The Second Coming of Apple

[Q Classic]

Again, you assume that everyone cares about this. Most people do not upgrade their computers, just as they don't upgrade their cars. So your point is moot.

you say this, which is why your argument this:

Perhaps they should have put more memory in them, like I did. There was a noticeable performance boost.

is moot.

Sure, you can do that on a mac, but that has nothing to do with my point, which was about maintenance. Nice try at changing the subject though.

actually, i didn't change the subject. your point was something about how maintenance on windows boxes was difficult. and it's not. my point is how your example of how "easy" it is to log into one computer and yada-yada-yada bs is moot when we're dealing with mass deployments, and your purported benefit and ease of mac maintenance is moot.

Well, shut up then.

then stop putting words in my mouth.

What it does take is beyond most people. I know this from my own experience.

and i've found that most people, when told what to do, do the basic minimum to keep their computers locked down. at the uni, for all people entering the dorms, we give them a checklist. lo and behold, we've had a marked drop-off in infection rates.

agathon, your rabid hatred of windows is amazing. quite frankly, it blinds you.

as is asher's rabid hatred of mac. then again, it's always the case with you fanatic partisans. bush v kerry, left v right, windows v mac....

[Q Classic]

It appears not, since you are incapable of grasping basic problems.

And quite frankly, it appears that you can't understand that some computers are inherently not worth the extra $400 cost due to your blind hatred of Windows.

i mean, seriously. if your argument is that people buying the emac aren't getting stuck with windows... then why charge them $400 more when OS X itself only costs $200 at most, and the hardware it runs on is worth less than $500? sell the emac for $600 or less, and maybe then i'll consider even remotely recommending it, rather than being correct in how worthless it is?

[Agathon]

i mean, seriously. if your argument is that people buying the emac aren't getting stuck with windows... then why charge them $400 more when OS X itself only costs $200 at most, and the hardware it runs on is worth less than $500? sell the emac for $600 or less, and maybe then i'll consider even remotely recommending it, rather than being correct in how worthless it is?

Obviously because you can't run OS X on another machine.

If you want to defend Windows, go ahead. I've seen enough horror stories. I am a former Windows user after all. I'd rather pay extra and not have to worry, so I suspect would many other people if they knew anything about it.

Perhaps when desktop Linux gets better, there will be another option. For now there really isn't.

The emac is fine for an office machine. No more, no less. It works, I've used one. Sure you can get a cheapo Dell for less, but I don't care. Apple's OS is worth more than the difference to me. So is being free of virus worries.

[Q Classic]

i'm well aware of the PPC/x86 issue with OS X. i still don't think it justifies the $400 extra.

and our experience has shown that giving a user a checklist on how to lock their computer down--which is educating the user on what to do properly, is a minimal added cost to a cheapo dell.

which is why i can't and won't recommend an emac to anyone.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i'm well aware of the PPC/x86 issue with OS X. i still don't think it justifies the $400 extra.

and our experience has shown that giving a user a checklist on how to lock their computer down--which is educating the user on what to do properly, is a minimal added cost to a cheapo dell.

which is why i can't and won't recommend an emac to anyone.

There's such a thing as total cost of ownership (TCO), which includes time wasted in getting rid of all forms of malware (viruses, spyware, etc.)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
And quite frankly, it appears that you can't understand that some computers are inherently not worth the extra $400 cost due to your blind hatred of Windows.

I don't think hatred of Windows is blind, it's just that people got fed up with all its problems, in addition to people got fed up with Microsoft.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Agathon
Sure you can get a cheapo Dell for less, but I don't care. Apple's OS is worth more than the difference to me. So is being free of virus worries.

Um, exactly. You may spend more money on a Mac in the short run, but in the long run you'll save money from not having to buy extra software to keep thing running at it's optimum.

With a PC it's the other way around.

[Agathon]

and our experience has shown that giving a user a checklist on how to lock their computer down--which is educating the user on what to do properly, is a minimal added cost to a cheapo dell.

Actually the low cost Dells are a bit of BS really. I went to Dell's site and tried to add the software to make it like the emac, and that pushed the price way up. Going for XP Pro which is the equivalent of OS X I suppose increases the price quite a bit, so does adding in the multimedia stuff.

I tried building an imac equivalent and it ended up costing about $1000 more than an imac. I'm sure I did something wrong, but it's made me think that the new imac is quite reasonable.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There's such a thing as total cost of ownership (TCO), which includes time wasted in getting rid of all forms of malware (viruses, spyware, etc.)

As well as porting all of the applications from Windows to Linux, employing your own programmers to enable device support, etc. Which is why the TCO is generally higher to switch to Linux from Windows, too much work to do...too many people to hire...no guarantees.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
Um, exactly. You may spend more money on a Mac in the short run, but in the long run you'll save money from not having to buy extra software to keep thing running at it's optimum.

With a PC it's the other way around.

You don't have to buy any software if you know what you're doing.

All antivirus programs do is prevent stupidity.

I don't run any antivirus programs, and I've never had a virus.

That's what I get for not opening "virus.exe", I guess. People like you should download free virus scanners like AVG, then, and either way it's still free...

[Agathon]

I dunno, Walmart are selling a Linspire notebook for $498. I guess that criminals will buy them, since it's the computer equivalent of a prepaid cellphone.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Actually the low cost Dells are a bit of BS really. I went to Dell's site and tried to add the software to make it like the emac, and that pushed the price way up. Going for XP Pro which is the equivalent of OS X I suppose increases the price quite a bit, so does adding in the multimedia stuff.

I tried building an imac equivalent and it ended up costing about $1000 more than an imac. I'm sure I did something wrong, but it's made me think that the new imac is quite reasonable.

You have to be ****ting me. You don't need to upgrade WinXP Home to Pro unless you've got a dual-proc machine and need something like the encrypting filesystem.

Hell, even OS X doesn't support the encrypting filesystem.

Try it again, and provide details this time so I can debunk it. A 3.2GHz PC is not equivalent to a 1.5GHz G4, BTW.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I dunno, Walmart are selling a Linspire notebook for $498. I guess that criminals will buy them, since it's the computer equivalent of a prepaid cellphone.

Linspire has a subscription software model.

It's the fine print that gets you.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

The time of open war on the Wintel world is just around the New Year's bend!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
The time of open war on the Wintel world is just around the New Year's bend!

The open war began with Lisa.

The war's been over for a long time now. What Apple and Linux are fighting for are scraps.