Discussion in 'Offtopic Discussions' started by Axeman, Jan 12, 2005.
an OS is useless if there arent any applications for it.
But there are applications for OS X, most Windows Apps have a Mac version, so whats your point?
My dick is already bigger than my computer, and I've got a full-tower case
my point being: an OS is useless if there arent any applications for it.
so the mac mini is aimed at PC owners to have to rebuy the software they already own on windows?
I dont understand hype about an OS it just is a platform to use applications.
have i missed the apple point? someone explain it to me
A lot less spyware or security risks to worry about?
Plus obtaining software has never been a problem for me, and this thing comes with alot of software preinstalled.
plus, x11 can offer a lot of things for people who are vaguely tech savvy
Well to be fair most of use (i guess) wont be buying the software.
I agree with declaration. Apple got always a good OS but the hardware was never a good value for the money. The Mac Mini is no exception: for 500 Euro you get just the unit, no keyboard, no mouse, no dvdwriter, just 256 MB memory and a really outdated videocard. Even if they manage to build that in a matchbox - I won't buy such outdated hardware for that price. If you could install OS X on PCs, it surely will get a partition on my harddrive.
That's the point where the Windows & PC versus Apple discussion always goes wrong. A friend of mine always tries to convince me to switch to Apple but when I explain how expensive that would be because of all the software I would have to buy he always tells me I'm crazy to even consider buying the software instead of just downloading it.
Buying a Mac isn't that expensive but if you want to have the same office software and graphics programs 'switching' will cost you a fortune.
...and Apple would go bust shortly afterwards. They've already tried going down this route (or starting to anyway) and very quickly they were up shit creek . It was only when Jobs came back in and got Apple back focussing on what they are good at that the company went back into profit.
They do what they do. They do it well. They make money. You really can't blame them for not changing their company strategy too much!
The thing that *really* amazes me about Apple is that they are not repeatedly getting sued by Apple Records. If memory serves, the only way that they avoided losing big-time in the early 80's court case was by promising not to get involved in music/sound. iTunes anyone?
Yes, I remember the short period when Apple allowed other manufacturers to build hardware with their OS, the rise of the "clones". Apple decided to stay in hardware business and stopped it again to sell their own overpriced hardware. But I think they still got a better alignment than Microsoft, I'm waiting what TCPA will bring up ...
That thing with apple-records amazes me too, normally the lawyers are just waiting for such cases ...
Legend hath it that when Apple Records took Apple Computers to court they got away with it because at that time computers made little more that bleeps and noone could see how computers would be used in the music industry.
When Apple released the first version of Mac OS that included error sounds that were samples, one of the sounds available was "Sosumi". The legend goes that the sound was so named as a middle-finger salute to Apple Records ("Sosumi" = "So sue me!").
As for stopping the whole clone thing etc. Apple were in a right old mess and were bouncing around trying to move the OS on a bit. After a much rumoured buyout of BeOs they finally bought NextStep with a view to using a big chunk of the OS and also getting Steve Jobs back on board. Jobs being Jobs came in as the 'interim' CEO and immediately said that the idea of using NextStep was crap and they should base the new OS on FreeBSD. He also stopped the clone licencing, dumped a load of pointless research and commissioned the iMac. 18 months later they were in profit for the first time in years.
The way he funded a lot of this was by selling a big chunk of stock to... go on guess who... Microsoft! They promised to release versions of things like Office on the Mac and (allegedly) Apple promised to not release a version of the new OS that would work on the PC.
Though this was all a while back and my memory might be a bit clouded now that I'm getting on in years
I've heard that before but don't know if it's all true... i just know for sure that Jobs sold stock to microsoft and that when they got Jpbs back he made the new iMac which made them more money. aparently enough to still over price their computers for what they are worth. even though the processor speed are listed at apporoximatly have half of what they say.
did anyone actually buy one of these?
I didn't, PC seems to make better sense, plus for ~£200 more I can build a belting PC.
Separate names with a comma.