In article <hf6bks$v97$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
<windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > it depends how you tally it, however, the lack of malware has very
> > little to do with market share. it is *not* easy to write mac malware
> > that doesn't involve the user installing and authenticating. in other
> > words, the weakness is the user.
>
> Maybe, but I think you give the black-hats way too little credit.
not at all. the first person to successfully take down a bunch of macs
with some malware be famous. it's simply *hard* to do without having
the user authenticate.
> >>>> If *I* ever
> >>>> decided to not game anymore and wanted to go Windowless I'd buy a $400
> >>>> PC and install Linux rather than $1500 for a Mac.
> >>> the least expensive mac is $599, not $1500, not that your $400 pc would
> >>> have anywhere near the same specs as a $1500 mac.
> >> $599. No kb, no mouse no monitor. 2.6GHz and 4GB of RAM. I referred
> >> to the iMac, a complete system. And yes the system I refer to is
> >> comparable to the mini or the basic iMac and can easily be changed or
> >> upgraded.
> >
> > imacs start at $1199, not $1500, and your mythical $400 machine is in
> > no way comparable, especially if it includes a display.
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong.
because you say so?
> Now I will admit that the Apple display
> looks really good, but the majority of entry level users will never see
> any more than the aesthetic differences.
it doesn't matter if they can see the difference or not, the specs
*are* different and the better spec machine, not surprisingly, costs
more.
if you don't want to pay for the better specs, that's fine, but that's
a different issue.
> My mom uses an entry level Acer
> that was $529. It's a dual core 2.8GHz and came with 6GB of RAM. And the
> mouse actually has two buttons on it :oP It's also over a year old.
only two buttons? apple's mighty mouse has four buttons, and i'm sure
there are a number of other aspects where that entry level acer pales
in comparison to a mac mini, let alone an imac.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:021220091751302194% nospam@nospam.invalid:
> only two buttons? apple's mighty mouse has four buttons, and i'm sure
> there are a number of other aspects where that entry level acer pales
> in comparison to a mac mini, let alone an imac.
>
Isn't it pathetic we're arguing about the number of mouse buttons we have
and gold has passed through $1,214/oz as the money in our pockets simply
melts down and becomes worthless.....
......as opposed to penis length and girth, I suppose....(c;]
Mine IS bigger'n yours, but my dollar isn't....dammit.
In article <021220091751302194%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> only two buttons? apple's mighty mouse has four buttons,
It's been renamed the Apple Mouse, by the way; there was a copyright or
trademark dispute, so Apple changed the name. (The company that sued Apple
about it also sued CBS for giving Apple the license to use it. CBS owns
the copyright/trademark on the Mighty Mouse cartoon character.)
--
Member National Rifle Association
Member American Civil Liberties Union
Member Human Rights Campaign
> because you say so?
>
>> Now I will admit that the Apple display
>> looks really good, but the majority of entry level users will never see
>> any more than the aesthetic differences.
>
> it doesn't matter if they can see the difference or not, the specs
> *are* different and the better spec machine, not surprisingly, costs
> more.
No, it doesn't necessarily cost more and I don't have to say so, I
only have to look at the specs of the machines for sale. The specs on
the Acer I bought are better than the iMac was at that time and still
better than the mini and it came with the peripherals.
>
> if you don't want to pay for the better specs, that's fine, but that's
> a different issue.
>
>> My mom uses an entry level Acer
>> that was $529. It's a dual core 2.8GHz and came with 6GB of RAM. And the
>> mouse actually has two buttons on it :oP It's also over a year old.
>
> only two buttons? apple's mighty mouse has four buttons, and i'm sure
> there are a number of other aspects where that entry level acer pales
> in comparison to a mac mini, let alone an imac.
Well let's see, it has a faster CPU, more RAM and a bigger hard
drive. It came with a monitor that is the same size as the iMac had at
the time and was just over $500. Care to elaborate on what I'm missing
there?
In article <hf8t2k$7k4$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
<windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well let's see, it has a faster CPU, more RAM and a bigger hard
> drive. It came with a monitor that is the same size as the iMac had at
> the time and was just over $500. Care to elaborate on what I'm missing
> there?
you don't list the full specs of the acer, so i have to guess at some
of it.
the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
is more than likely a cheap tn panel. the imac display has 1920x1080
pixels, and it's fairly likely that your display has fewer pixels, even
if it is the same size in inches. the imac can also drive a second
external display, up to a 30" panel with 2560x1600 pixels, while the
acer is limited to only one display.
the imac has an nvidia 9400m with 256 meg of vram, or optionally, an
ati radeon hd 4670 with 256 meg of vram. i'm going to guess that the
acer has a less capable gpu. a lot of software, as well as the
operating system itself, takes advantage of a gpu, and this is becoming
increasingly more important.
the imac also has firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11 a/b/g/n,
bluetooth 2.1+edr, an isight camera, built-in stereo speakers, built-in
microphone, sd card slot and optical digital audio in/out. i'm going to
guess that the acer lacks most or all of that, and probably only has
100 base-t for networking and a single speaker.
the imac comes with a bluetooth wireless multitouch mouse with gesture
support. the acer no doubt has a usb mouse, which you already said only
has two buttons.
the imac comes with os x, which is equivalent to windows ultimate, but
the acer no doubt has windows home. the imac also includes the full
ilife suite, while the acer probably has a bunch of demoware.
there are many differences, and that's why one is $500 and the other is
$1199.
and if that's not enough, i'll also point out that the mac mini server
is just $999 for unlimited users, which is slightly less than what
windows server costs *without* a computer at all, and limited to 5
users.
nospam wrote:
> In article <hf8t2k$7k4$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well let's see, it has a faster CPU, more RAM and a bigger hard
>> drive. It came with a monitor that is the same size as the iMac had at
>> the time and was just over $500. Care to elaborate on what I'm missing
>> there?
>
> you don't list the full specs of the acer, so i have to guess at some
> of it.
>
> the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
> is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
level machine.
> the imac display has 1920x1080
> pixels, and it's fairly likely that your display has fewer pixels, even
> if it is the same size in inches.
You are comparing the current 21" iMac, one year+ ago the entry
level iMac was I believe a 20" and I can not find the specs for it.
Regardless more than 16x9 on a 20" WS is pretty useless.
> the imac can also drive a second
> external display, up to a 30" panel with 2560x1600 pixels, while the
> acer is limited to only one display.
Correct, the addition of a $20-$30 card would change that, assuming
any entry level user would want or understand that.
>
> the imac has an nvidia 9400m with 256 meg of vram, or optionally, an
> ati radeon hd 4670 with 256 meg of vram. i'm going to guess that the
> acer has a less capable gpu. a lot of software, as well as the
> operating system itself, takes advantage of a gpu, and this is becoming
> increasingly more important.
nVidia 9200 256MB. Otionally anything that you can plug into the PCI
slot.
>
> the imac also has firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11 a/b/g/n,
> bluetooth 2.1+edr, an isight camera, built-in stereo speakers, built-in
> microphone, sd card slot and optical digital audio in/out. i'm going to
> guess that the acer lacks most or all of that, and probably only has
> 100 base-t for networking and a single speaker.
You would be wrong. The only thing the Acer lacks is built in
wireless and camera. And I'll mention here that neither I nor anyone I
know has anything that will plug into Firewire. Not even my iPhone.
>
> the imac comes with a bluetooth wireless multitouch mouse with gesture
> support. the acer no doubt has a usb mouse, which you already said only
> has two buttons.
Yes a USB mouse. If it had wireless that would have been a deal
breaker for that user, or I would have had to provide them. That's not
necessarily an upgrade to a lot of people. I can get a USB bluetooth
adapter for less than $5. And this one actually has 3 buttons, one on
the wheel.
>
> the imac comes with os x, which is equivalent to windows ultimate, but
> the acer no doubt has windows home. the imac also includes the full
> ilife suite, while the acer probably has a bunch of demoware.
Moot point. It came with Windows included and OO and Ubuntu are a
free DL.
>
> there are many differences, and that's why one is $500 and the other is
> $1199.
Sorry, not nearly as many differences as you assume. Nothing that
makes any difference to an entry level user looking for an entry level
machine to check email, write a report and look at avon.com. And I could
bring anything lacking up to equal or better for a lot less than more
than double the price.
>
> and if that's not enough, i'll also point out that the mac mini server
> is just $999 for unlimited users, which is slightly less than what
> windows server costs *without* a computer at all, and limited to 5
> users.
In article <hfbbua$eoq$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
<windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
> > is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
>
> It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
> are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
> level machine.
according to wikipedia, wxga is 1280 x 720:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_XGA>
the imac is 1920x1080, ips, versus 1280x720 tn. that alone makes up
much of the difference in price.
> You are comparing the current 21" iMac, one year+ ago the entry
> level iMac was I believe a 20" and I can not find the specs for it.
> Regardless more than 16x9 on a 20" WS is pretty useless.
since we're discussing it today, i'm going by what's available today.
the 20" imac prior to the current model had 1680 x 1050 pixels, still
more than what the acer has:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/SP507>
> > the imac can also drive a second
> > external display, up to a 30" panel with 2560x1600 pixels, while the
> > acer is limited to only one display.
>
> Correct, the addition of a $20-$30 card would change that, assuming
> any entry level user would want or understand that.
an entry level user might not care for two displays but the imac is
targeted at the midrange, not entry level. that's really the main flaw
in your comparison.
> nVidia 9200 256MB. Otionally anything that you can plug into the PCI
> slot.
in other words, a less capable gpu than the imac. that's one more
reason why the acer costs less.
> > the imac also has firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11 a/b/g/n,
> > bluetooth 2.1+edr, an isight camera, built-in stereo speakers, built-in
> > microphone, sd card slot and optical digital audio in/out. i'm going to
> > guess that the acer lacks most or all of that, and probably only has
> > 100 base-t for networking and a single speaker.
>
> You would be wrong. The only thing the Acer lacks is built in
> wireless and camera. And I'll mention here that neither I nor anyone I
> know has anything that will plug into Firewire. Not even my iPhone.
it might have firewire 400, but i highly doubt it has firewire 800, and
a lot of pcs have 4 pin firewire 400, which can't supply bus power.
since firewire is faster than usb (especially fw800), it's great for
external hard drives. it's also common on camcorders and some scanners
too.
> Yes a USB mouse. If it had wireless that would have been a deal
> breaker for that user, or I would have had to provide them. That's not
> necessarily an upgrade to a lot of people. I can get a USB bluetooth
> adapter for less than $5. And this one actually has 3 buttons, one on
> the wheel.
apple will substitute a wired mouse for those who prefer it, and if you
get a bluetooth adapter you now have one less usb port. you can always
get a hub, but then you have an even bigger jumble of wires.
> Moot point. It came with Windows included and OO and Ubuntu are a
> free DL.
it's not moot at all. it came with windows home, not ultimate, and os x
does a lot more than windows home does.
the ilife suite is nothing at all like openoffice, but even if it was,
is the typical entry level user actually going to download and install
openoffice and ubuntu on their own?
> > there are many differences, and that's why one is $500 and the other is
> > $1199.
>
> Sorry, not nearly as many differences as you assume. Nothing that
> makes any difference to an entry level user looking for an entry level
> machine to check email, write a report and look at avon.com. And I could
> bring anything lacking up to equal or better for a lot less than more
> than double the price.
whether a person wants those features is not the issue. the fact
remains that there are substantial differences in two machines, which
is why one costs more than the other.
> > and if that's not enough, i'll also point out that the mac mini server
> > is just $999 for unlimited users, which is slightly less than what
> > windows server costs *without* a computer at all, and limited to 5
> > users.
>
> Ubuntu server is free for the download.
nospam wrote:
> In article <hfbbua$eoq$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
>>> is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
>> It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
>> are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
>> level machine.
>
> according to wikipedia, wxga is 1280 x 720:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_XGA>
>
> the imac is 1920x1080, ips, versus 1280x720 tn. that alone makes up
> much of the difference in price.
Not according to the Acer specs for the 20" monitor, and it still
wouldn't make up the difference.
>
>> You are comparing the current 21" iMac, one year+ ago the entry
>> level iMac was I believe a 20" and I can not find the specs for it.
>> Regardless more than 16x9 on a 20" WS is pretty useless.
>
> since we're discussing it today, i'm going by what's available today.
>
> the 20" imac prior to the current model had 1680 x 1050 pixels, still
> more than what the acer has:
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/SP507>
vs 1600x 900.
>
>>> the imac can also drive a second
>>> external display, up to a 30" panel with 2560x1600 pixels, while the
>>> acer is limited to only one display.
>> Correct, the addition of a $20-$30 card would change that, assuming
>> any entry level user would want or understand that.
>
> an entry level user might not care for two displays but the imac is
> targeted at the midrange, not entry level. that's really the main flaw
> in your comparison.
Okay then you call this whole comparison a wash and say that Apple
has not entry level machines and basically caters to persnickety snobs.
I was trying very hard from just coming out and saying that, but since
you just pretty much did okay.
>
>> nVidia 9200 256MB. Otionally anything that you can plug into the PCI
>> slot.
>
> in other words, a less capable gpu than the imac. that's one more
> reason why the acer costs less.
Hardly. If there's a difference between to two then it's very
little, and again you are comparing a new machine to one 18 mos old.
>
>>> the imac also has firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11 a/b/g/n,
>>> bluetooth 2.1+edr, an isight camera, built-in stereo speakers, built-in
>>> microphone, sd card slot and optical digital audio in/out. i'm going to
>>> guess that the acer lacks most or all of that, and probably only has
>>> 100 base-t for networking and a single speaker.
>> You would be wrong. The only thing the Acer lacks is built in
>> wireless and camera. And I'll mention here that neither I nor anyone I
>> know has anything that will plug into Firewire. Not even my iPhone.
>
> it might have firewire 400, but i highly doubt it has firewire 800, and
> a lot of pcs have 4 pin firewire 400, which can't supply bus power.
>
> since firewire is faster than usb (especially fw800), it's great for
> external hard drives. it's also common on camcorders and some scanners
> too.
Says the Fanboi, but that I can't tell because nothing uses it.
>
>> Yes a USB mouse. If it had wireless that would have been a deal
>> breaker for that user, or I would have had to provide them. That's not
>> necessarily an upgrade to a lot of people. I can get a USB bluetooth
>> adapter for less than $5. And this one actually has 3 buttons, one on
>> the wheel.
>
> apple will substitute a wired mouse for those who prefer it, and if you
> get a bluetooth adapter you now have one less usb port. you can always
> get a hub, but then you have an even bigger jumble of wires.
So?
>
>> Moot point. It came with Windows included and OO and Ubuntu are a
>> free DL.
>
> it's not moot at all. it came with windows home, not ultimate, and os x
> does a lot more than windows home does.
>
> the ilife suite is nothing at all like openoffice, but even if it was,
> is the typical entry level user actually going to download and install
> openoffice and ubuntu on their own?
>
>>> there are many differences, and that's why one is $500 and the other is
>>> $1199.
>> Sorry, not nearly as many differences as you assume. Nothing that
>> makes any difference to an entry level user looking for an entry level
>> machine to check email, write a report and look at avon.com. And I could
>> bring anything lacking up to equal or better for a lot less than more
>> than double the price.
>
> whether a person wants those features is not the issue. the fact
> remains that there are substantial differences in two machines, which
> is why one costs more than the other.
Only in the fanboi's eyes who refuses to admit Apple's stuff is
expensive.
>
>>> and if that's not enough, i'll also point out that the mac mini server
>>> is just $999 for unlimited users, which is slightly less than what
>>> windows server costs *without* a computer at all, and limited to 5
>>> users.
>> Ubuntu server is free for the download.
>
> and it's not even close to the same.
To whom? It doesn't matter because it has nothing at all to do with
the subject, your just trying to add Window bashing to your fanboi
speech about expensive Apple hardware. You'll never see it but you've
completely failed to prove that the iMac is worth more than double other
entry level hardware or something I can build for a lot less.
In article <hfbl63$fl6$1@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
<windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
> >>> is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
> >> It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
> >> are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
> >> level machine.
first you say it's wxga tn...
> > the imac is 1920x1080, ips, versus 1280x720 tn. that alone makes up
> > much of the difference in price.
>
> Not according to the Acer specs for the 20" monitor, and it still
> wouldn't make up the difference.
....then you say that it's not?
> Okay then you call this whole comparison a wash and say that Apple
> has not entry level machines and basically caters to persnickety snobs.
> I was trying very hard from just coming out and saying that, but since
> you just pretty much did okay.
the first part is true. apple does not have products in the bottom
tier. the second part is nothing more than a puerile comment.
it's also completely bogus to compare the budget model of one brand
with a midrange model of another and pretend that's a valid comparison.
> > apple will substitute a wired mouse for those who prefer it, and if you
> > get a bluetooth adapter you now have one less usb port. you can always
> > get a hub, but then you have an even bigger jumble of wires.
>
> So?
some people don't want a huge mess of wires.
> > whether a person wants those features is not the issue. the fact
> > remains that there are substantial differences in two machines, which
> > is why one costs more than the other.
>
> Only in the fanboi's eyes who refuses to admit Apple's stuff is
> expensive.
apparently pc world magazine must be run by mac fanbois because they
found macs to be cheaper:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/148032/mac_vs_windows_laptops.html>
...given Apple's reputation for premium pricing: he found the new
iMacs to be "a better value than competing Windows-based products."
> >> Ubuntu server is free for the download.
> >
> > and it's not even close to the same.
>
> To whom?
to anyone who objectively compares the two products.
> It doesn't matter because it has nothing at all to do with
> the subject, your just trying to add Window bashing to your fanboi
> speech about expensive Apple hardware. You'll never see it but you've
> completely failed to prove that the iMac is worth more than double other
> entry level hardware or something I can build for a lot less.
i'm not bashing anything. all i've done is point out a number of specs
where they differ, and that's why one costs more than the other. you're
the one who is ignoring the differences and bashing.
also, i didn't realize the acer was a build it yourself deal. most
people aren't interested in that either.
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfbl63$fl6$1@posting2.glorb.com...
> Only in the fanboi's eyes who refuses to admit Apple's stuff is
> expensive.
Because it isn't. If you actually compare systems with the same specs you'll
discover the Mac is only slightly more expensive and in some cases is
actually cheaper.
Even if that wasn't so, complaining that Apple is "expensive" is like
complaining that Ferraris and Rolls Royces are expensive because India's
Tato sell a $2,000 car. You're comparing Apples to lemons. :-\ You usually
get what you pay for - pay peanuts to the elephants and you'll get crap.
More Droid love from real users 
Linear Mode
