# Leopard - Is It Worth It?



## AlexnSam (Feb 23, 2009)

Problem:
Is Leopard worth it? Is it bug free? If so who has the best price/reliability? And what about the "5" pack?

Background:
I upgraded my copy of LimeWire and the newer version requires Leopard. I watched the Apple sales film and it looked okay. 

My kids have another computer so maybe the 5 pack is worth it. 

This is the first time I've posted to this group, so learn me up as to how to best proceed. 

John Dodson


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Leopard is near the end of it's development and thus it is quite stable and safe.

However, Snow Leopard is anticipated out between March and June I would wait. Granted, some things might not be supported right away, they should. If not, then the developer does not support their tools properly.

I am waiting...


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Ugh, LimeWire...

If you have an Intel Mac, then I agree with RunTheWorldonMac - wait for Snow Leopard; it's more than likely just months away from release.

If you own a PPC Mac, it may be a different story; Snow Leopard may potentially not support non-Intel Macs.


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

So if one were to upgrade from Tiger, would it be wise to perhaps pick up Leopard just after Snow Leopard is available?

That way one would have a stable and tested OSX, and possibly get an inexpensive Snow Leopard upgrade?

For example, if you buy a new Mac w/Leopard, can you upgrade to Snow Leopard for a minimal cost like $10-20?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

satchmo said:


> So if one were to upgrade from Tiger, would it be wise to perhaps pick up Leopard just after Snow Leopard is available?
> 
> That way one would have a stable and tested OSX, and possibly get an inexpensive Snow Leopard upgrade?
> 
> For example, if you buy a new Mac w/Leopard, can you upgrade to Snow Leopard for a minimal cost like $10-20?


Leopard version 10.5.x will be discontinued once Snow Leopard is released, and therefore no longer an option to purchase unless you're looking to buy a pre-owned copy from another user. There are no upgrade versions of Mac OS X unless you've purchased a computer within a few weeks of Snow Leopard's release that only shipped with Leopard. If that is not the case - then even if you own Leopard - you do not qualify for any special upgrade pricing.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

If running Limewire requires "upgrading" the OS, of which nothing else you are using requires an "upgrade" - then I'd scrap Limewire and use something better, perhaps something that works with OSX...


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

Lars- it sounds like you think that Snow Leopard may be operational on non-Intel Macs. I thought it was set in mud that it will not be supported except on Intel Macs.


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

Lars said:


> There are no upgrade versions of Mac OS X unless you've purchased a computer within a few weeks of Snow Leopard's release that only shipped with Leopard.


Isn't that what I said?


----------



## alamarco (Aug 31, 2008)

That's sad, I guess Apple isn't perfect. There's one thing Microsoft has right, offering upgrades from previous OS's. They are able to get more of your money by offering cheaper solutions.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

alamarco said:


> That's sad, I guess Apple isn't perfect. There's one thing Microsoft has right, offering upgrades from previous OS's. They are able to get more of your money by offering cheaper solutions.


Uhm... except for the fact that MacOS X retail costs less than a Microsoft upgrade. 

The $129 MacOS X price is subsidized by hardware profits, essentially making it an upgrade.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

alamarco said:


> That's sad, I guess Apple isn't perfect. There's one thing Microsoft has right, offering upgrades from previous OS's. They are able to get more of your money by offering cheaper solutions.


Since you can't buy a Mac without OS X preinstalled, technically any retail copy of OS X you can buy _is an upgrade._


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

I'd say that it is not really worth the $129 to upgrade to Leopard. Mac OS 10.4 is a very capable OS, no need to scrap it just for Limewire. Seriously, use BitTorrent instead, it has way more selection and you don't need to upgrade your OS.


----------



## AlexnSam (Feb 23, 2009)

*Great*

Great responses. Thanks. 

So I'll wait a bit for Snow Leopard and get it. 

John Dodson


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

csonni said:


> Lars- it sounds like you think that Snow Leopard may be operational on non-Intel Macs. I thought it was set in mud that it will not be supported except on Intel Macs.


That's not what he said. He was essentially disclaimering the possibility.

The truth is that nobody not under an NDA can say with 100% certainty that Snow Leopard won't support ANY models of PPC Macs, but only that it certainly looks that way at the moment.

I'm not 100% sure the sun will come up tomorrow, but the evidence strongly suggests that it will. Still, you never know till it actually happens.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

alamarco said:


> That's sad, I guess Apple isn't perfect. There's one thing Microsoft has right, offering upgrades from previous OS's. They are able to get more of your money by offering cheaper solutions.


With emphasis on the word "cheaper." This refers to quality even more than price. MicroSoft kept selling XP because they know Vista is not universally compatible for all users, not because they're trying to be nice.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

chas_m said:


> That's not what he said. He was essentially disclaimering the possibility.
> 
> The truth is that nobody not under an NDA can say with 100% certainty that Snow Leopard won't support ANY models of PPC Macs, but only that it certainly looks that way at the moment.
> 
> I'm not 100% sure the sun will come up tomorrow, but the evidence strongly suggests that it will. Still, you never know till it actually happens.


Technically, the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. We on this planet just continue to rotate.


----------



## alamarco (Aug 31, 2008)

Windows is still a good OS. The only problem with Vista was the incompatability with older hardware, which made people angry. It was a good OS, but because of all the bad press it never reached potential. Windows 7 will be an even better OS, and should make the press happy. It'll fix all the "problems" with Vista.

The emphasis isn't on cheaper quality, I'm not on a high horse here. The fact is that Microsoft offers and upgrade program, while Apple does not.


----------



## miz.mel (May 30, 2005)

*Thanks!*

Ah, I knew I'd find the right info on ehMac. I never got around to upgrading to Leopard and thought, if I buy it now, sure enough, a new OS will be released within a month. So thanks for all the info, I'll wait for Snow Leopard and also update to iLife09 at the same time.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

alamarco said:


> Windows is still a good OS. The only problem with Vista was the incompatability with older hardware, which made people angry. It was a good OS, but because of all the bad press it never reached potential. Windows 7 will be an even better OS, and should make the press happy. It'll fix all the "problems" with Vista.
> 
> The emphasis isn't on cheaper quality, I'm not on a high horse here. The fact is that Microsoft offers and upgrade program, while Apple does not.


Then it comes to "good" - you set the bar really, really low, because no version or variant of Windoze has ever attained the ranks of "good", "mediocre", "passable". It is like grading filth and garbage, and saying that one sack of trash is better than another.

I can't think of an OS that is worse than Windoze, which stands as the most insecure, virus ridden, clumsy GUI, performace robbing OS possible. And Fi$ta wasn't hampered by "old hardware" - it was hampered by being so cruddy that even the executives at the Evil Empire can not run it.

As for "old hardware" - how come Windoze can't run on a two year old machine and connect with a printer; while I can connect an old ASR-33 teletype to a BSD box and use that? I think it has little to do with "old hardware" and more to do with a system that is so perverse and insane that no one really knows how it runs or how to fix it.


----------



## Reveeen (Aug 26, 2008)

alamarco said:


> Windows is still a good OS.


Yes, Windoze is perfectly fine, as long as you do not stray into "goofy" hardware, and don't connect to the Internet, where it will either: run as slow as possible due to virus protection, or become instantly infected with a bunch of "not nice" stuff.



alamarco said:


> The only problem with Vista was the incompatability with older hardware, which made people angry.


Foolish me, here I *thought* it was Micro$oft trying to drive the hardware business with software, not to mention the fact that Micro$oft is spending more time protecting the users from themselves, rather then outside threats.



alamarco said:


> It'll fix all the "problems" with Vista.


Ha, ha, sure, maybe, but what about any "new" problems, I'm counting on at least 1000 of them, because "the race is on" to get an OS out the door, ready, or not.



alamarco said:


> The fact is that Microsoft offers and upgrade program, while Apple does not.


Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 Upgrade- $129.95
STAPLES | BUREAU EN GROS

Mac OS X v10.5.6 Leopard- $129.00
Mac OS X v10.5.6 Leopard - Apple Store (Canada)

A complete "non-upgrade" for a buck cheaper than an "upgrade", who needs an upgrade?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

alamarco said:


> It'll fix all the "problems" with Vista.


Now look, I'll be the first to admit that we're (collectively) overly harsh on Windows around here, but the line above is just the same bald-faced lie they've been telling us since the second release of Windows.

They'll ALWAYS "fix it in the next release," and that crapola has been successfully suckering people for 30 years now.


----------



## alamarco (Aug 31, 2008)

*@EvanPitts*: Windows makes the crappiest OS's eh? Care to explain why such a high percentage of businesses run Windows XP? Businesses need stability, first and foremost, if Windows was so bad why is it so prevelent? "Windoze" eh?

*@Reveeen*: Depending on what you use as protection, you wont notice anything. Products such as Prevx Edge uses minimal CPU & RAM since all work is done on Prevx servers.

Macs aren't immune to trojans and viruses. There has been more popping up recently do to an increased market share. If you're a virus coder, you're going to aim your target to be what is most prevelent. When targeted, Mac was the first to fall .

Honestly, I tought ehMac had a smarter community. Until getting my Mac I was confined in the iPhone forum and now I realize I may be wrong. Anyone knowledgable in the IT industry will tell you that Windows is a good OS. 

Do you two think that Mac OS is perfect? How about Finder? Simply put, it's the worst file manager I've ever used. I'm sure I'll find other problems in the future as I use the OS more. Nothing is perfect, open your eyes.

*@chas_m*: Well I guess we'll have to wait in see. From the looks of things, Windows 7 does seem like a good improvement on Vista. I haven't tried the beta, and the beta alone isn't enough to judge. We'll see when the final OS is released. At least you seem to have an open attitude.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

alamarco said:


> Anyone knowledgable in the IT industry will tell you that Windows is a good OS.


Sure - it's called job preservation.

My company switched from Macs to Windows because Dell made a bean counter a deal he thought he couldn't refuse.

Employee productivity went down because Windows would crash and lock up constantly and the IT support team had to be increased from half a body (he looked after the telephone system as well) to five people, and even with five IT guys one often had to wait several hours for assistance.

If you have such a problem with the Mac and OS X, why are you using it?


----------



## ATC (Feb 1, 2009)

alamarco said:


> That's sad, I guess Apple isn't perfect. There's one thing Microsoft has right, offering upgrades from previous OS's. They are able to get more of your money by offering cheaper solutions.


The way MSFT does the upgrade process is not something to be proud of. You pay a little less for the upgrade version of Windows (which is still more than the full version of OSX) and you're chained to using an archaic process whereby in order to do a clean install (which in the windows world is something that a lot of times has to be done) you have to first install the old OS and then use the lengthly and clumsy upgrade process which is prone to problems (I've seen my fair share).

So Apple decided not do go down that path. Well I say thank god for that. ​


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

alamarco said:


> Macs aren't immune to trojans and viruses.


Macs aren't immune to trojans, that's true, but they are (so far) immune to viruses. Still no viruses for the Mac, at least as of today, which makes just shy of 10 years.



> When targeted, Mac was the first to fall .


You might want to study the conditions of that test a little more closely.



> Simply put, it's the worst file manager I've ever used.


File management, as any Linux fan should know, is strongly a matter of personal taste. I have no problems with file management in OS X, as I have the option of doing things graphically or with a CLI that's incredibly robust.



> Nothing is perfect, open your eyes.


As you'll soon discover, we are both Apple's biggest fans AND their harshest critics. Windows users can't touch Mac users for finicky. 

*@chas_m*: Well I guess we'll have to wait in see. From the looks of things, Windows 7 does seem like a good improvement on Vista.[/quote]

Well certainly one should hope. Particularly after the public reception, the corporate reception and the fact that they've had YEARS now to fix the legitimate issues. I can't imagine the public not liking it better, but there's some pretty locked-down XP bias out there, and that's kinda the problem: Windows 7 doesn't have to be better than _Vista_, it has to blow XP *out of the water* or people just won't switch until they are forced to.



> I haven't tried the beta, and the beta alone isn't enough to judge. We'll see when the final OS is released. At least you seem to have an open attitude.


I do. I don't care for Windows, but it's obviously adequate to the task of running the world (insert joke about the state of the world here). I actually _admire_ the fact that MS has gotten Windows to run on as many hardware combinations as they do -- Apple can concentrate on excellence in ways that MS cannot because they don't have to make OS X run on (literally) almost anything made of silicon, just a relatively select amount of hardware.

Apple has another advantage over MS in that they can (literally) throw the baby out with the bathwater and they have built enough trust/loyalty that the majority of users will follow them. The early days of Mac OS X were *rough,* a total rejection of almost everything users knew about OS 9, but we could see the diamond underneath so we stuck with it. Until MS decides to do something similar and "start over," I'm doubtful that they will really and truly be able to shed their issues.


----------



## Reveeen (Aug 26, 2008)

alamarco said:


> Honestly, I tought ehMac had a smarter community. Until getting my Mac I was confined in the iPhone forum and now I realize I may be wrong. Anyone knowledgable in the IT industry will tell you that Windows is a good OS.


Until you have encountered a Windoze machine with a "dead" hard drive, making re-install necessary, and you have to "phone home" to BEG for an activation (you know, something you supposedly paid for), I'm not sure you are qualified to make such a statement. Better yet, try doing this 5+ times a week, and then try telling me it doesn't get "old" fast.

Windoze "blows", it blew real good in the beginning, got slightly better, then when it had potential (and stopped blowing so bad) Micro$oft did their best to continue the tradition (with activation).


----------



## alamarco (Aug 31, 2008)

*@krs*: I have no problem with Mac or Mac OS. I never said that, however I do have a problem with users who think they know it all. How these people think that Windows is the end of the world.

*@ATC*: Very true, I always prefer a clean install. With upgrades, problems tend to rise up. However I'm a fan of having options. So being able to either purchase an upgrade or a full install is a good thing. 

*@chas_m*: As for the competition, which conditions are you refering too? I don't see anything of importance.

For a file manager, I've used Linux in the paste and under Linux I've always gone with the terminal. However, Finder, when compared to Windows Explorer, isn't up to par.

For Windows 7, that's a very true statement. Windows 7 may be seen as a success if it improves over Windows Vista, but the main issue is to overcome Windows XP. I don't see it taking an initial step over Windows XP. Windows 7 will still depend better hardware when compared to Windows XP. Especially in economic times like this, I find it hard to believe a business will justify the switch.

*@Reveeen*: I've replaced many HDD's and will be replacing many in the future. It's not so hard to call a number. With Windows XP you are allowed 10 activations before having to call. I find it hard to believe that you'd have 10 HDD failures within 10 years. HDD's should last 3 years at least.

However, saying that, that has nothing to do with the OS. That's the activation and once activated that's when an OS is judged. You can't get any work done with the "activation". So juding an OS on a whole because of how it's activated isn't right.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

alamarco said:


> *@krs*: I have no problem with Mac or Mac OS. I never said that, however I do have a problem with users who think they know it all. How these people think that Windows is the end of the world.


There is alot to be said there....

Quick question alamarco, why did you personally get a mac?

But seriously on to my opinion, since all this thread is an opinion based thread...

Windows was decent. I have had less problems with my mac then my PC. Is that the OS or hardware or a combo of both. With that said, I do find OSX a better operating system from a *user *perspective. I find windows to be better on a IT perspective, but that might because I have been using windows for 13 years. I stopped at Windows XP because I wanted to try something new, and was unimpressed with the windows experience. I like using my Mac and OSX, but I don't really mind using windowsXP (using it right now).

In my opinion, I think OSX is significantly better than Windows.

Isn't it kinda bad how this thread got hijacked so badly? Why do users have to compare how great Mac OSX, only by putting down Windows.

*Is leopard Good, yes.*


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

alamarco said:


> Windows is still a good OS. The only problem with Vista was the incompatability with older hardware, which made people angry. It was a good OS, but because of all the bad press it never reached potential. Windows 7 will be an even better OS, and should make the press happy. It'll fix all the "problems" with Vista.
> 
> The emphasis isn't on cheaper quality, I'm not on a high horse here. The fact is that Microsoft offers and upgrade program, while Apple does not.


MS is a software company and Apple is a hardware company. There's a fundamental difference there that accounts for all sorts of things.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

alamarco said:


> *@krs*: I have no problem with Mac or Mac OS. I never said that, .......


You sure did. Does this ring a bell?



> Do you two think that Mac OS is perfect? How about Finder? Simply put, it's the worst file manager I've ever used.



Anyway - I don't want to get into a discussion here.
If you like Windows better then go back to it.

I have to use Windows in the office every day and it's a pain - let me tell you.
The only good thing is that I get to take long coffee breaks while Window is rebooting.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Gerbill said:


> MS is a software company and Apple is a hardware company. There's a fundamental difference there that accounts for all sorts of things.




Wouldn't you think a "software" company should be better at writing software than a "hardware" company?

I could never really get my mind around that.

And it's not just the OS where you can possibly argue integration with hardware.

Keynotes blows Power Point out of the water, even Pages is getting better than Word....only Numbers is lagging behind Excel right now.


----------



## alamarco (Aug 31, 2008)

*@krs*: English lesson? Me having no problem with Mac or Mac OS is not the same as Mac OS not being perfect. _I_ have no problem with it, but there are some issues with it.

Anyways, nothing more needs to be said here. I'll leaving this topic alone.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I just took the plunge... I use a DJ software that just released a new version which it doesn't appear many have moved to yet. The version I have will run on Leopard and may not run on Snow Leopard and I may find myself needing to pay to upgrade it. I suspect it will take some time before it is certified on Snow Leopard.

With a discount I get through work I can buy the Mac Box Set for $189 (iLife, iWork, Leopard). iLife and iWork are $200 without a discount and will need to be purchased if I were to buy Snow Leopard anyways as my current version is bundled with my Tiger install discs. So, in the end I essentially get Leopard for free...well, sort of..


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Christ, has this thread gotten off topic or _what?_ nevertheless, I will join in on the radicalized and unrecognizable discussion...

First of all: Windows is not useless, if it were then it would certainly not have the market share it does now. Everyone, seriously, the "crash" argument is getting old. Only retards can't keep their PCs from crashing- either they install things they shouldn't or they did not check to see if their components were compatible. End of story.

As for the Finder, it is the _best_ file manager out there, very integrated and well-designed, though I admit the stupid CoverFlow thing is by and large useless, only a gimmick. I miss my Mac OS 9 finder. 

Oh, by the way, stop insulting each other. It's incredibly infantile and irritating.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*Uh?*



broken_g3 said:


> Christ, has this thread gotten off topic or _what?_ nevertheless, I will join in on the radicalized and unrecognizable discussion...
> 
> First of all: Windows is not useless, if it were then it would certainly not have the market share it does now. Everyone, seriously, the "crash" argument is getting old. Only retards can't keep their PCs from crashing- either they install things they shouldn't or they did not check to see if their components were compatible. End of story.
> 
> ...


Seems a strange reaction eh?
Market share does NOT equate BETTER!
If it did everyone would be driving my Mercedes 560, sailing my classic Catalina 38 and living in beautiful Victoria BC rather than freezing their asses off in rest of the Great White North!

However as they all are not here, I have wondrous space ...
just like me and my Macs!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

As a fellow Victorian, what can I say? I totally agree! 

There is a quote I use in my email that applies to this part of the discussion:
"If marketshare determines quality, then McDonald's makes the greatest hamburgers money can buy."


----------



## SuzyP (Jun 4, 2007)

ATC said:


> The way MSFT does the upgrade process is not something to be proud of. You pay a little less for the upgrade version of Windows (which is still more than the full version of OSX) and you're chained to using an archaic process whereby in order to do a clean install (which in the windows world is something that a lot of times has to be done) you have to first install the old OS and then use the lengthly and clumsy upgrade process which is prone to problems (I've seen my fair share).
> 
> So Apple decided not do go down that path. Well I say thank god for that. ​


Oh, I do so agree with you! I have a business machine that runs XP with Win2K in a VMWare virtual machine (so I can use Quicken, which never came out in a Mac version in the UK). I also have several Macs, some using Tiger and one using Leopard, so I have the contrasting OSs and contrasting reinstallations too.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> Oh, by the way, stop insulting each other. It's incredibly infantile and irritating.


Really! 
I switched a couple of years ago and have never been sorry. I love my Macs and just can't see why I would go back to a Windows PC.

All of that said, I really get tired of the posturing and hateful diatribes that occur on this topic. I use Vista at work-the full blown corporate edition-on a Lenovo tablet notebook with 2 gb of RAM. 

Is it as elegant or enjoyable to use as my MBP running Leopard? No way. Is it an evil piece of "filth or garbage" (per EP)? Hardly. It is trying to do much of what Apple has mastered, and it never does it as well at all. But Vista is usable, and frankly, I don't waste much time during the day with BSODs an rebooting. It's not even once a day. Vista lets me get the stuff done I need to do, and the learning curve has proven to be longer than with Mac OS for sure, but it's not crippling me.

Let's try to be reasonable, and cast light rather than heat on these discussions. We look and sound like idiots when we keep trying to cast MS and Windows as the Devil Incarnate and His Evil OS.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

alamarco said:


> *@EvanPitts*: Windows makes the crappiest OS's eh? Care to explain why such a high percentage of businesses run Windows XP? Businesses need stability, first and foremost, if Windows was so bad why is it so prevelent? "Windoze" eh?


Easy - businesses are stupid. The original reason for "going Windoze" was to reduce the costs of "training" - the savings which has entirely went out the window when an organization has to buy new computers and peripherals every three years and has to take on a sizable IT staff to try to keep the thing running. And I think business really took on the Evil Empire when it came to the Fi$ta thing, which would require large businesses to completely change all of their infrastructure.

As for a "high percentage", that is easy to, since businesses are basically stuck with XP because there is no clear alternative. Too many people in business are clueless, so the whole Linux/Unix thing is far beyond them. Now, OSX could be an alternative, and is a major player when it comes to graphics of any sort. However, the lack of software in a great number of categories (CAD/CAM, Accounting, etc.) prevents business from even considering OSX as a platform.

Another main factor is that companies like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. really target business with their lowest possible margin machines made with the most deficient parts - a market that Apple has ignored. And for good reason, in the corporates really do not care about quality or usability, but in putting in the equipment that came in with the lowest bid. Thus, lack of quality is guaranteed, just like with any Government project.

As for the crappiest OS ever - Windoze takes the prize because it singlehandedly wallops all computing resources in order to sustain it's infernel and uder unfriendly interface, the mountain of drivers needed, the five minute boot up times, the frequent crashes and data destroying stunt moves, it's lack of support for common standard file formats, replaced with their own kookie, proprietary formats that they rarely support for more than a few years, the world's most retrograde web browser that is completely mixed into their most retrograde OS, and etc. No other OS can claim all of those features, and even OSes that lack a GUI are far easier to handle because most OSes do not place such effort into obfuscating everything in the manner that the Evil Empire does.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

You know, for a "hardware" company, they sure do make a ton of software.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

A hardware company needs software / firmware to run their hardware... when it comes to computers Apple decided they can do it better... and they do!


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

imobile said:


> If it did everyone would be driving my Mercedes 560, sailing my classic Catalina 38 and living in beautiful Victoria BC rather than freezing their asses off in rest of the Great White North!


Glad to hear you love your little island so much. 

I always found that comapring cars to computers was an inherently flawed logic. Sure, Mercedes and BMWs are much nicer and they come with more features, but unlike Macs and PCs they are able to drive on the same road as a Honda Civic- they share a common platform, they can go anywhere any other sedan can, not so much for computers. 

Using cities as an example of market share is even more insane. People live in cities because of qualities they possess far beyond personal taste. Family, employment, cost of living, etc. Cities are among the most complex human creations imaginable, there are far more determinants as to why someone picks the city they did than the weather.

By the way, I'm not freezing. It's only -8 right now in Toronto. I can go skiing and skating. It's a winter wonderland. Everyone complains and complains and complains, put on a goddamn coat and live with it! And, as pretty as Victoria is, I like my noisy, gritty, decaying and mismanaged metropolis just fine.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

mc3251 said:


> Really!
> I switched a couple of years ago and have never been sorry. I love my Macs and just can't see why I would go back to a Windows PC.
> 
> All of that said, I really get tired of the posturing and hateful diatribes that occur on this topic. I use Vista at work-the full blown corporate edition-on a Lenovo tablet notebook with 2 gb of RAM.
> ...


As a fellow ThinkPad owner, I agree with pretty everything you said here. Reasonably put as usual. Although, Vista on only 2 GB? You may run into trouble with that eventually...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> A hardware company needs software / firmware to run their hardware... when it comes to computers Apple decided they can do it better... and they do!


LOL. Right. So why has Apple made a major push into the software industry only recently? Prior to OS X, they had a minor selection of titles unlike today. When Steve Jobs took over, they acquired TONS of applications from outside developers (such as iMovie and FinalCut--originally developed by Macromedia-- and Logic Audio, to name a few).

While your post seems logical, it's not accurate with respects to Apple as they currently stand. Apple has been branching out and diversifying: Entertainment (music, videos), software (audio, video, office, multmedia, etc.), computers, MP3 players, Cellphones, etc.

Hence the change from Apple computers to Apple Inc.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

MannyP Design said:


> So why has Apple made a major push into the software industry only recently?


I thought this was blatantly obvious, _to sell more hardware._

Take the iPod for example. There are better, more well endowed media players out there, for less money. Why aren't they king of the hill? ITSS (It's The Software Silly).

Everyone is trying to top the iPhone and the iPod and no one can, why? Some hardware is superior to Apple's, but where's the software? There isn't a store better than iTunes for all mobile content. If someone wants to beat Apple they gotta come up with something better than iTunes.

I think we can all agree there are better hardware configs for PCs compared to Macs, but without the software (Mac OS X, iLife) it's all junk.

Unless someone does everything in house... software to hardware and does it better than Apple, then they can't win. beejacon

(I know that I seem to be repeating myself, but I'm just spreadin' the message.)


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Okay, that would account for iLife... but the rest? 

What about iTunes for example? It's purpose isn't to sell hardware. One could say the iPod and iPhone is specifically made to sell software.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

broken_g3 said:


> As a fellow ThinkPad owner, I agree with pretty everything you said here. Reasonably put as usual. Although, Vista on only 2 GB? You may run into trouble with that eventually...


I'm in a corporate environment and I have already requested a RAM upgrade.
I just wish certain members would stop with the over-the-top, foam-flecked villification of all things MS. It's unseemly and embarassing. It's also inaccurate.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> Okay, that would account for iLife... but the rest?
> 
> What about iTunes for example? It's purpose isn't to sell hardware. One could say the iPod and iPhone is specifically made to sell software.


Actually iTunes was designed for the media management for ipods. It now also allows for someone to download content to their computer for the purpose of watching on either their computer/atv/ipod.

Since the software is free and you do not have to buy any content from itunes if you want to listen to music (I only have my personal cd collection ripped and sync'd with my Ipod), you can say they are doing a terrible job at creating hardware to buy software.

No, iTunes is software created to facilitate the use of the hardware (computer/atv/ipod). The iTunes store is created as a distribution channel for the hardware users who want to purchase from that store. iTunes and it's stores basically just serve the hardware base.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Yes, it was originally called SoundJam... for MP3 players--not just the iPod. But it also serves as a portal to Apple's iTunes Music store where you can purchase and download all sorts of stuff (music, video, podcasts, applications, audiobooks, etc.)

Argue it all you want kiddies, Apple is not a hardware company.

Jobs said it best: It's the software, stupid.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> Yes, it was originally called SoundJam... for MP3 players--not just the iPod. But it also serves as a portal to Apple's iTunes Music store where you can purchase and download all sorts of stuff (music, video, podcasts, applications, audiobooks, etc.)
> 
> Argue it all you want kiddies, Apple is not a hardware company.
> 
> Jobs said it best: It's the software, stupid.


Argue all you want kiddies.... wow.

Yes Jobs did say that, but that by no means that it is conclusive that apple is a software company. Thats interesting to know about iTunes but that doesn't tell me anything regarding whether they are a hardware or software based company. All you stated that they were developing software for their computers so you can manage music for your mp3 player. Now it is designed to service iPods as a bridge between the computer hardware/software combo, and a store that sells content for such devices. The store is a distribution stream of a product, and the software makes the hardware useful.

It is kind of a which came first chicken or egg thing. Do they develop software for using with their hardware? or hardware to use with their software. I think it is more the first, but they do make software because they make software too.

I don't really understand why they have to be either a software or hardware company.

They make computers right? They make ipods right? They make software to give you a better experience on these products right? 

So whats the problem?

This stuff is so far off topic.... whats the point?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What's so hard about making a decision?

Total up sales for Apple for hardware.

Then do the same for software.

The only logical conclusion if you do so, is that they are a hardware company first.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> LOL. Right. So why has Apple made a major push into the software industry only recently?


Um, what?

Do you mean the WINDOWS software industry? In that case, your statement might be semi-true -- unless you count AppleWorks and FileMaker ... it may not be that many titles, but both product were at some point big hits in the Windows world (Filemaker remains the #2 database product on Windows to this day!).



> When Steve Jobs took over, they acquired TONS of applications from outside developers (such as iMovie and FinalCut--originally developed by Macromedia-- and Logic Audio, to name a few).


This paragraph is inaccurate, but probably just the result of poor phrasing. iMovie was and is developed by Apple in-house; Final Cut has its roots in Macromedia, and Logic Audio was bought from its original German developer wholesale.

Apple has on occasion bought interesting technology, such as the roots of iTunes (SoundJam) and Coverflow. But I wouldn't call this "TONS" of outside developers, particularly as compared to any other technology company (like, say MS). To some extent, ALL computer products -- hardware and software -- rely on outsourced components/cores/concepts, but the vast majority of Apple's stuff is developed, at least in part, by in-house Apple employees. 



> Apple has been branching out and diversifying: Entertainment (music, videos), software (audio, video, office, multmedia, etc.), computers, MP3 players, Cellphones, etc.


Again, not fully accurate. Apple doesn't make music, or movies/videos. They resell such things made by others -- the innovation here isn't the stuff sold on the iTunes or App Store, it's the iTunes and App stores themselves (developed completely in-house, btw). Apple's software hasn't really diversified as much as you think; iWork replaces AppleWorks, and iLife is more a response to changing consumer priorities than a deliberate attempt to take over new markets.

Apple has diversified in terms of selling music players and cellphones, but apart from that the only two areas I can think of where they've really made a stark change to their _modus operandi_ of the 80s and 90s is with their push of Final Cut Studio (mostly to move hardware!) as THE best video-editing suite, the Xserve (which marks a real "makeover" of servers but has proven more influential than successful) and AppleTV (see my comments on the Xserve).

Despite the name change, Apple has only really diversified _because the applications of computers to real life_ has diversified. Name any Apple product -- hardware or software -- that is not, or does not depend on, a computer.

<crickets>

Apple is just positioning itself for a future where computers are the ubiquitous _base_ of everything. Apple does not see hardware by itself or software by itself, it sees only (I hate this word) a synergy of the two. This concept flows through _everything_ Apple does, and it is why competitors can never quite be on the same playing field.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> What about iTunes for example? It's purpose isn't to sell hardware.


This is EXACTLY wrong.

iTunes -- particularly the Windows version -- IS designed to sell hardware. It sells iPods.

As others have pointed out, there are other music players out there, some of which have superior features/capabilities/price points to the iPod range, but they get NOWHERE. Why? iTunes.

The Windows version of iTunes does even more -- it sells the Apple "experience," the "logic" of Apple's way of doing things, and consequently plants the seed in the consumers' mind that Apple's stuff bears checking out. Safari, iTunes and QuickTime for Windows form a "web" that makes a subtle push to investigate and accept Apple hardware.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Jobs said it best: It's the software, stupid.


You are misquoting Jobs almost to the point of slander. 

He is actually the AUTHOR of the statement "Apple is a hardware company." Jobs sees software as what _differentiates_ hardware manufacturers from one another.

Anybody can make a router. Only Apple can make a Airport Extreme/Express.

It is that synergy of hardware and software that makes Apple what it is.


----------



## Polygon (Feb 6, 2009)

chas_m said:


> This is EXACTLY wrong.
> 
> iTunes -- particularly the Windows version -- IS designed to sell hardware. It sells iPods.


Allegedly it is the other way around; iPods (hardware) are designed to sell iTunes, or more specifically, content on the iTunes store. You actually reach the same conclusion half-way:



> As others have pointed out, there are other music players out there, some of which have superior features/capabilities/price points to the iPod range, but they get NOWHERE. Why? iTunes.


The iPod became a strong brand because if there's one thing Apple's good at, it's creating brand-recognition. Take for example the army of beige box PCs and Macs that preceded the iMac, and the sudden explosion of colourful computers that followed its introduction. As with the iMac, the iPod picked up because of the same strong brand-recognition, and looking very stylish. Even though the world has moved onto touchscreens, the iPod is still instantly identified with the clickwheel that gave it such a unique look.

Despite the high price, the iPod's alleged purpose wasn't to make money by itself, but rather to launch the iTunes store. Only Mac users really cared about iTunes until the iPod came along, when suddenly Windows users were strong-armed into using it. No, the iPod was not sold on the merits of iTunes, software that Windows users initially railed against, but rather the iPod ensured that a built-in user base of iTunes users was present by the time the store was launched. The rest as they say, is history.

The matter here isn't whether the chicken or the egg came first here (iTunes did) but which one is responsible for making the other profitable, and I can only describe the current model as symbiotic, which is much the way that Apple markets almost all their products. So is Apple a hardware or software company? Does it matter?


----------



## Smoothfonzo (May 17, 2007)

I wrote about something somewhat related to what's being talked about here. Basically my experiences with both the iPod, iTunes and the Sandisk Sansa Fuze.

iPod +iTunes vs Sandisk Sansa Fuze | Rented Music Blog


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

chas_m said:


> Um, what?
> 
> Do you mean the WINDOWS software industry? In that case, your statement might be semi-true -- unless you count AppleWorks and FileMaker ... it may not be that many titles, but both product were at some point big hits in the Windows world (Filemaker remains the #2 database product on Windows to this day!).


WOO! AppleWorks and Filemaker! You've proven me wrong. :lmao:

Note that I said MAJOR push. Major, as in entering markets that were largely previously ignored. Since OS X came out Apple has acquired/produced Final Cut Pro/FinalCut Express, iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, Garageband, Logic, Shake, Aperture... and more. iWorks is essentially AppleWorks. And what about MobileMe? Come on, man. Give your head a shake. The majority of Apple's software originated from acquisitions--including OS X! If that's not a major push, I don't know what is.



> This paragraph is inaccurate, but probably just the result of poor phrasing. iMovie was and is developed by Apple in-house; Final Cut has its roots in Macromedia, and Logic Audio was bought from its original German developer wholesale.


Nothing wrong with the phrasing, chief. Nothing to argue and nothing to add, so you attack the messenger, eh? :lmao:

iMovie was very much from Macromedia. As a matter of fact, it almost died because Macromedia had no idea how to market it as it stood. Apple took it (as well as Final Cut) and put their polish on it.



> Apple has on occasion bought interesting technology, such as the roots of iTunes (SoundJam) and Coverflow. But I wouldn't call this "TONS" of outside developers, particularly as compared to any other technology company (like, say MS). To some extent, ALL computer products -- hardware and software -- rely on outsourced components/cores/concepts, but the vast majority of Apple's stuff is developed, at least in part, by in-house Apple employees.


On occasion? Laughable. Apple _has_ purchased a LOT of technology (and companies): List of mergers and acquisitions by Apple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note how many companies/software they acquired from 1997 to 2002. I guess you would consider that occasional? 



> Again, not fully accurate. Apple doesn't make music, or movies/videos. They resell such things made by others -- the innovation here isn't the stuff sold on the iTunes or App Store, it's the iTunes and App stores themselves (developed completely in-house, btw). Apple's software hasn't really diversified as much as you think; iWork replaces AppleWorks, and iLife is more a response to changing consumer priorities than a deliberate attempt to take over new markets.


Did I say they made music/videos? It's like you're not even trying.


> Apple has diversified in terms of selling music players and cellphones, but apart from that the only two areas I can think of where they've really made a stark change to their _modus operandi_ of the 80s and 90s is with their push of Final Cut Studio (mostly to move hardware!) as THE best video-editing suite, the Xserve (which marks a real "makeover" of servers but has proven more influential than successful) and AppleTV (see my comments on the Xserve).


Wait... did you say _push_? Now you admit to a push?

You're being disingenuous. The fact that you gloss over everything and mention Final Cut speaks volumes. Final Cut Studio is an amalgamation of dozens of acquired technologies and you completely ignore it and talk about how Apple's software is "in-house". Give me a break.



> Apple is just positioning itself for a future where computers are the ubiquitous _base_ of everything. Apple does not see hardware by itself or software by itself, it sees only (I hate this word) a synergy of the two. This concept flows through _everything_ Apple does, and it is why competitors can never quite be on the same playing field.


Gasp, you almost admitted it... damn. I was so close to getting you to admit Apple was not just a hardware company. Oh darn. 

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you claim Apple is all about hardware, and then admit to diversifying and broadening their scope. Which is it?

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Apple is not a hardware company. A company as diverse as Apple cannot be simply summed up as such. People don't talk about how great their hardware is--the engineering and the design, maybe. 

But the main thing people talk about is the experience. Is the Mac experience centered around hardware? Not at all.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

chas_m said:


> You are misquoting Jobs almost to the point of slander.


That's funny, given the misquoting you've been doing with my posts. 



> He is actually the AUTHOR of the statement "Apple is a hardware company." Jobs sees software as what _differentiates_ hardware manufacturers from one another.


Shall we have a link-off and see who can pull the most quotes that fall in line with their point of view?



> Anybody can make a router. Only Apple can make a Airport Extreme/Express.
> 
> It is that synergy of hardware and software that makes Apple what it is.


Why are you even bothering? It's clearly you didn't even bother reading my posts--just picked out the parts that jumped out at you. And you've contradict yourself enough as it is. :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> What's so hard about making a decision?
> 
> Total up sales for Apple for hardware.
> 
> ...


Well, it's not quite that easy. Apple doesn't release numbers for everything so it would be difficult to say.

But they have sold billions of songs. beejacon


----------



## Polygon (Feb 6, 2009)

Smoothfonzo said:


> I wrote about something somewhat related to what's being talked about here. Basically my experiences with both the iPod, iTunes and the Sandisk Sansa Fuze.
> 
> iPod +iTunes vs Sandisk Sansa Fuze | Rented Music Blog


Cheers! Enjoyed the write-up.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

MannyP Design said:


> Since OS X came out Apple has acquired/produced Final Cut Pro/FinalCut Express, iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, Garageband, Logic, Shake, Aperture... and more.


You're not new to Apple are you, MannyP Design? Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iTunes and iDVD were all pre-OS X. If you don't know at least this much, then the rest of your argument becomes a little weak. XX)

Long-time Mac users _know_ without question, Apple is first, a _hardware company._


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

since everyone wishes to continue the argument... Can we at least do it without direct or infered insults at eachother?

I am unsure why it matters whether evrything is done in house or they bought technologies is relevant to the discussion? 

People are saying apple is a software company that produces hardware to sell it's software. 

Others say they are a hardware company that sells software to support the sales of it's hardware. 

I agree to the last statement, but they also produce software to make money as a stand alone software sale. iTunes is a piece of software designed to work with the iPod, and eventhough it started as a piece of software for all mp3's, it only works with the iPod. That software is free, so no matter how many iPods you sell you will never make a dime on the iTunes software, therefore it is software designed to make the hardware more usable and therefore it supports the sale of the hardware.

As for the iTunes store, this is a store designed to help iPod owners buy media for playback on your computers or iPod. This is a distribution channel and a service, not software. You use software (iTunes) to access this store and buy media content for your hardware to use.

All the applications that come preinstalled on computer are actually a selling point that apple tries to differentiate it's hardware from other hardware developers. If this software was designed as a standalone product that hardware sales reinforce sales of software, then you would see the apple selling osx etc for use on the pc. 

Yes apple produces software to sell software for direct sale, but most of their software is produced to support it's harware, and therefore in some cases assist in the selling of it's hardware.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Bjornbro said:


> You're not new to Apple are you, MannyP Design? Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iTunes and iDVD were all pre-OS X. If you don't know at least this much, then the rest of your argument becomes a little weak. XX)
> 
> Long-time Mac users _know_ without question, Apple is first, a _hardware company._


If that's the best you can do is nitpick my rolling post that obviously generalizes Apple's software history, then I can't help you.

By the way, OS X was already under development at Apple before they acquired Final Cut from Macromedia, but still years before OS X beta was released. What would be the smart thing to do? Release Final Cut for an OS that wasn't ready? Or... ? 

I'll make it very simple: What defines the Mac experience? How's that for weak, chum? :lmao:

Not a single person can show without a doubt that Apple is categorically a hardware company first and foremost. They are simply TOO diverse to claim them to be as such.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ertman said:


> since everyone wishes to continue the argument... Can we at least do it without direct or infered insults at eachother?
> 
> I am unsure why it matters whether evrything is done in house or they bought technologies is relevant to the discussion?
> 
> ...


I don't think I've said Apple is a software company. This whole tangent started when I took Gerbil's post to task with his description of Apple as a hardware company, which they are not, and put forth the fact that Apple offers a considerable software selection (among other things).

When you read their mission, it says nothing about hardware. They talk about their products (software and hardware) equally. Nowhere does Apple define themselves as a hardware manufacturer.

And *Chas_M*, I've yet to find a quote from Jobs where he specifically says they're a hardware company. In fact, most of the interviews that I've found touted their emphasis on hardware and software expertise (and integration). Go figure.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> Not a single person can show without a doubt that Apple is categorically a hardware company first and foremost. They are simply TOO diverse to claim them to be as such.


Nobody is saying that apple is a hardware company first and foremost, this remark is being used to improperly in your argument.

Apple is more of a company that offers quite a few products, but mainly they are tied to their hardware sales, or are evolution of product line based surrounding hardware sales and development. While they are getting more diverse, currently, I do not think that they are diverse to the point where we can say they do so many things, we can't really nail it down to a few things. I am sure if apple continues along their path, we could see this change.



MannyP Design said:


> I don't think I've said Apple is a software company. This whole tangent started when I took Gerbil's post to task with his description of Apple as a hardware company, which they are not, and put forth the fact that Apple offers a considerable software selection (among other things).



I do not believe I quoted you at all in the above post, so I fail to see the personalization of my post?

Forgive me for lacking the eloquent speech, I was writing the post on my iPod Touch before class started. What I was trying to do is use the extreme of a software company and hardware company to deduce their main product focus as a company, in terms of its product positioning. 

I have stated in the past that they are not a complete hardware company. I do not think that it is their entire focus, as they do offer some selection of software and develop as such. What I was trying to get a cross is that Apple creates a significant and maybe arguably most of their software to support their hardware products. Yes, they do create software for software sake, and they do offer other products and services other than hardware and software, but I believe that hardware is much more of their core product.



> When you read their mission, it says nothing about hardware. They talk about their products (software and hardware) equally. Nowhere does Apple define themselves as a hardware manufacturer.


Yes it may not state that they are a hardware focused company in their mission, but then again I did not state such a fact. if we are going to checkout apple stuff, how about their stores website. Go to the store tab, and what is the most predominate in their store? Hardware. Specifically Macs, iphones, and ipods. 

from the link:


> Q: What is Apple's mission statement?
> A: Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes


Most of this discusses hardware, or software you can only use on their hardware and furthers the user's experience using an apple product. iTunes as argued already is the only one that is blurring the line, as you can use it without a piece of apple hardware and still get media content, but this hardly displaces the hardware core of even their mission statement.



> And *Chas_M*, I've yet to find a quote from Jobs where he specifically says they're a hardware company. In fact, most of the interviews that I've found touted their emphasis on hardware and software expertise (and integration). Go figure.


I would even say that the integration is one of their greatest strength, and that it is about the user experience. With this said, I would still put forth that Apple is indeed a hardware focused company. However, they use their software to push forward their hardware and providing the user with a better experience, using a computer, media player, smart phone, tv device, or whatever. Apple wants their products to be the best they can be, and if that means they develop software or provide other services to do so, then so be it.

I think that Apple products and services surround a core of hardware offerings. However this distinction is, I believe is becoming more blurred everyday, as apple continues to develop and offer more services.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

AlexnSam said:


> Problem:
> Is Leopard worth it? Is it bug free? If so who has the best price/reliability?


Is Leopard worth it? sure.

Is it bug free? no definitely not. it's got bugs. I haven't actually found any yet but i know they're in there somewhere!

Reliability: It seems reliable unless contaminated with Digidesign drivers... but if i don't use the Digidesign hardware though... no problems. There is nothing unusual about that.

Features: I love the Spaces feature. That's something i find very useful. I don't use Time Machine though... not quite ready for time travel yet.

Who has the best price? doesn't everyone has the same price?


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

Hardware vs software? Yikes.
Seems to me that Apple sells a computing experience for ordinary folks, that now includes dedicated "computers" for listening to music and making phone calls. They certainly sell hardware, but they would be completely useless without software to run them, and to run on them.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Absolutely true!


----------



## lumpy cheeseman (Aug 28, 2008)

broken_g3 said:


> Only retards can't keep their PCs from crashing- either they install things they shouldn't or they did not check to see if their components were compatible. End of story.


False. I have a windows machine in addition to my mac. I'm a longtime windows user, from dos, to win3.11, 95, 98, 2k, nt4, xp, server2003, vista. my current machine is a homebuilt, running xp, fully updated. it runs nod32 antivirus, spybot, and i do routine sweeps to clear out cache, cookies, spyware/adware that is unlikely to get past me, old files, etc. i dont install those loser popup antivirus (you know the internet ****e i'm talking about, "winantivirus"), nor do i accept files i'm not expecting, etc.

i run the hardware as it comes, no overclocking or anything, so its stable. drivers are current. and yet, hey, get this, windows occasionally says **** off and blue screens. sometimes it happens after sitting idle for a couple hours, sometimes it does it under load, sometimes it just chokes because it doesnt want to close a program. this machine has had different configurations (fresh install each time), and it happens no matter what.

so what does that mean? that windows itself is unstable. end of story.




broken_g3 said:


> Although, Vista on only 2 GB? You may run into trouble with that eventually...


I've run Vista on as low as 1gb. had no problems. then again i wasnt playing Crysis either. on that particular system (Dell Inspiron B130, celeron m (or was it d?)1.4ghz, 1gb ram, 96mb video) i ran vista, and the most i had going at once was vista, filetopia, winamp (320kb songs), bitspirit, burning a cd, 4 different instant messengers, and a live call on skype, all while playing world of warcraft, system running dual screen at the same time. all of that on 1gb. and guess what, i noticed almost zero lag. it would occasionally take a second to alt tab out of wow, that was it.




Bjornbro said:


> Take the iPod for example. There are better, more well endowed media players out there, for less money. Why aren't they king of the hill? ITSS (It's The Software Silly).


i've had a couple other mp3 players in addition to my ipod shuffle. they were in no way better. i have an rca, and its menu is jumbled, and its sd card slot didnt include a cover, leading to it collecting pocket lint and shorting out the sd card bit. i've had another, i forget what it was, but it didnt like half my mp3's, and it died before too long as well. then i have the ipod shuffle (or at least i will when i figure out where the hell it went this time..its a little too small) which is a great design, i just clip it to my collar when working, its easy to use (in my case, the shuffle, there is no menu, but i've used nano's and even older bricks, and the menu was much nicer, and the controls on all were nicer as well), and much better built.

my 2cents (USD)


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Are you saying first and foremost, Nobody is saying they are a hardware company.


Or Nobody says they are a hardware company first and foremost?

Because I know I am saying it...Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. And, if you search through this debate and the other 50 debates just like it many of us are saying they are primarily a hardware company.

The sale of their software is secondary. I don't really consider an OS a software. It's more like a GUI based firmware for Apple hardware.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Considering that Apple heavily relies upon outside companies to make most of their hardware, and that they do not make their own processors or memory, and that much of their software is derived from outside sources - it looks to me that Apple is more of a design, marketing and distribution company, that can and does do some of the hardware and software themselves, as they see fit.

This is the same as say, an automotive manufacturer, as most of them do not make the parts, but do most of the design, some of the assembly, as well as handling the marketing and distributing.

As for things like the iPod - it is a chicken and egg thing. Apple uses the iPod to boost market share when it comes to iTunes, the iTunes Store, as well as selling their hardware - but also use the same things to boost the market share of the iPod. It's marketing, and making some cash with well designed and thought out items that generally have been accepted by the marketplace.

Apple is to computers and things digital in the same way that Eaton's was to department stores - a one stop place where you can get pretty much anything you want and will be pretty satisfied with the product.


----------



## Smoothfonzo (May 17, 2007)

I look at it this way. When Apple was developing the iPod, it wasn't the first MP3 player on the market, far from it. But they mostly were just pieces of hardware with no way to really manage things. Apple knew that to make a successful piece of hardware, they needed a piece of software to go along with it, hence iTunes. The marriage of the two formed an experience still unrivaled today. They knew that the software was as important as the hardware. Other MP3 players today are still way behind on that concept. They sell a piece of hardware, but with no unified way of managing the media. That would have been Ok several generations of hardware ago, but we're talking about recent pieces of hardware. I don't know about you, but I find it annoying that MP3 players, such as the Sandisk Sansa don't come with a way to manage podcasts out of the box. These kind of things really make a difference in the experience, and I tend to feel that Apple knew that going in.


----------

