On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 09:28 +0800, Martin Hill wrote: > > 1. "Macs are too expensive", > > Indeed, that's what I put down as my 3rd point and with the advent of the > Mac Mini and the potential for cheaper intel components (some more > expensive, some cheaper), this also is being better addressed by Apple.
The mac mini sure does help in that regard. I *really* wish it had gigabit ethernet (it doesn't cost a noticeable amount more for gigabit NIC chips now), though. > >or "Mac prices would be OK but MacOS is waaayy too expensive." > > I don't get that one much. Are all your friends linux users? ;-) That, and Windows users. OEM XP Pro = ~$260 ... and nobody in their right mind buys anything else. You won't be buying annual upgrades, either. I think what bothers me personally, though, is the lack of upgrade pricing, and the fact that the site license is really pretty unattractive for <10 machines. Of course, you do get a significantly better system for your extra money with MacOS/X. These days it's almost fair to add the price of a virus scanner (and update subscription) to your Windows license cost, too. I guess I just miss the days of $100 MacOS upgrades every couple of years. > Well it depends if you'd prefer to not get a new OS with lots of nice new > features every year and a bit or would rather wait 5 years for such new > capabilities and then pay more. Well, personally I prefer to get one every six months and pay nothing, but I'm a Linux user. I do "pay" quite a bit in donated time spent doing development work, but that's fun. You also "pay" in time spent stuffing about, but IMO not more than any other OS for many tasks now. For the systems at work, I'd be much happier getting a new OS every three to five years and paying much less on average over that period, as I do for the win32 systems, yes. Annual upgrades are frustrating, especially when every single one breaks something. I do appreciate the fact that you can skip MacOS/X releases. Going 10.2 -> 10.4 etc makes things much more reasonable, though IMO still a bit steep. > Personally I prefer the former. Because of > Apple's 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 naming scheme and Microsoft's glacial pace bringing > out Longhorn, too many PC users get confused thinking Apple's new OS > releases are equivalent to service packs on the PC. They aren't, I know. Sometimes I almost wish they were a bit more like service packs, though. Also, new OS or no, if you just want the basics working and stable it's not really attractive. I usually get each release and wonder "what will this one break?" not "what goodies do I get in this one?". That said, from a developer's PoV the rapid releases are actually wonderful. Apple *do* fix things, especially in their development environment, and this is very helpful. I'd be sooo annoyed to be stuck with an incomplete set of CUPS libs and headers on 10.3 for the next 3 years... > > There's no "OEM escape" like with Windows, > > Do you mean Windows being bundled with a new computer? That helps given how rarely it's updated. It's also generally possible to buy windows "with a new computer" and stretch the definition of "new computer" quite a bit ;-) . Potential future Mactel users who might want to dual boot (eeew, I know ...) or emulate Windows may wish to remember this. > >> 1. Large software choices - Macs running Windows software at around native > >> speeds [...] > > > > Be careful with this. [snip] > Come on now - you would surely have to agree that it *will* get > significantly better than the current slow emulation on PPC situation?!! Yep, if nothing else it's extremely likely there's going to be some improved emulator/virtualizer like VMWare out there. It's not entirely safe to assume WINE will make it over, though I think it's pretty likely. All I'm saying it that right now it's probably wiser not to tell people these things *will* happen, unless someone who's going to do it steps out and says so. -- Craig Ringer
