Should i buy a macbook?
Discussion
Globulator said:
FunkyNige said:
I know no-one in the IT industry who uses an Apple as their home laptop.
I do though - and I have many programmer friends who do to.Since Apple went Intel and memory got so cheap, I can keep the few Windows things I need virtualized in their own little world. As I have a beefy work laptop for the things I do for clients, my home machine is essentially for web, music and photo/video work. I stepped off the treadmill of upgrades for PC games and use consoles instead. So for me, a smallish laptop with good battery life for browsing on the sofa, that runs an OS that's a pleasure to use and doesn't feel like work, is exactly what I want from a computer.
robbieduncan said:
Globulator said:
FunkyNige said:
I know no-one in the IT industry who uses an Apple as their home laptop.
I do though - and I have many programmer friends who do to.
... best change I ever made after years and years of building pcs and using windows, so good to come home and use that. If work were to ever buy me a laptop I would do everything I could to make it a macbook pro.Back to the original topic.
Macs are overpriced, mainly because Apple operate a monopoly on their operating system and bundled software. You can't go into PC World, walk out with a cheap-ass laptop (without paying the Microsoft tax i.e. buying a laptop without Windows pre-loaded, and not paying Microsoft for this), and then load up OS X and the iLife suite. (Well, you can.... but it involves quite a bit of hackery and not everything will work).
The only way you can get a machine that will happily run OS X and all its apps, Windows, Linux, and other x86 operating systems both dual boot and virtualised, is to buy a Mac. That is worth something to a subsection of people (the IT types above have nailed this on the head - the Mac machines give them a Windows, Linux and OS X environment right on one machine). IT professionals using Macs? I've seen plenty, even in corporate environments (mainly consultants).
The question of value between generic PCs and Macs always creates robust discussion, but mainly because people are pointing in the wrong direction. Noger has got it, IMO so have I. Find a PC laptop that has the same specification (i.e. can take 4 GB of RAM, has the dual-core Core 2 Duo CPU, Santa Rosa northbridge / southbridge, etc.) and then find Windows apps that make the machine as usable as a Mac. Some will be free, some will cost money. Add to that the cost of your time researching and installing the apps on the Windows machine to get it up to the same spec.
I think you'll find that there's very little in it - the so-called £400 difference at the beginning of this thread seems spurious (I can't find any Santa Rosa Core 2 Duo laptops for £400 anywhere - perhaps someone can give me a link) - in reality I reckon the difference would be much lower. Noger thinks you can do it for cheaper, I reckon it will cost more. Nice rational and civilised debate.
And then you've got anti-virus etc. software using up some of the performance.
Not everyone needs the entire suite of apps given to you by Apple so a cheaper laptop with only a smaller subsection of apps could make a lot more sense, unfortunately the low cost of a lot of the *really* cheap laptops is subsidised by software makers putting 'trial' versions on the laptop in the hope that the user will pay for the upgrade to the full version (and this is often intrusive nagware). It's hard to get a 'clean' laptop that doesn't have any crapware installed, short of buying something and then formatting the thing yourself.
I simply don't think the Windows vs. Mac value thing adds up, if you choose the *same* hardware. Yes you can buy a cheaper machine but it'll have a lower spec. Spec per spec, once you've got appropriately similar applications and integration, the cost is much the same. I stand by that and don't think it's anything other than a rational debate, there's no 'raging fanboy' bullshit here.
The way to go if you want to save money is to find a special offer laptop that is made by a decent OEM but has an unknown brand on the front (it'll be the same inside as more 'well known' brands), and comes with a load of crapware that the vendor has used to lower the list price. Format the disk entirely and then install Linux and a load of free software according to your needs. That is the cheapest way to go, and the most reliable if you are technically adept, since you will know *exactly* what is on your system.
Macs are overpriced, mainly because Apple operate a monopoly on their operating system and bundled software. You can't go into PC World, walk out with a cheap-ass laptop (without paying the Microsoft tax i.e. buying a laptop without Windows pre-loaded, and not paying Microsoft for this), and then load up OS X and the iLife suite. (Well, you can.... but it involves quite a bit of hackery and not everything will work).
The only way you can get a machine that will happily run OS X and all its apps, Windows, Linux, and other x86 operating systems both dual boot and virtualised, is to buy a Mac. That is worth something to a subsection of people (the IT types above have nailed this on the head - the Mac machines give them a Windows, Linux and OS X environment right on one machine). IT professionals using Macs? I've seen plenty, even in corporate environments (mainly consultants).
The question of value between generic PCs and Macs always creates robust discussion, but mainly because people are pointing in the wrong direction. Noger has got it, IMO so have I. Find a PC laptop that has the same specification (i.e. can take 4 GB of RAM, has the dual-core Core 2 Duo CPU, Santa Rosa northbridge / southbridge, etc.) and then find Windows apps that make the machine as usable as a Mac. Some will be free, some will cost money. Add to that the cost of your time researching and installing the apps on the Windows machine to get it up to the same spec.
I think you'll find that there's very little in it - the so-called £400 difference at the beginning of this thread seems spurious (I can't find any Santa Rosa Core 2 Duo laptops for £400 anywhere - perhaps someone can give me a link) - in reality I reckon the difference would be much lower. Noger thinks you can do it for cheaper, I reckon it will cost more. Nice rational and civilised debate.
And then you've got anti-virus etc. software using up some of the performance.
Not everyone needs the entire suite of apps given to you by Apple so a cheaper laptop with only a smaller subsection of apps could make a lot more sense, unfortunately the low cost of a lot of the *really* cheap laptops is subsidised by software makers putting 'trial' versions on the laptop in the hope that the user will pay for the upgrade to the full version (and this is often intrusive nagware). It's hard to get a 'clean' laptop that doesn't have any crapware installed, short of buying something and then formatting the thing yourself.
I simply don't think the Windows vs. Mac value thing adds up, if you choose the *same* hardware. Yes you can buy a cheaper machine but it'll have a lower spec. Spec per spec, once you've got appropriately similar applications and integration, the cost is much the same. I stand by that and don't think it's anything other than a rational debate, there's no 'raging fanboy' bullshit here.
The way to go if you want to save money is to find a special offer laptop that is made by a decent OEM but has an unknown brand on the front (it'll be the same inside as more 'well known' brands), and comes with a load of crapware that the vendor has used to lower the list price. Format the disk entirely and then install Linux and a load of free software according to your needs. That is the cheapest way to go, and the most reliable if you are technically adept, since you will know *exactly* what is on your system.
cyberface said:
Back to the original topic.
Macs are overpriced, mainly because Apple operate a monopoly on their operating system and bundled software. You can't go into PC World, walk out with a cheap-ass laptop (without paying the Microsoft tax i.e. buying a laptop without Windows pre-loaded, and not paying Microsoft for this), and then load up OS X and the iLife suite. (Well, you can.... but it involves quite a bit of hackery and not everything will work).
The only way you can get a machine that will happily run OS X and all its apps, Windows, Linux, and other x86 operating systems both dual boot and virtualised, is to buy a Mac. That is worth something to a subsection of people (the IT types above have nailed this on the head - the Mac machines give them a Windows, Linux and OS X environment right on one machine). IT professionals using Macs? I've seen plenty, even in corporate environments (mainly consultants).
The question of value between generic PCs and Macs always creates robust discussion, but mainly because people are pointing in the wrong direction. Noger has got it, IMO so have I. Find a PC laptop that has the same specification (i.e. can take 4 GB of RAM, has the dual-core Core 2 Duo CPU, Santa Rosa northbridge / southbridge, etc.) and then find Windows apps that make the machine as usable as a Mac. Some will be free, some will cost money. Add to that the cost of your time researching and installing the apps on the Windows machine to get it up to the same spec.
I think you'll find that there's very little in it - the so-called £400 difference at the beginning of this thread seems spurious (I can't find any Santa Rosa Core 2 Duo laptops for £400 anywhere - perhaps someone can give me a link) - in reality I reckon the difference would be much lower. Noger thinks you can do it for cheaper, I reckon it will cost more. Nice rational and civilised debate.
And then you've got anti-virus etc. software using up some of the performance.
Not everyone needs the entire suite of apps given to you by Apple so a cheaper laptop with only a smaller subsection of apps could make a lot more sense, unfortunately the low cost of a lot of the *really* cheap laptops is subsidised by software makers putting 'trial' versions on the laptop in the hope that the user will pay for the upgrade to the full version (and this is often intrusive nagware). It's hard to get a 'clean' laptop that doesn't have any crapware installed, short of buying something and then formatting the thing yourself.
I simply don't think the Windows vs. Mac value thing adds up, if you choose the *same* hardware. Yes you can buy a cheaper machine but it'll have a lower spec. Spec per spec, once you've got appropriately similar applications and integration, the cost is much the same. I stand by that and don't think it's anything other than a rational debate, there's no 'raging fanboy' bullshit here.
The way to go if you want to save money is to find a special offer laptop that is made by a decent OEM but has an unknown brand on the front (it'll be the same inside as more 'well known' brands), and comes with a load of crapware that the vendor has used to lower the list price. Format the disk entirely and then install Linux and a load of free software according to your needs. That is the cheapest way to go, and the most reliable if you are technically adept, since you will know *exactly* what is on your system.
Spot on, and no sarcasm intended. I think you could find a similar spec Windows laptop VS Macbook for about £100 / £150 less which isn't that much really in which case a Macbook is a safe bet. One thing I will say, and I also mentioned it before is that of build quality. My friend works for Apple and has seen many returned Macbooks (I went through a few myself) and I believe someone asked about the white finish. Apparently they can turn yellowish over time../ best thing to do is check Mac forums for ways around that. You could always buy a black Macbook but I do think that they are slightly overpriced vs the better value white ones. Only real thing you get in a black one over the midranged white is a bigger drive.. hardly worth the extra IMO; check out the specs. Macs are overpriced, mainly because Apple operate a monopoly on their operating system and bundled software. You can't go into PC World, walk out with a cheap-ass laptop (without paying the Microsoft tax i.e. buying a laptop without Windows pre-loaded, and not paying Microsoft for this), and then load up OS X and the iLife suite. (Well, you can.... but it involves quite a bit of hackery and not everything will work).
The only way you can get a machine that will happily run OS X and all its apps, Windows, Linux, and other x86 operating systems both dual boot and virtualised, is to buy a Mac. That is worth something to a subsection of people (the IT types above have nailed this on the head - the Mac machines give them a Windows, Linux and OS X environment right on one machine). IT professionals using Macs? I've seen plenty, even in corporate environments (mainly consultants).
The question of value between generic PCs and Macs always creates robust discussion, but mainly because people are pointing in the wrong direction. Noger has got it, IMO so have I. Find a PC laptop that has the same specification (i.e. can take 4 GB of RAM, has the dual-core Core 2 Duo CPU, Santa Rosa northbridge / southbridge, etc.) and then find Windows apps that make the machine as usable as a Mac. Some will be free, some will cost money. Add to that the cost of your time researching and installing the apps on the Windows machine to get it up to the same spec.
I think you'll find that there's very little in it - the so-called £400 difference at the beginning of this thread seems spurious (I can't find any Santa Rosa Core 2 Duo laptops for £400 anywhere - perhaps someone can give me a link) - in reality I reckon the difference would be much lower. Noger thinks you can do it for cheaper, I reckon it will cost more. Nice rational and civilised debate.
And then you've got anti-virus etc. software using up some of the performance.
Not everyone needs the entire suite of apps given to you by Apple so a cheaper laptop with only a smaller subsection of apps could make a lot more sense, unfortunately the low cost of a lot of the *really* cheap laptops is subsidised by software makers putting 'trial' versions on the laptop in the hope that the user will pay for the upgrade to the full version (and this is often intrusive nagware). It's hard to get a 'clean' laptop that doesn't have any crapware installed, short of buying something and then formatting the thing yourself.
I simply don't think the Windows vs. Mac value thing adds up, if you choose the *same* hardware. Yes you can buy a cheaper machine but it'll have a lower spec. Spec per spec, once you've got appropriately similar applications and integration, the cost is much the same. I stand by that and don't think it's anything other than a rational debate, there's no 'raging fanboy' bullshit here.
The way to go if you want to save money is to find a special offer laptop that is made by a decent OEM but has an unknown brand on the front (it'll be the same inside as more 'well known' brands), and comes with a load of crapware that the vendor has used to lower the list price. Format the disk entirely and then install Linux and a load of free software according to your needs. That is the cheapest way to go, and the most reliable if you are technically adept, since you will know *exactly* what is on your system.
I agree too, cyberface is spot on.
Comparing like for like, there is not much in it - maybe 10-15% in the cost of the unit comparing Mac vs PC.
If you add to that three years subscription to Norton for the PC then it gets closer. The other factor is that the Mac laptop in good nick will still be worth a few hundred quid in years to come - the PC historically has depreciated more.
The main difference in the costs involved is that with the PC there is an open market - there are an infinate number of combinations of spec and each manufacturer is fighting for the cheapest deal.
With the Macs they use market segmentation to derive their profit. Look at for example the difference between the white and black Macbooks... They are virtually identical apart from the extra 40GB of storage for £120 - hell you could buy the whole drive for less that than and have a spare - but it is done for segmentation purposes.
People who are willing to 'try' a first mac puts the £699 near to the cost of PC laptops. People who are willing to pay that bit more anyway and less cost centred and just like black can give Apple £100 more profit. Everyone is happy!
Comparing like for like, there is not much in it - maybe 10-15% in the cost of the unit comparing Mac vs PC.
If you add to that three years subscription to Norton for the PC then it gets closer. The other factor is that the Mac laptop in good nick will still be worth a few hundred quid in years to come - the PC historically has depreciated more.
The main difference in the costs involved is that with the PC there is an open market - there are an infinate number of combinations of spec and each manufacturer is fighting for the cheapest deal.
With the Macs they use market segmentation to derive their profit. Look at for example the difference between the white and black Macbooks... They are virtually identical apart from the extra 40GB of storage for £120 - hell you could buy the whole drive for less that than and have a spare - but it is done for segmentation purposes.
People who are willing to 'try' a first mac puts the £699 near to the cost of PC laptops. People who are willing to pay that bit more anyway and less cost centred and just like black can give Apple £100 more profit. Everyone is happy!
JustinP1 said:
I agree too, cyberface is spot on.
Comparing like for like, there is not much in it - maybe 10-15% in the cost of the unit comparing Mac vs PC.
If you add to that three years subscription to Norton for the PC then it gets closer. The other factor is that the Mac laptop in good nick will still be worth a few hundred quid in years to come - the PC historically has depreciated more.
The main difference in the costs involved is that with the PC there is an open market - there are an infinate number of combinations of spec and each manufacturer is fighting for the cheapest deal.
With the Macs they use market segmentation to derive their profit. Look at for example the difference between the white and black Macbooks... They are virtually identical apart from the extra 40GB of storage for £120 - hell you could buy the whole drive for less that than and have a spare - but it is done for segmentation purposes.
People who are willing to 'try' a first mac puts the £699 near to the cost of PC laptops. People who are willing to pay that bit more anyway and less cost centred and just like black can give Apple £100 more profit. Everyone is happy!
Yea, that was my point. Over £100 more for a bigger drive is taking the pish!Comparing like for like, there is not much in it - maybe 10-15% in the cost of the unit comparing Mac vs PC.
If you add to that three years subscription to Norton for the PC then it gets closer. The other factor is that the Mac laptop in good nick will still be worth a few hundred quid in years to come - the PC historically has depreciated more.
The main difference in the costs involved is that with the PC there is an open market - there are an infinate number of combinations of spec and each manufacturer is fighting for the cheapest deal.
With the Macs they use market segmentation to derive their profit. Look at for example the difference between the white and black Macbooks... They are virtually identical apart from the extra 40GB of storage for £120 - hell you could buy the whole drive for less that than and have a spare - but it is done for segmentation purposes.
People who are willing to 'try' a first mac puts the £699 near to the cost of PC laptops. People who are willing to pay that bit more anyway and less cost centred and just like black can give Apple £100 more profit. Everyone is happy!
As for anti virus.. there's plenty of freebies on the market for Windows; like AVG for example.
Zumbruk said:
FunkyNige said:
I know no-one in the IT industry who uses an Apple as their home laptop.
You should pay more attention, then.Besides, the reason you should buy a Macbook is that cats like them.
cyberface said:
Heh. I know £600+ a day IT consultants using Macbooks on *client sites* as their work laptop as well as home laptop (sample size > 1, I'm not talking about me). True, when Apple laptops were PowerPC based only a few hardcores used them on consulting jobs but now they're boggo Intel chipsets, a lot of the developer types have bought them to run multiple VMs whilst leaving the host OS as a stable system.
For me they don't really stack up as a work "companion PC" as well as it does a home "desktop replacement". As am not a developer, don't really need the raw power. A collegue frequently brings his MacBook in, and it needs its own car parking space and desk ! I did think £400 was a bit steep for the PC/Mac difference. And if down to £100-£150 I think you are right. £80 for Outlook 2007 alone, Vista Mail is rubbish - although only a stopgap until Windows Live Mail or whatever the thing is called. Although Thunderbird would suffice, if offline mail is your thing.
That does however bring up another interesting point, and that is the increasingly "thin" nature of the apps people use day-to-day. Not business apps, but consumers. Facebook, YouTube, Hotmail, Bloggr etc are the things they use. Get home, load up your browser and your Web2.0 apps are there - what else do you need ? Google certainly think this is the way it will go with everything (I can't get on with Google Docs, but I like Calendar and Backpack). Can't say I am convinced, I remember thin-client fever the first time round.
With this in mind the likes of the eEe make all our devices look pretty expensive.
cyberface said:
Back to the original topic.
Macs are overpriced, mainly because Apple operate a monopoly on their operating system and bundled software.
I'm not really sure how apple can be a 'monopoly' - they are a hardware manufacturer. They specifically do not sell the OS separately.Macs are overpriced, mainly because Apple operate a monopoly on their operating system and bundled software.
cyberface said:
You can't go into PC World, walk out with a cheap-ass laptop (without paying the Microsoft tax i.e. buying a laptop without Windows pre-loaded, and not paying Microsoft for this), and then load up OS X and the iLife suite.
Microsoft IS a monopoly - a convicted one at that - as you say above.Try and buy a laptop without the Microsoft Tax!!
Most Microsoft Fanboys tend to bleat about the value of the windows software and proprietary methods - versus open software and standards for instance.
Then they proceed to compare computers by totally ignoring the software value completely.
How can software simultaneously have value and also have no value?!
Apple comes pre-loaded with a huge amount very useful applications - something Vista does not - unless you count the virus scanner.
MS Fanboy: Look at my great free virus scanner!
Apple Fanboy: What's a virus scanner?
Any Apple is a package of hardware and software. It is apple hardware and apple software. Apple can supply it's computers with apple software only because it does not ship windows, so microsoft have no leverage. Every other manufacturer's business model includes the need to ship Windows - which gives microsoft leverage over them. Notice how not a single one supplies any other software than microsoft. Thats the illegal monopoly.
So any PC is a package of Microsoft software and various makes of hardware, whose manufacturers are forbidden to supply anything but microsoft windows.
Back to the original topic:
Today in PC World there are only two choices for software: Apple or MS. Realizing that can help narrow down the choice.
And the choice includes the value of the software - the part that according to the micro-softies - really makes the difference.
Therefore I'd recommend you take into account the fact you are getting a huge amount of top quality software - useful software - a unix operating system - a graphics system whose features are ahead of Vista by several years (and that includes SpotLight), together with a quality top brand hardware.
Just like car options - add ons for Apple are expensive - but a base macbook is simple to upgrade with memory and disk space - so buy the cheapest one and then upgrade it when you need to.
To be honest it also comes down to how much you value your time and sanity, myself and many others found the apple software a breath of time and stress saving air after MS software. I think the base macbook is very very good value.
Noger said:
With this in mind the likes of the eEe make all our devices look pretty expensive.
The Eee is pretty much unusable due to the screen, and the Eee's low price is directly attributable to that screen. As screen prices come down, and devices like the Eee can have usable resolutions (modern OSes use lots of screen real estate) - then full-size laptops will come down in price then too.Where then for Apple? They may still price their machines at a premium due to the OS, but if the premium is a percentage of the typical PC laptop price, and the PC laptop price drops further and further, then Apple's profits will dive. Now the hardware is the same, there's only *so* much you can claim for the 'superior software' experience.
Note that Jobs is serious about getting into bed with Google. Much more so than Microsoft, who positively hate Google (remember Ballmer's chair-throwing incident...) - this may be an interesting sideline.
Anyway Apple makes most of their money from consumer electronics these days
Globulator said:
Try and buy a laptop without the Microsoft Tax!!
...
Every other manufacturer's business model includes the need to ship Windows - which gives microsoft leverage over them. Notice how not a single one supplies any other software than microsoft.
I'm slightly wary, because last time you said this and I said "what about Dell", you said something like "A-ha! I wanted you to fall into my cunning what-about-Dell trap - that proves my point."...
Every other manufacturer's business model includes the need to ship Windows - which gives microsoft leverage over them. Notice how not a single one supplies any other software than microsoft.
I expect I've been trapped again.
You're right though - if you can only shop at PC World, your options are limited.
jamieboy said:
Globulator said:
Try and buy a laptop without the Microsoft Tax!!
...
Every other manufacturer's business model includes the need to ship Windows - which gives microsoft leverage over them. Notice how not a single one supplies any other software than microsoft.
I'm slightly wary, because last time you said this and I said "what about Dell", you said something like "A-ha! I wanted you to fall into my cunning what-about-Dell trap - that proves my point."...
Every other manufacturer's business model includes the need to ship Windows - which gives microsoft leverage over them. Notice how not a single one supplies any other software than microsoft.
I expect I've been trapped again.
You're right though - if you can only shop at PC World, your options are limited.Dell quietly say they sell a Linux PC. In fact you can select out of a single (uncompetitive) laptop or a single (uncompetitive) desktop - on their website. If you can find them.
...but have made paying for either impossible.
QED: You cannot buy a Dell Linux PC.
Microsoft 1, Consumer choice 0. Again.
Globulator said:
Dell quietly say they sell a Linux PC. In fact you can select out of a single (uncompetitive) laptop or a single (uncompetitive) desktop - on their website. If you can find them.
...but have made paying for either impossible.
QED: You cannot buy a Dell Linux PC.
Microsoft 1, Consumer choice 0. Again.
I'll take your word for it - I just tried, and it let me go as far as adding it to my basket, and then specifying the shipping address and method of payment....but have made paying for either impossible.
QED: You cannot buy a Dell Linux PC.
Microsoft 1, Consumer choice 0. Again.
I don't need one, so I chose not to actually click the final 'submit order' button to buy it just to prove an Internet point, but at what point in the process would it have stopped me?
edit - actually when I say "I'll take your word for it", what I really mean is "I don't believe you".
Edited by jamieboy on Monday 17th December 18:40
jamieboy said:
Globulator said:
Dell quietly say they sell a Linux PC. In fact you can select out of a single (uncompetitive) laptop or a single (uncompetitive) desktop - on their website. If you can find them.
...but have made paying for either impossible.
QED: You cannot buy a Dell Linux PC.
Microsoft 1, Consumer choice 0. Again.
I'll take your word for it - I just tried, and it let me go as far as adding it to my basket, and then specifying the shipping address and method of payment....but have made paying for either impossible.
QED: You cannot buy a Dell Linux PC.
Microsoft 1, Consumer choice 0. Again.
I don't need one, so I chose not to actually click the final 'submit order' button to buy it just to prove an Internet point, but at what point in the process would it have stopped me?
edit - actually when I say "I'll take your word for it", what I really mean is "I don't believe you".
Go on - you know you want to
TBH even if you could buy them it's better value to buy a Vista/XP PC from Dell and put linux on yourself. The sub-point here however is that however dreadfully limited in choice you are with linux on the Dell site - you simply can't buy one.
Globulator said:
How can software simultaneously have value and also have no value?!
Oh, quite easily. Look up the work of Jean Baudrillard and multiple value systems.
Globulator said:
Apple comes pre-loaded with a huge amount very useful applications - something Vista does not - unless you count the virus scanner.
Or MovieMaker etc
Of course, if MS bundled half the stuff they could with Vista, they would be up on anti-trust charges faster than you could say Bill.
So their hands are somewhat tied. And it isn't THEIR fault that the manufacturers bundle such rubbish.
Globulator said:
To be honest it also comes down to how much you value your time and sanity, myself and many others found the apple software a breath of time and stress saving air after MS software. I think the base macbook is very very good value.
Or how much you value your back and shoulders. I choose based on hardware, as I travel a lot. Lugging a widescreen Mac about is painful - I know, I have had to carry my collegue's about a lot. My entire kit fits in something smaller than most handbags.People have different requirements, software is only one of them. Hardware is often equally as important for many people, perhaps more so. It is just niche hardware.
Globulator said:
jamieboy said:
I'll take your word for it - I just tried, and it let me go as far as adding it to my basket, and then specifying the shipping address and method of payment.
I don't need one, so I chose not to actually click the final 'submit order' button to buy it just to prove an Internet point, but at what point in the process would it have stopped me?
edit - actually when I say "I'll take your word for it", what I really mean is "I don't believe you".
Doh - you pulled out too soon, as long as you don't enter your credit card no. you'll be fine - so just try to go as far as you can. That's what I did.I don't need one, so I chose not to actually click the final 'submit order' button to buy it just to prove an Internet point, but at what point in the process would it have stopped me?
edit - actually when I say "I'll take your word for it", what I really mean is "I don't believe you".
Go on - you know you want to
TBH even if you could buy them it's better value to buy a Vista/XP PC from Dell and put linux on yourself. The sub-point here however is that however dreadfully limited in choice you are with linux on the Dell site - you simply can't buy one.
At what point did it tell you you couldn't buy one? A screenshot would be good. Without that the sub-point, as you put it, remains tantalisingly unproven either way.
Apologies to the OP for being so far off-topic.
Apple is a hardware manufacturer according to their own PR, but its just not that simple. They bought out eMagic for Logic and they have FinalCut for film making. TBH, I don't like Apple's approach to software. They let Windows users on it if it suits, i.e consumer based (see iTunes - they have no choice) but for the niche software.. they make it Mac only so niche users must buy one if they like that software. If MS did the same there would surely be cries of 'foul play'. I never used Logic but it did used to be available on both platforms. As it happens, Apple apparently make no money from selling music through iTunes - so its the marriage of software and device (iPod) that makes them money.. this is something that they are very good at. There are many better mp3 players on the market but iPod has the 'cool' factor and it also works well with iTunes.
MS could in theory bundle all sorts of stuff with their OS but the amount of times that they've been through the courts.... rightly so in some cases, but wrongly so in others, means they have a fight on their hands if they do (see Google and Vista's default search). MS has begun making their studio video games playable on Mac which I think is a fair play and it should be that way; if only everything worked on everything..... as for Dell; they offer Linux on more than what has been suggested here, but I see the point that most 'average joes' won't even know what Linux is so it's almost irrelevant. With Windows based PC's I think it always best to custom build as you can have a ridiculously fast and powerful machine for peanuts. Again, most people won't bother.
I really want an EEE but I'm going to wait for a bigger screen.. the big black borders around the screen at present just put me off but this kind of affordable ultra portable machine is definetly going to do well.
As for Google apps, they're not up to scratch yet but I think browser based programs will also become the norm. Not sure about having all my docs stored online and at the mercy of Google .. then again they already have all my emails
MS could in theory bundle all sorts of stuff with their OS but the amount of times that they've been through the courts.... rightly so in some cases, but wrongly so in others, means they have a fight on their hands if they do (see Google and Vista's default search). MS has begun making their studio video games playable on Mac which I think is a fair play and it should be that way; if only everything worked on everything..... as for Dell; they offer Linux on more than what has been suggested here, but I see the point that most 'average joes' won't even know what Linux is so it's almost irrelevant. With Windows based PC's I think it always best to custom build as you can have a ridiculously fast and powerful machine for peanuts. Again, most people won't bother.
I really want an EEE but I'm going to wait for a bigger screen.. the big black borders around the screen at present just put me off but this kind of affordable ultra portable machine is definetly going to do well.
As for Google apps, they're not up to scratch yet but I think browser based programs will also become the norm. Not sure about having all my docs stored online and at the mercy of Google .. then again they already have all my emails
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff