used one of the LG phones or the numerous Japanese keitai's of that time then you'd know, that even though they were cutting edge for the time, they were still nowhere near being 'smartphones'.
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
the big thing with the original iphone was a good web browser. the 3G was the first one that was really worth buying.
apple had so much problems developing the iphone that just like the ipad they put a weak device out to market for version 1 and spent another year finishing it
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
the big thing with the original iphone was a good web browser. the 3G was the first one that was really worth buying.
apple had so much problems developing the iphone that just like the ipad they put a weak device out to market for version 1 and spent another year finishing it
Silentwave
Jul 15, 05:55 PM
Too many people are complaining about rumored information that isn't even reliable, and most likely incorrect.
I agree with you whole-heartedly!
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
You hit the nail right on the head with the processor availability. Core Duo uses the pentium M architecture and was only in two versions: mobile, codename Yonah with its variants, and a pair of low speed ultra low power server chips- Sossaman- only going up to 2GHz with 2MB L2 and 667 FSB. the other Xeons (Paxville/Dempsey) and high end chips like the Pentium D/Pentium Extreme Edition ( Smithfield/Presler) are all using NetBurst architecutre, which is obsolete and very inefficient plus they are extremely power hungry and hot.The top Pentium Extreme Edition Presler dual core at 3.73GHz was easily outperformed by several of the Conroe cores- I recall one test where it was neck and neck with the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo.
They wanted the fastest chips possible using the best architecture possible- that is Woodcrest and Conroe with the Core microarchitecture.
I have little doubt that the 3GHz Xeon 5160 will be in the Mac Pros, if not standard, then as a BTO option.
I agree with you whole-heartedly!
The one question I do have is why is the Mac Pro the last to make this transition, why has it taken so long? Is it simply due to chip availability, is it due to some radical new design, or is it because the Mac Pro is Apple's flagship product and Apple is working long and hard to wedge in some great new technology?
Great new technologies always made their way to the Power Macs first, and then trickled down the line. I have every faith that the Mac Pro will continue this tradition, especially since the Mac Pro will be competing with other high-end Xeon workstations. Apple will need something in the Mac Pro that nobody else has, and it will also need to utilize Intel's fastest chips in order to dispel any notions of the system being weaker than the competition in terms of speed -- this is a dark cloud over the Mac that finally needs to be cleared.
You hit the nail right on the head with the processor availability. Core Duo uses the pentium M architecture and was only in two versions: mobile, codename Yonah with its variants, and a pair of low speed ultra low power server chips- Sossaman- only going up to 2GHz with 2MB L2 and 667 FSB. the other Xeons (Paxville/Dempsey) and high end chips like the Pentium D/Pentium Extreme Edition ( Smithfield/Presler) are all using NetBurst architecutre, which is obsolete and very inefficient plus they are extremely power hungry and hot.The top Pentium Extreme Edition Presler dual core at 3.73GHz was easily outperformed by several of the Conroe cores- I recall one test where it was neck and neck with the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo.
They wanted the fastest chips possible using the best architecture possible- that is Woodcrest and Conroe with the Core microarchitecture.
I have little doubt that the 3GHz Xeon 5160 will be in the Mac Pros, if not standard, then as a BTO option.
shawnce
Jul 20, 04:47 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Kentsfield is not really targeted as a server class chip, it is targeted towards single socket desktop/workstation systems. I doubt we will ever see it an Xserve system.
Apple will likely use a single and dual Xeon 51xx (Woodcrest) in their Xserve systems possibly with the quad core Xeon a little farther down the road (aka Clovertown and later Tigerton).
Review... roadmap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture#Road_map)
They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.
Mac OS X already can deal with quad core systems and can support more cores without any real issues.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Kentsfield is not really targeted as a server class chip, it is targeted towards single socket desktop/workstation systems. I doubt we will ever see it an Xserve system.
Apple will likely use a single and dual Xeon 51xx (Woodcrest) in their Xserve systems possibly with the quad core Xeon a little farther down the road (aka Clovertown and later Tigerton).
Review... roadmap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture#Road_map)
They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.
Mac OS X already can deal with quad core systems and can support more cores without any real issues.
Soonerpet
Mar 25, 11:10 PM
I'm really not looking forward to Lion at all. It just seems like a huge step backwards for those of us that use our computers as real computers and not toys. I have an ipad, an iphone and several macs, but they each have specific uses. I don't want my desktop machine to be anything like my ipad, one is for doing real work and doing my daily stuff on, the iOS gadgets are for fun games and browsing mostly.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
The Beatles
Apr 12, 02:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
That's what I was think but decided, if that's his taste live and let live.
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
That's what I was think but decided, if that's his taste live and let live.
greenstork
Jul 31, 12:17 PM
I've built a gaming PC around the Core 2 Duo E6700. I'd like to be able to install OS X on it, because the only reason why I'd ever use Windows is for the latest games. Here are the spec's, think this would run OS X nicely? ;-)
Intel 975XBX Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (should overclock to around 3.2 to 3.5 GHz with my Zalman CNPS9500 AT air cooler)
ATI Crossfire x1900 (crossfire master card)
Sapphire ATI x1900xt (in crossfire)
1GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 Memory
2 x 320GB Seagate Perpendicular Recording SATA2 HD's in RAID 1
Antec Trupower II 550 watt power supply
Antec P180 case in black
... keep in mind I am a diehard Mac fan, but I've always wanted to build a gaming rig since I'm a hardcore gamer. After all, I'm writing this entry on my MacBook Pro. Mmmmm.
You should have waited for a Mac Pro. By hacking OS X to run on your custom built machine, you're constantly going to have to deal with a buggy Mac OS. There's no doubt that with every OS update, Apple will try to disable your hacked copy, if not fry your OS X installation. Make sure you partition...
I'm a gamer too and I'm just sitting on my hands waiting for a Mac Pro. Sure, it may be more expensive than a custom-built Intel machine, but it will run OS X like a charm, and that's ultimately the most important factor in my computer purchase. But access to Windows games and Mac OS X, that's a dream come true for this mac fanatic. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that virtualization makes big enough strides that I never have to leave OS X to play Windows-based games.
Intel 975XBX Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (should overclock to around 3.2 to 3.5 GHz with my Zalman CNPS9500 AT air cooler)
ATI Crossfire x1900 (crossfire master card)
Sapphire ATI x1900xt (in crossfire)
1GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 Memory
2 x 320GB Seagate Perpendicular Recording SATA2 HD's in RAID 1
Antec Trupower II 550 watt power supply
Antec P180 case in black
... keep in mind I am a diehard Mac fan, but I've always wanted to build a gaming rig since I'm a hardcore gamer. After all, I'm writing this entry on my MacBook Pro. Mmmmm.
You should have waited for a Mac Pro. By hacking OS X to run on your custom built machine, you're constantly going to have to deal with a buggy Mac OS. There's no doubt that with every OS update, Apple will try to disable your hacked copy, if not fry your OS X installation. Make sure you partition...
I'm a gamer too and I'm just sitting on my hands waiting for a Mac Pro. Sure, it may be more expensive than a custom-built Intel machine, but it will run OS X like a charm, and that's ultimately the most important factor in my computer purchase. But access to Windows games and Mac OS X, that's a dream come true for this mac fanatic. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that virtualization makes big enough strides that I never have to leave OS X to play Windows-based games.
KnightWRX
Mar 26, 07:58 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
wmmk
Aug 17, 03:32 PM
And for what purpose? Would any of you drop the $3500 needed to upgrade to the latest Mac Pro? Or is it just the drool factor, like when you look through Car and Driver and drool over an $80K sports car?
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:
alent1234
Mar 23, 07:23 AM
To be fair, every smartphone on the market is an iPhone clone and every tablet an iPad clone, so it is all related to Apple in that way.
a lot of the iphone engineers are former palm employees
a lot of the iphone engineers are former palm employees
kainjow
Sep 19, 11:35 AM
As for me, they have 2 more weeks of my patience before I revert back to my PC days. I'm tired of getting made fun of by my PC Geek friends while I play on my outdated G4 PB.
I'm beginning to believe my friends when they say that Apple pats their own backs for crap that PC makers created a year ago.
If you want to switch back to a PC, no one's stopping you.
But realize, using a PC vs a Mac isn't about the hardware - it's about the software. True, G4's suck and are slow, and should have been given the boot YEARS ago. But it's not Apple's fault for you sticking with it. You should have at LEAST upgraded to the MBP when it was initially launched. How is the Merom update going to be THAT much better than the current MBP?
I'm beginning to believe my friends when they say that Apple pats their own backs for crap that PC makers created a year ago.
If you want to switch back to a PC, no one's stopping you.
But realize, using a PC vs a Mac isn't about the hardware - it's about the software. True, G4's suck and are slow, and should have been given the boot YEARS ago. But it's not Apple's fault for you sticking with it. You should have at LEAST upgraded to the MBP when it was initially launched. How is the Merom update going to be THAT much better than the current MBP?
Multimedia
Aug 27, 02:59 AM
I already have those stats, I want to see them drop in a high-end Conroe (~3GHz) so I would know that I could feasibly upgrade my 2GHz Core Duo in the future. It's possible, isn't it? I mean, the G5's were really hot, and the iMac enclosure could handle that, wouldn't the new Intel ones be able to handle the Conroe Extremes?I think you might be able to put a Merom 2.33GHz in there without much trouble. But I dont' think Conroe is pin compatable with your iMac. :)
dscuber9000
Mar 31, 05:12 PM
Android is the next windows. So many drivers, so much requirements, so many configurations, so little memory. Fortunately Apple's provided a better sandbox.
I really do think that Android/Windows is a good comparison. At least, in terms of getting Android out there on as many different phones as possible. And while that certainly worked, it doesn't really mean that Android is the best OS because it is slightly different depending on the hardware it is on. Which brings up a clear advantage of iOS: It's written specifically for the hardware it is on.
I really do think that Android/Windows is a good comparison. At least, in terms of getting Android out there on as many different phones as possible. And while that certainly worked, it doesn't really mean that Android is the best OS because it is slightly different depending on the hardware it is on. Which brings up a clear advantage of iOS: It's written specifically for the hardware it is on.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:43 AM
I got it...
Octopros :D
Octopros :D
benthewraith
Nov 28, 08:18 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
rdowns
Feb 28, 06:29 PM
Lee, I agree with you about what you say, but he clearly did say that this was only his opinion. People are allowed that, even if it is hateful and exclusionist.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
Agreed, but when you air your opinions in public, others have the right to challenge them.
No comments:
Post a Comment