Yep, that'd be the article.
Ok... I know I'm not going to be able to sell it... so I guess it'll continue to hold down my desk... in case of tornado... or something... Maybe I can just give it away?
Printable View
Yep, that'd be the article.
Ok... I know I'm not going to be able to sell it... so I guess it'll continue to hold down my desk... in case of tornado... or something... Maybe I can just give it away?
Will you pay the shipping too? If so I'll take it! :DQuote:
Originally posted here by phishphreek80
Yep, that'd be the article.
Ok... I know I'm not going to be able to sell it... so I guess it'll continue to hold down my desk... in case of tornado... or something... Maybe I can just give it away?
Sorry about my strong statement before, I didn't have much time to post, but I wanted to get my point across quickly (my mistake). Yes, mac's are the best machienes out there for music recording, photo editing, and video editing. But that is not the point I'm making. The point I am trying to make is that they don't let other companies (correct me if I'm wrong) make their own version of a CPU for instance. You see G5, G4, G3, but do you see any AMD type proccessor. All I'm saying is that they could have so much more software if they let more companies manufacture their products. If they do that, Macs can be sold cheaper with a bigger market. Sorry if I ticked off some of you mac lovers out there, that wasn't my purpose. My purpose was to extend my knowledge, and others, about the reason why the macintosh computer has so much less software than pc. I was a mac user for about 5 years. It was a green iMac :D .
-LeetProdigy
Apple doesn't make their own processors. G4/G5, etc. are equivalent of PIII, P4, etc. Motorola and IBM are the RISC chip processor manufacturers, AFAIK. And I believe that IBM still uses the RISC chips in some of their servers. And you are right. Apple could have a larger market. In fact, they tried that with the clones. They found, however, they couldn't make any money off of licensing and removed all the licenses. I think they got sorta jealous of one of the biggest clone manufacturers, Power Computing, who did exceptionally well with their products and got rave reviews over their products. Power Computing on it's own convert many a Windows-users to Mac (my significant whatever was a former Gateway user and found Power Computing a far more service oriented and better made machine).
And those fish-bowl iMacs were crap IMHO. Cheap isn't always the answer for everything. Sometimes quality stands out.
mandrake> okay fastest personal computer...is that better?
Its not about loyalty. I have linux machines, BSD machins, and Windows machines in my house. Its about people making unedutcated statments that try to rip on something that they have no idea about.
Your right. The purpose of my post was to more over start a discusion about this topic, why doesn't macintosh computers have more software out there? So I don't know how you can call that uneducated, unless you do think macintosh computers do have the same ammount as PC :/
perhaps this would be appeal to some.Quote:
It's because they are the ONLY distributers. They are the only ones that build Macintosh's computers.
:D I had no time to write that, my mistake for not puting more thought into that. Apple is the main company that makes Macintosh computers, they have tried cloning to make them more popular, but they didn't like that idea. That's what I meant.