Comments on: Researcher: Macs not as expensive as thought
A comparably equipped Windows-based computer is only about 13 percent less expensive than a Mac, says analyst.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Seesmic buying Ping.fm social update service
January 4, 2010 8:00 AM PST
- Samsung signs RealD in nascent 3D TV market
January 4, 2010 7:26 AM PST
- Horizon to show fuel cell for charging gadgets
January 4, 2010 6:53 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
rock-bottom pricing? How much do you think Dell makes on a
$399 computer? And who wants to buy a Dell for $2,000 when
they can buy a Dell for $399? After all, the brand name "Dell"
now stands for "cheap."
I think Apple is smart not to cheapen their brand by trolling for
bottom-feeders. If you make a premium product, stick with
premium pricing. It's not for everyone, but at least you can
make a profit that way.
Remember the entry level BMW and Mercedes hatchbacks?
Failures. Jaguar X-Type? Bad idea.
"Like XBox or PS3, the manufacturers know they have to take a
loss up front to get the user base built up... then profits will
come."
Ah, which is why MS is still losing money on XBox after all these
years, and Sony will certainly take it on the chin with the PS3. I
think taking a big loss on hardware to gain customers is a bad,
bad business model. Ask TiVo. Apple doesn't need to play that
foolish game.
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.
It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.
I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.
But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.
Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.
It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.
I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.
But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.
Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
market. There are no profits there. The cheap machines that
Dell or HP advertises are called "loss leaders" for a reason.
Apple is better off building marketshare gradually by continuing
its strategy of product differentiation with machines that have
slightly higher margins. There is a reason -- and it is not just
iPods -- that Apple is one of two computer manufacturers that
has been consistently profitable in recent years.
It's true that if someone cares *only* about the price, Apple is
not likely to win their business. For how many major purchases,
however, is the cheapest product the best product? Cheaper is
only better if all else is at least equal.
The XBox or PS3 analogy doesn't apply. In those cases, the
profit is all in the games. For Apple, software is still only a small
portion of overall sales.
Apple should not offer any super low prices systems. The Mac Mini is already a good low cost system. It might be nice if they offered a "sale" package that included a monitor/keyboard/mouse with the mini to promote moving to the Mac though.
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.
It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.
I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.
But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.
Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
because they make it up on the games and accessories, which is
where the real profits are.
If Apple dropped the cost of the Mac by $100 or $200, I doubt it
would bring more buyers. You can save close to that on anti-
virus software alone.
People are lemings. They follow the leader. Today it is still
Microsoft, but tomorrow....who knows?
most expensive computer I've ever owned. My Dual 2 ghz G5 is far
less expensive.
I guess you just don't value your time, or maybe you think any
computer will be just as much trouble as a PC. Either way, you're
wrong.
rock-bottom pricing? How much do you think Dell makes on a
$399 computer? And who wants to buy a Dell for $2,000 when
they can buy a Dell for $399? After all, the brand name "Dell"
now stands for "cheap."
I think Apple is smart not to cheapen their brand by trolling for
bottom-feeders. If you make a premium product, stick with
premium pricing. It's not for everyone, but at least you can
make a profit that way.
Remember the entry level BMW and Mercedes hatchbacks?
Failures. Jaguar X-Type? Bad idea.
"Like XBox or PS3, the manufacturers know they have to take a
loss up front to get the user base built up... then profits will
come."
Ah, which is why MS is still losing money on XBox after all these
years, and Sony will certainly take it on the chin with the PS3. I
think taking a big loss on hardware to gain customers is a bad,
bad business model. Ask TiVo. Apple doesn't need to play that
foolish game.
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.
It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.
I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.
But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.
Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.
It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.
I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.
But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.
Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
market. There are no profits there. The cheap machines that
Dell or HP advertises are called "loss leaders" for a reason.
Apple is better off building marketshare gradually by continuing
its strategy of product differentiation with machines that have
slightly higher margins. There is a reason -- and it is not just
iPods -- that Apple is one of two computer manufacturers that
has been consistently profitable in recent years.
It's true that if someone cares *only* about the price, Apple is
not likely to win their business. For how many major purchases,
however, is the cheapest product the best product? Cheaper is
only better if all else is at least equal.
The XBox or PS3 analogy doesn't apply. In those cases, the
profit is all in the games. For Apple, software is still only a small
portion of overall sales.
Apple should not offer any super low prices systems. The Mac Mini is already a good low cost system. It might be nice if they offered a "sale" package that included a monitor/keyboard/mouse with the mini to promote moving to the Mac though.
on the hardware at all, and making ALL of the revenue on the
software - either publishing it yourself, or by charging third
parties licencing rights for your platform.
It's one reason why console games cost 30% more than PC
games.
I'd question as to whether the Mac actually needs 'more
software'. I don't find the platform to be lacking software - your
choice may be limited to 4 choices rather than 30, but that is not
necessarily a problem.
But overall, you're right - they should produce a bottom-end
Mac - skimp on the iSight, sacrifice a few internal components,
and put it in a bog-standard case. I don't see it cannibalising
existing sales so long as it was a worse specification / looked
worse.
Then again, there is the fact that not everyone is a tech spec
gearhead.
because they make it up on the games and accessories, which is
where the real profits are.
If Apple dropped the cost of the Mac by $100 or $200, I doubt it
would bring more buyers. You can save close to that on anti-
virus software alone.
People are lemings. They follow the leader. Today it is still
Microsoft, but tomorrow....who knows?
most expensive computer I've ever owned. My Dual 2 ghz G5 is far
less expensive.
I guess you just don't value your time, or maybe you think any
computer will be just as much trouble as a PC. Either way, you're
wrong.
aren't offered in these other models. The iSight camera would
make up the difference, not to mention the Front Row remote.
aren't offered in these other models. The iSight camera would
make up the difference, not to mention the Front Row remote.
I just bought the G5 2Ghz model and I love it, I would never trade it in for no PC. I must admit to liking Excel/Access and VBA programming that comes with it. But for pretty much all else, I now use a mac and never been happier.
So take dat!!!
Apple products are more expensive because you are paying for the design and the hype. It used to be when the mac was "the defacto design tool" but Adobe changed that with (inevitable) addition of Windows marketshare.
Head to head, some mac features are better for the user, but for the admin, windows still wins.
And with pricing on hardware, I can get a black laptop, with more features for less.
But, do I want that? Would I rather have a dual-booting, cool, hip, easy to use, MacBook or MacBookPro? Sure. Marketing sells...
margins demonstrate that) - but I would disagree that it's all
about Form. The Function is also good, which is why Macs are
increasingly popular with developers who aren't locked into the
MS world.
I can't quite work out exactly what Admin features you think are
better on Windows. If you mean, for MSCE admins, Windows
machines are what they know, then yep, of course that's true,
but to anyone with familiarity with Unix the reverse is way true -
especially once you start going beyond Unix and learning what
OS X offers on top.
It's taken me about a year of use to realise the true functional
differences - the problem is it's difficult to sell them in a
soundbite way. And of course most people aren't going to use
bash to script iTunes.
Examples : It's taken me less effort to configure a Citrix
connection to our corporate network than it has on a Windows
box. Equally, do a search on Ottomate - you need to buy an
independent test tool to do the same with IE. System level
dictionary shared across all apps (not just Office ones). Native
PDF. emacs key bindings. Really simple networking. That works
when you put a machine to sleep on one network and wake it up
on another.
quality components, whereas Mercedes has one of the worst
luxury car quality ratings in America, and sometimes, as well, in
hometown Deutschland. Better to compare Apple to Lexus,
which has the highest quality rating.
That said, your argument, IMHO, is inherently faulty because you
talk about "hype" and design, both subjective arguments. There
are several cars that are designed to look good, but still don't
sell (relatively speaking) because of the perception of "low
quality", i.e., the current Hyundai Tiburon, the Kia Sorrento SUV,
the Hyundai Sonata. Hyundai and Kia have been coming up fast
over the past 5 years, but people won't buy them because of
perception of cheap quality.
Apple uses better quality (and hence, more expensive) materials
and components in the manufacture of its products. Apple tends
to have better customer service than competitors--the training
for which costs more--thus adding to the costs. Apple markets
more then competitors, and spends more money (based on
percentages, not actual dollars) than competitors, so all these
costs trickle down to customers. But what customers get is an
earlier and greater return on their investment with Apple. They
get a better quality of life by being able to USE their computers
instead of having their computers often at the repair shop.
I don't buy my computers because they are "cool", I buy them
because I get to DO MY WORK, while my Windows using
colleagues get to cool their heels at the offices of Tech Support.
Oh, and I work in IT, so I'm not some Windows Geek with a Tech
Support agenda to push.
the design and the hype. It used to be when the mac was "the
defacto design tool" but Adobe changed that with (inevitable)
addition of Windows marketshare."
Personally, I think the two go hand in hand. At least they do on
my G5. Why settle for just one when you can have both.
And don't forget that for the last few years Apple has been
number one in Consumer Reports with the lowest number of
units shipped with problems out of the box and they have also
received the best scores in Tech Support. That should be worth
something when looking for a system.
production environment.
Mac's make production enginneers like me more cash -- they
don't cost MORE-- they cost less.
A similarly equipped Mac versus a similarly equipped Mac with
identical users is more productive due to these factors: 1)
Stability, 2) Unix Command Line Shell and Customization, 3)
More efficient, keystroke driven interface.
Done deal.
Don't believe me?
Fine with me.
An uninformed, untested user means less competition for me in
my line of work.
I'll keep kicking my PC brethern in the dirt, gettting better
clients and insuring my future.
Dante
In the end, I think Mac is like buying a Coach purse for my wife. Is the purse really better? Not really, but people look at you and ask questions about it. In the end, she still loses her keys and lipstick.
Apple products are more expensive because you are paying for the design and the hype. It used to be when the mac was "the defacto design tool" but Adobe changed that with (inevitable) addition of Windows marketshare.
Head to head, some mac features are better for the user, but for the admin, windows still wins.
And with pricing on hardware, I can get a black laptop, with more features for less.
But, do I want that? Would I rather have a dual-booting, cool, hip, easy to use, MacBook or MacBookPro? Sure. Marketing sells...
margins demonstrate that) - but I would disagree that it's all
about Form. The Function is also good, which is why Macs are
increasingly popular with developers who aren't locked into the
MS world.
I can't quite work out exactly what Admin features you think are
better on Windows. If you mean, for MSCE admins, Windows
machines are what they know, then yep, of course that's true,
but to anyone with familiarity with Unix the reverse is way true -
especially once you start going beyond Unix and learning what
OS X offers on top.
It's taken me about a year of use to realise the true functional
differences - the problem is it's difficult to sell them in a
soundbite way. And of course most people aren't going to use
bash to script iTunes.
Examples : It's taken me less effort to configure a Citrix
connection to our corporate network than it has on a Windows
box. Equally, do a search on Ottomate - you need to buy an
independent test tool to do the same with IE. System level
dictionary shared across all apps (not just Office ones). Native
PDF. emacs key bindings. Really simple networking. That works
when you put a machine to sleep on one network and wake it up
on another.
quality components, whereas Mercedes has one of the worst
luxury car quality ratings in America, and sometimes, as well, in
hometown Deutschland. Better to compare Apple to Lexus,
which has the highest quality rating.
That said, your argument, IMHO, is inherently faulty because you
talk about "hype" and design, both subjective arguments. There
are several cars that are designed to look good, but still don't
sell (relatively speaking) because of the perception of "low
quality", i.e., the current Hyundai Tiburon, the Kia Sorrento SUV,
the Hyundai Sonata. Hyundai and Kia have been coming up fast
over the past 5 years, but people won't buy them because of
perception of cheap quality.
Apple uses better quality (and hence, more expensive) materials
and components in the manufacture of its products. Apple tends
to have better customer service than competitors--the training
for which costs more--thus adding to the costs. Apple markets
more then competitors, and spends more money (based on
percentages, not actual dollars) than competitors, so all these
costs trickle down to customers. But what customers get is an
earlier and greater return on their investment with Apple. They
get a better quality of life by being able to USE their computers
instead of having their computers often at the repair shop.
I don't buy my computers because they are "cool", I buy them
because I get to DO MY WORK, while my Windows using
colleagues get to cool their heels at the offices of Tech Support.
Oh, and I work in IT, so I'm not some Windows Geek with a Tech
Support agenda to push.
the design and the hype. It used to be when the mac was "the
defacto design tool" but Adobe changed that with (inevitable)
addition of Windows marketshare."
Personally, I think the two go hand in hand. At least they do on
my G5. Why settle for just one when you can have both.
And don't forget that for the last few years Apple has been
number one in Consumer Reports with the lowest number of
units shipped with problems out of the box and they have also
received the best scores in Tech Support. That should be worth
something when looking for a system.
production environment.
Mac's make production enginneers like me more cash -- they
don't cost MORE-- they cost less.
A similarly equipped Mac versus a similarly equipped Mac with
identical users is more productive due to these factors: 1)
Stability, 2) Unix Command Line Shell and Customization, 3)
More efficient, keystroke driven interface.
Done deal.
Don't believe me?
Fine with me.
An uninformed, untested user means less competition for me in
my line of work.
I'll keep kicking my PC brethern in the dirt, gettting better
clients and insuring my future.
Dante
but I don't use them for personal, or opertional use at all. I
develop Windows software. But at the end of the day, I'm very
happy on my Mac.
I think consumers are looking at a lot more than getting the
cheapest PC. If that cheap PC results in tech-calls, and the
assorted on-going issues, they may well want to look at
something else that actually makes their life easier. That is the
point of owning a computer anyway, isn't it?
In the end, to each his own ..
but I don't use them for personal, or opertional use at all. I
develop Windows software. But at the end of the day, I'm very
happy on my Mac.
I think consumers are looking at a lot more than getting the
cheapest PC. If that cheap PC results in tech-calls, and the
assorted on-going issues, they may well want to look at
something else that actually makes their life easier. That is the
point of owning a computer anyway, isn't it?
In the end, to each his own ..
AOL, so what's the point of paying for something most people don't
use. the new ibooks/macbooks are too expensive for what they
offer, i would't want one even for free. a macbook pro is a
wonderful computer, thou too expensive for my budget (starting @
$2200 CDN).
The only thing I'd like to see happen is it support additional IM
protocols they way Trillian does.
Would not want one for free?! That, in itself, is a complete riot.
These computers don't START at 2200. You can spend that if you
want.
I kind of feel some anger coming from you.
WHAT?
Have you ever actually USED iChat or a Mac? Maybe when you
say "not compatible" you actually mean, "all the features of the
AOL Messenger client are not available in iChat". That I would
agree with, but then, are Mac users not using the AOL
Messenger client REALLY missing out on anything? No. Besides,
AOL does make their Messenger for the Mac, if you MUST go
down that road.
Oh, and the iSight is not ONLY for chat, it also shoots video and
still photos, and has an EXCELLENT microphone built-in. I've
used that mic to produce professional, static-free, noise-free
recordings for podcasts and video voice-overs. I think you need
to check your facts.
computer,thou too expensive for my budget" for free just shows
what kind of an idiot you are appearing to be. Make sure you
know what your talking about before you open your uneducated
mouth. Instead of sitting in the dark corners of your computer
world, maybe you should sneak into an Apple Store (maybe even
wear some sunglasses so none of your M$ friends will recognize
you) and see what OSX has been offering their users for the past
year. You may find its all the new "innovative features" Bill Gates
has been promising and promising and promising with Vista.
AOL, so what's the point of paying for something most people don't
use. the new ibooks/macbooks are too expensive for what they
offer, i would't want one even for free. a macbook pro is a
wonderful computer, thou too expensive for my budget (starting @
$2200 CDN).
The only thing I'd like to see happen is it support additional IM
protocols they way Trillian does.
Would not want one for free?! That, in itself, is a complete riot.
These computers don't START at 2200. You can spend that if you
want.
I kind of feel some anger coming from you.
WHAT?
Have you ever actually USED iChat or a Mac? Maybe when you
say "not compatible" you actually mean, "all the features of the
AOL Messenger client are not available in iChat". That I would
agree with, but then, are Mac users not using the AOL
Messenger client REALLY missing out on anything? No. Besides,
AOL does make their Messenger for the Mac, if you MUST go
down that road.
Oh, and the iSight is not ONLY for chat, it also shoots video and
still photos, and has an EXCELLENT microphone built-in. I've
used that mic to produce professional, static-free, noise-free
recordings for podcasts and video voice-overs. I think you need
to check your facts.
computer,thou too expensive for my budget" for free just shows
what kind of an idiot you are appearing to be. Make sure you
know what your talking about before you open your uneducated
mouth. Instead of sitting in the dark corners of your computer
world, maybe you should sneak into an Apple Store (maybe even
wear some sunglasses so none of your M$ friends will recognize
you) and see what OSX has been offering their users for the past
year. You may find its all the new "innovative features" Bill Gates
has been promising and promising and promising with Vista.
At this price it is a loss leader or is used in a bait and switch. It is not a sustainable price. To claim that it is anything else is misleading.
few times for the bait and switch.
Price competition leads to deals like this.
It is a completely fair comparison.
At this price it is a loss leader or is used in a bait and switch. It is not a sustainable price. To claim that it is anything else is misleading.
few times for the bait and switch.
Price competition leads to deals like this.
It is a completely fair comparison.
be factored in. I still have a 6 year old PowerMac G4 that runs
the majority of what I can throw at it, including the latest release
of Tiger, without any upgrades other than ram. Most PC's that
age can barely run XP. As far as price is concerned I like apple's
price points, and I am by no means rich. I just don't need to
replace then as much as when I had a PC.
Also, saying that a mac is like a BMW and a PC is like a honda is
a slap in the face to a honda. In reality, Macs are like a new
Toyota and PC's are like a Ford. They both generally run nice in
the beginning but the real test is how many repairs and how
lengthy it's life cycle is, without needing to completely over haul
it or replace it.
moderate-quality priced cars and trucks there. In the US they just
sell premium stuff. I remember when I was in Brazil I saw Mercedes
minivans (REALLY MINI, like an Mini Cooper SUV) for just over
$10,000 US. (~30,000 real)
be factored in. I still have a 6 year old PowerMac G4 that runs
the majority of what I can throw at it, including the latest release
of Tiger, without any upgrades other than ram. Most PC's that
age can barely run XP. As far as price is concerned I like apple's
price points, and I am by no means rich. I just don't need to
replace then as much as when I had a PC.
Also, saying that a mac is like a BMW and a PC is like a honda is
a slap in the face to a honda. In reality, Macs are like a new
Toyota and PC's are like a Ford. They both generally run nice in
the beginning but the real test is how many repairs and how
lengthy it's life cycle is, without needing to completely over haul
it or replace it.
moderate-quality priced cars and trucks there. In the US they just
sell premium stuff. I remember when I was in Brazil I saw Mercedes
minivans (REALLY MINI, like an Mini Cooper SUV) for just over
$10,000 US. (~30,000 real)
Josh
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=E1505S2&s=dhs
Same processor, twice the ram, DVD burner, larger screen. Yep, it doesn't have a webcam, oh well, I think a dvd burner is a fair trade for a webcame. It checks out at 949, $150 cheaper than the lowest mac configuration. Once again, you can argue software all you want, im just comparing hardware.
Josh
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=E1505S2&s=dhs
Same processor, twice the ram, DVD burner, larger screen. Yep, it doesn't have a webcam, oh well, I think a dvd burner is a fair trade for a webcame. It checks out at 949, $150 cheaper than the lowest mac configuration. Once again, you can argue software all you want, im just comparing hardware.
- Why I switched
- by sadiesmog May 16, 2006 1:06 PM PDT
- I had a mac in the early 90's, but they screwed me when they changed to the unix side and my mac couldn't cut it. I decided that, since *most* companies and the general population use PC's, I would also. I find it weird to see these mac nuts with their religious fervor over a bunch of chips and a keyboard. It's purely an elitist viewpoint, verses a 'lets get the job done and save money at the same time?.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Calling
- by Gromit801 May 16, 2006 1:19 PM PDT
- We'll call the Wahbulance. Sorry you're regretting your choice and
- Like this
-
- Screwed Me Too ...
- by Kalama May 16, 2006 1:25 PM PDT
- Yep. My Performa 6230 CD just can't cut it any more. That
- Like this
-
- Mac users save more money than PC users...
- by May 16, 2006 3:33 PM PDT
- And this is a blanket statement because, well, it's true. The workflow on a Mac is superior to a windows platform, the OS is far more stable and secure, and there's less crap software and more quality software to get the job done.
- Like this View all 2 replies
Processing -
- You didn't switch
- by technewsjunkie May 16, 2006 5:24 PM PDT
- You're liar.
- Like this
-
- My 486 won't run Windows XP.
- by open-mind May 17, 2006 7:23 AM PDT
- "I was screwed by Microsoft, so I switched to Mac OS."
- Like this
-
- cheapest?
- by tipper_gore May 17, 2006 11:31 AM PDT
- Lots of Windows based computers are way "over priced." But sometimes they look cool. Sony computers are often "over priced" but cool looking. The term "over priced" is insanely objective and subject to market forces.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (199 Comments)need to resort to sarcasm and rhetoric.
Apple is a complete technology company: hardware, software, and
more important than anything else, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
R & D costs money, to come up with those insanely great ideas, and
bring them to market (which most every PC assembler then tries to
copy).
pesky OS X, or is it "Ten.x.x" ? Anyway, the old 6230 just plugs
away on my network to handle one item of non- X'd software
that a couple of my staffers just gots to have! Release date of
'95.
But, that's OK. Median age of OSX machines at My firm = 2.9
years / on a 6 year replacemant cycle. My XPwintels, 2.2 / 5
year cycle. And only due to a certain accounting application.
Gosh, maybe I should have tossed my 128 because it wouldn't
run system 7.5. BTW, have you read about all the cool features
on "Vista" for Quarter 1.? of '07 ... sounds like and "X" to me.
Sorry, but my Powermac G4 has been running solid for three years, and when I have to batch process a ton of pics in photoshop, I can tweek the settings by just a little, click one button, and not only do the fiels get batch processed, the results are placed in a new folder, the originals are placed into a new folder and that folder gets zipped, then the folder get thrown in the trash and the zipped file is ready for email/upload. All from one click.
LOL
If you're going to make up stories, at least make them plausible.