[SATLUG] Re: mobile devices with linux
kcoriginal at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 29 17:48:16 CDT 2008
What I refer to in this sort of direction is the way the old hardware was better at the graphics type tasks. I don't think the Intel direction should have won when it won. It wasn't superior for graphics and multimedia, just more prolific and lower priced. One more swing at Apple is, if they gave in and decided to use mainstream hardware from Intel, why didnt they drop their price to mainstrem.. or at least a little above mainstream? Instead they stay at WAY above mainstream.
So I know longer get a clear performance advantage and I still get a grossly negative pricing advantage. Where is the advantage to using an Apple for computing?
If I want stable, I go with RHEL for less, or CentOS for free. Or numerous other stable Linux distros. I don't need FrankenLinux from Mac, which, does run GREAT, but is over priced for no performance advantage.
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org> wrote:
> From: Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org>
> Subject: Re: [SATLUG] Re: mobile devices with linux
> To: "The San Antonio Linux User's Group Mailing List" <satlug at satlug.org>
> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 4:35 PM
> pixelnate at gmail.com wrote:
> > That just goes to show you, you don't need to buy
> an Apple machine to
> > get the Apple experience. They have much better
> margins on HW than SW,
> > tho.
> You're welcome to try to run MacOS X on non-Apple
> hardware. Some people
> have gotten it working, but the biggest thing is the lack
> of drivers for
> most of the less common devices, and since most of the
> device drivers are
> written by Apple themselves, you're not likely to see
> that situation improve
> any time soon.
> The miracle about the Psystar was that it existed at all,
> not that it worked
> This is about the same as the miracle of a talking dog
> being that it talks
> at all, as opposed to being able to talk well.
> > That's the thing, the clones are everywhere now.
> They're not Apple clones. They're Intel clones,
> and it just so happens that
> Apple has chosen to use Intel-based chipsets for their most
> generation of hardware.
> Not the same thing.
> > I 'd much rather
> use OSX than Vista to
> > pair with the Adobe CS Suite, but they will not allow
> that to happen.
> You can run CS on MacOS X. I've got a copy. Works
> reasonably well.
> Oh, and BTW, CS on MacOS X on Intel proves that Adobe was
> wrong -- the
> software is no faster on Intel hardware than it was on the
> PowerPC. The
> real issue with Adobe is that they're just plain fat
> lazy bastards who can't
> be bothered to write reasonable code that actually performs
> > And they won't build a sensible machine for those
> of us not willing to
> > a) give up our own tremendously awesome monitor, or b)
> pay $2800 for a
> > computer.
> Because Apple is not willing to build a substandard
> computer. They're not
> going to push crap out the door just because they can,
> unlike all the other
> computer manufacturers in the business.
> > If they would sell a box for $1000-1200
> that is the equivalent
> > of an iMac with with a single PCI-E slot, I'd be
> all over it. But the
> > way things are, you either buy an iMac with a glossy
> screen and crappy
> > graphics HW (except for the top of the line) or you
> get gouged to the
> > tune of $3K.
> Or you get a Mac Mini and bring your own keyboard, mouse,
> etc.... The Mac
> Mini is due for an update, but with an Intel Core 2 Duo at
> 2.0Ghz, that's
> only marginally slower than the current iMac at 2.4GHz.
> Hopefully the Mac
> Mini will get updated soon, and will be more on par with
> the faster iMacs.
> Brad Knowles <brad at shub-internet.org>
> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu>
> SATLUG mailing list
> SATLUG at satlug.org
> http://alamo.satlug.org/mailman/listinfo/satlug to
> Powered by Rackspace (www.rackspace.com)
More information about the SATLUG