bob-bob's Profile

Because that is how most people shop. Most computer users don't want to or need to know all about computer hardware. Therefore, they don't need to go do a months worth of research beforehand. They go out shopping, and come home with a computer. They'll have a budget and the uses in mind beforehand; portability, a big screen, good graphics, etc. It doesn't take much to find a computer that will suit them. Sure it might not be the best option possible option, but is spending a month beforehand searching and researching time well spent? I would say not. Sure, I've just spent the past 2 weeks researching, and I've just bought all the parts to build my next computer. Worth it for me because I enjoyed it, and I know I'm getting exactly what I want. But most people (95%+) aren't interested in doing this. Why would they be? It's a machine to browse the web, write some documents, and consume media on, etc.

"...Windows systems with dozens of new viruses every day" I would LOVE to see a citation for that! Maybe you should look at Windows Vista/7. Writing a birus for these are much more difficult to write, and it is much much much more secure than XP, especially with UAC switched on, where the user must ACTIVELY DECIDE TO INSTALL THE VIRUS BY IGNORING THE WARNING. And please don't go "LULZZZ Vista"; while it's not the greatest OS ever released, it is more than good enough for corporations and 99% of users, and Windows 7 is turning out to be a much more polished version of Vista, which looks like it is going to shut a lot of people up. And as you said, trojans require fools to work, which I'm sure there are some fools who use Macs, thereby negating their perceived advantage, no? Corporations won't consider Macs for lots of reasons: 1. Most larger corporations will have in-house software/macros etc which run on Windows. A huge huge deal. 2. What do you buy from Apple? Minis, iMacs, or PowerMacs? Hmm... not a great choice, any of them. I'll stick with my Dells and HPs, where you get what you want, thank you very much. 3. Where is Apple's corporate software; Exchange etc? The range of business software on Windows is far far far wider than anything available on Macs. 4. If the reason for moving to Apple is for security, why not move to Linux? Plenty of companies are, obviously it's still only a very small percentage, but most flavours of Linux meet the needs of corporations better than OSX does. 5. Macs cost more. End of. The TCO will not be less than an equivalent Windows shop. 6. "the management of patching those holes is so much easier than Windows". WRONG. Microsoft have an awesome update schedule which runs like clockwork, unless a major security flaw is found, in which case a patch will be released earlier. This makes it easy to plan updates within the company, and it can be totally centralised. Unlike Apple, which release updates and patches whenever they feel like it, and a lot of the time don't even say what the patch is for, rather than it just "fixes a security hole".

I may be wrong, but I thought it was to promote Mac OS 9, as I remember there were a lot of tips showing you how to use iDisk with Mac OS 8.5 (which apple didn't support).

Why do apple and duracell price differently depending on market? Every buyer in the world has a different amount they would pay for a product - Bill Gates would pay $1m for a dell PC if there was no other choice and he wanted to code, an Indian CS student might never be able to pay more than $200 as that's all he's got. Similarly every seller in the world has a price he'd sell for - maybe a little bit more than what it costs them to get the stuff in the first place. Somewhere between these two prices the deal is made. The seller wants to maximise his profit - cut his price til he sells as much as possible, without cutting it so far he cuts his profits. The buyer wants to push down the price, but not so far enough that he puts the seller out of business. In India people are less able to pay, and it costs less to make, distribute and sell things. This is why prices are lower there (e.g. batteries) iTunes pricing is set by apple because there is no real competition - so the deal is made at the seller's price, rather than the buyer's price. Not sure why this means European prices are lower, but here's a hypothesis - Rich Britons are very rich, and they can afford to pay a lot for iTunes. Non-rich Britons don't buy music off iTunes, so dropping the price will just cut profits. Second theory - the prices need to be set by Apple to last for some time. The pound is volatile against the Euro, so Apple needs to protect itself against the fx rate by buying options. This costs money and adds to the price. The pound is a high interest rate currency, so in the future it is expected to fall. Hence the move is against apple - if it sets the price at 1 euro = 75p now, in two years time it will only be getting .95 Euro = 75p. It's difficult to raise the price of products, so it's better to set the price high now than have to hike it in a few months time. The other reason that prices seemed high when your posts were written is that the pound has rocketed up in value recently making 79p seem like a lot of money. Now the pound has fallen again the Euro rates (75p today) don't seem so expensive.

Here is one: Mac loyalists are just a little too smug and a little too into "the movement". To quote Maddox on the subject: "I feel like Apple is not just selling computers, they're selling a way of life, and I'm not ready to be that heavily invested in a product."

If your watch is bumping against your laptop try turning it around (rotate it 180 degrees about the long axis of your arm). This is what I do when typing on my 12" powerbook.