Post #46,601
7/23/02 6:19:28 PM
|
What systems are those then?
Go to Dell, Compaq/HP, IBM, Gateway, whatever. Pick your system integrator. I don't care.
Now get them to sell you a regular box without an operating system.
Now walk over to the software shelf, pick up a copy of XP Home, and tell me how much it is.
Now consider that Windows 3.11 cost 30 bucks ten years ago.
Now do the math on how much of a percentage of the total system cost a copy of XP Home is compared to what the same percentage was for Windows 3.11 all those years ago.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #46,969
7/26/02 2:55:10 AM
|
I always thought you were intelligent.
Windows 3.11 cost (bare-bones) a lot more than $30. Upgrade to 3.11, maybe. (And of course they never did manage to say exactly what they did from 3.10 to 3.11, other than incidentally breaking OS/2 support.)
And what does this have to do with expensive $2000 low-featured relatively low-powered unexpandable Macs vs. $1000 many-featured greatly expandable PC's?
The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
|
Post #46,973
7/26/02 3:39:55 AM
|
Expandable in which dimension?
They now use most of the same device busses so I'm curious how Macs are not expandable?
I mean: IDE, USB, Firewire, 802.11b, 56k modem, CD/DVD-ROM, both digital video and whatever the older (rgb?) thing is. What doesn't expand? Heck, the desktops flip open with a latch making component installation take a second - no screwdrivers required. I don't get your point.
Plus, I kinda think MacOS X is worth the price differential. Because while you may get yourself a PC for X dollars, it comes with a built-in money tap (halting regularly to demand upgrade money) that flows to MS. In the end you pay more unless you run non-ms software (which you still generally end up paying for once except for a few rare exceptions).
Then there's the value thing. Software I need to run doesn't run on linux. So the relative value of the PC is zero. Not a good value prop.
I don't think your assertion holds.
And what does this have to do with innovations that change the definition of what a computer is?
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #47,049
7/26/02 12:08:39 PM
|
Fear of a Red Hat
The Mac has taken on PC technology to become more expandable. USB, PCI, AGP, IDE, etc. But then the PC is using Mac technology for Firewire now.
Linux can run DOS and Windows software, just like a Mac can. There are emulators for Linux that can run DOS or Windows or both. In fact, a free project called WINE, is growing very popular [link|http://www.winehq.org/|[link|http://www.winehq.org/|http://www.winehq.org/]] there also is DOSEMU for running DOS, but you need a copy of DOS to run inside of it. Others are listed in the Linux forum if you are bothering to read it.
If you run Linux for the Mac, there is always MacOnLinux to boot MacOS 9.X or lower in a virtual Machine.
So what is this BS about Linux not being able to run the software you need? What software are you talking about? Why are Mac Fans so adamantly against Linux? Fear of a Red Hat?
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #47,048
7/26/02 12:03:18 PM
|
Not only that
but way back when, one needed a copy of DOS and Windows to get Windows functional. You couldn't just run Windows by itself with version 3.X, it needed a version of DOS to run on top of. So it was MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1, and each cost more than $30 a pop way back when. I recall in 1993, paying $99 for Windows 3.1, and about $99 for MS-DOS 5.0 when I worked for a Fortune 500 company in St. Louis and I wrote up purchase orders. Of course that was the discount we got from the vendor, I think it cost more than that unless you got an upgrade price.
Of course, look at Pricewatch: [link|http://www.pricewatch.com/1/182/4181-2.htm|[link|http://www.pricewatch.com/1/182/4181-2.htm|http://www.pricewat...2/4181-2.htm]]
If you buy it with hardware, you can get Windows XP Pro with a mouse for $130, way back when Windows 3.1 plus MS-DOS 5.0 cost more than that.
How is $130 half of the $600 el-cheapo systems out there? Is this some sort of New Math? It also is certainly less than $198 that I used to be able to buy Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 5.0 for. Plus Windows XP Pro has a lot of things built into it that Windows 3.1 never had, like a TCP/IP stack, a web browser, Firewall, etc.
So just how much of this bullsh*t are we expected to swallow anyway? We know that Microsoft is evil, but don't exagerate things to beyond what they really are. Don't get caught up in the MacJihad, it does not suit you.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #47,074
7/26/02 3:49:08 PM
|
You still need Office
Which is an insane amount of money these days.
Plus, MS puts you on a treadmill to keep the revenues running.
Linux? I've never bought a PC (think the hardware is lame and won't pay the MS tax) so I can't speak to its general usefulness - but the Linux distros for various macs (which I have installed) were so fiddly and lame as to leave me wondering what the noise was about.
My opion of the apps on linux - they kinda suck. The dev environment - ditto. Even nextstep isn't ready for prime time.
OS X is a nice supported commercial unix with good dev tools and a good suite of apps. Plus I like the hardware. Its not a fiddly thing that drives me nuts getting it running. It just works out of the box. So I like it. What a surprise, we're in the Mac forums and I'm saying I prefer OS X to any other OS out there. Try not to act too surprised, OK?
I do happen to have a linux box at the moment as a workgroup server. Its running resin to run the devtools.org wiki, its our cvs over ssh server, but we never use an interface more elaborate than bash on it. For what it does, its fine. But I don't think I'd use it for much more than that and I'm probably going to replace it with a solaris box.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #47,091
7/26/02 6:38:14 PM
|
But Office isn't part of the OS
and it is optional. One does not need to buy Office to get a working PC. Maybe Dell and Gateway etc bundle Office with their PC, but I bet they offer models without Office, or ones that use MS-Works instead. That is like me saying that in order to use a Mac, you also have to buy Appleworks and Filemaker Pro and subscribe to the .Mac service.
BTW what is up with those $129USD MacOSX 10.2 upgrades? Doesn't Apple have an "upgrade" price to older OSX owners?
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #47,179
7/27/02 11:15:30 AM
7/27/02 11:18:10 AM
|
Sure it is
Just like Explorer is.
Actually, MS doesn't maintain a clear distinction between OS code and app code. No sense of architecture in their stuff. I've never seen a PC without Office and the rest of the MS app stuff installed by default.
RE Upgrade: OS development costs money. You have to pay for its somehow.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #47,190
7/27/02 2:11:21 PM
|
I said it before
and I'll say it again for the hard of hearing. Office is an optional package for Windows, some systems use MSWorks instead for the bundled software package.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #47,483
7/30/02 1:40:35 PM
|
Re: I said it before
some systems use MSWorks instead for the bundled software package. (raises hand) I haven't used much of it except the calendar, but I suppose its word processor and/or spreadsheet and/or whatever are adequate (even though I do still remember PC Write, PC Outline, probably with too much nostalgia.) The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
|
