Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac? - Page 9

post #121 of 151
Quote:
Yes it is. The resolution on Apple's displays has stayed the same since their introduction. My pre-aluminum 20" Apple Cinema Display from early 2003 is 1680X1050 and has better response times than Dells at the time (They didn't even do a 20" back then..)
Apple has just "updated" the brightness and contrast ratio on the 30 inch ACD to match the Dell. Like last week. I might be mistaken, but I remember the 17" Apple Cinema display started out as a 1024x640 but then switched to 1600x1024 native a while before it was discontinued. I have the feeling they changed out the entire LCD package halfway through its short run. I remember looking at a 1024x768 and asking myself why the hell anyone would buy a $1500 monitor with no better than average resolution for its time. I can probably find other examples if I look hard enough, I'm just lazy.
post #122 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babar
People with such panels can just get a new one under warranty.

Yeah, if apple admits that there is a problem with them, which they didn't for quite a while obviously, judging by the way people on Mac forums are STILL talking about it. Look it up. I guess quite a few people were just hung out to dry on the whole deal.
post #123 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
I might be mistaken, but I remember the 17" Apple Cinema display started out as a 1024x640 but then switched to 1600x1024 native a while before it was discontinued.

I believe you are mistaken. Apple's 17" LCD's were always 100dpi or 1280x1024 (4:3 aspect ratio Studio display)/1440x990 (16:10 aspect ratio Cinema standalone display and every 17" iMac display beginning with the G4 "iLamp" model). Though on second thought I'm not sure they've ever sold a standalone 17" widescreen ("Cinema") display. I just remember the 4:3 Studio model, though I could be wrong.

Apple (rightly, IMO) has long considered around 100dpi to be the optimal pixel density for a computer monitor. The current MacBook Pro has tighter pixel density, more and it's far more fatiguing to look at than a 100dpi monitor for my eyes.
post #124 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGladwell
I believe you are mistaken. Apple's 17" LCD's were always 100dpi or 1280x1024

This is correct
post #125 of 151
First of all, I have to say that I find Cringely to often be a biased windbag - however he has some interesting things to say about Boot Camp on his latest article. Not that surprising, perhaps but nonetheless...

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060406.html
post #126 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Stats from Intel:

35-40% of its processors sold do NOT go to major PC vendors. (Dell, HP, Sony, Apple) But to custom builders, and local parts shops.

Seems like I represent a larger peice of the pie than you would like to believe...

Not really. All that means is that the major vendors control 30+% of the market worldwide PC market - probably more than that in the West, and closer to 1% in many developing countries - but that store brands, "white box" machines, (on a much smaller scale) outfits that cater to gamers, and the like represent the majority of the market. DIYers I think would be lucky to be 0.2-0.3% of the market. That's still a relatively large number of people, to be sure, but nowhere near the importance you seem to ascribe to them.
post #127 of 151
Quote:
For some reason Mac people tend to take any criticism of Mac as a criticism of themselves, I guess Mac people are an extension of their computer, and not the other way around.

Jon.

Audi sucks.
post #128 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGladwell
Not really. All that means is that the major vendors control 30+% of the market worldwide PC market - probably more than that in the West, and closer to 1% in many developing countries - but that store brands, "white box" machines, (on a much smaller scale) outfits that cater to gamers, and the like represent the majority of the market. DIYers I think would be lucky to be 0.2-0.3% of the market. That's still a relatively large number of people, to be sure, but nowhere near the importance you seem to ascribe to them.
Now this is confusing. Can you explain this, because what I'm reading makes no sense. The fact that major computer manufacturers use 35-40% of the total Intel chips made, leads you to believe that Comp USA, mom and pop computer stores, and custom gaming sites take up 60-65% of the world's Intel processors? I somehow find this logic faulty.Especially when I know for a fact that "dedicated gaming computers" are only between 5 and 10% of computers sold. The world's most successful gaming computer company Alienware, is now owned by Dell and I would include that in the Major PC manufacturers category. I think more standalone processors are sold to consumers than you realize. Intel is by far the largest consumer CPU manufacturer BTW, AMD (which I have been using almost exclusivly for the last uh... 5 years or so... only has between 17-19% market share. I don't know where you are getting the two tenths of a percent of people build or upgrade their computers thing, cause I think you are seriously underestimating the numbers. Hell, most of the people on THIS BOARD have upgraded their computer, Mac or no. I know that PC Stop, Fry's, CompUSA and online retailers like mwave and directron sell a whole lot more retail box or OEM processors than you think they do.
post #129 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD
Audi sucks.

Acceleration Under Demonic Influence.
post #130 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD
Audi sucks.

Actually it blows...







































...away the competition.

Jon.
post #131 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mussel
Acceleration Under Demonic Influence.

That would be the Audi RS4. (or me driving )

Jon.
post #132 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
The fact that major computer manufacturers use 35-40% of the total Intel chips made, leads you to believe that Comp USA, mom and pop computer stores, and custom gaming sites take up 60-65% of the world's Intel processors?

Yes.

The vast majority of those Intel chips not sold to the majors go to the minors (i.e. store house brand computers, the "white box" computers that dominate much of the international market, and so on) with hobbyists accounting for basically nothing. Keep in mind that most of those "loose" chips that are sold in the USA end up getting exported to someplace like India, South Africa, or Poland and turned into white box computers for their domestic markets. The majors have almost no presence outside of the West, and even then their position in the US is far stronger than it is in Europe. The world's largest one-day volume of computer turnover in history (about a quarter million machines in one German workday, or about 35 minutes ) was a bunch of white boxes sold by the supermarket chain Aldi in 2001 or 2002.

It may seem like a large number to you, because perhaps lots of people in your circles do that sort of thing. And on an absolute scale 0.2% of chips produced is a pretty large number. But that is not representative of the population at large by any means.
post #133 of 151
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mussel
Acceleration Under Demonic Influence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS
That would be the Audi RS4. (or me driving )

Jon.


Jon, you may be too young to remember. It's a reference to late 80's during which Audis reportedly lunged forward when shifting from parking postion, causing fatalities, injuries and of course law suits ensued. However, the Highway Safety didn't find anything wrong. Audi sales nose dived and it took them many years and 2 generations of resign to recover.
post #134 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Rothbart
Jon, you may be too young to remember. It's a reference to late 80's during which Audis reportedly lunged forward when shifting from parking postion, causing fatalities, injuries and of course law suits ensued. However, the Highway Safety didn't find anything wrong. Audi sales nose dived and it took them many years and 2 generations of resign to recover.
Wasn't it determined that the pedals were closer together than in other cars which caused some people to put their foot on the gas instead of (or in addition to) the brake when shifting from park to drive?
post #135 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATM
Wasn't it determined that the pedals were closer together than in other cars which caused some people to put their foot on the gas instead of (or in addition to) the brake when shifting from park to drive?
Yes. That’s exactly what happened (I’m not to young to remember the incident, although the catch phrase is a new one on me, but it’s very cool nonetheless, esp. with the S4 & RS4). The automatic cars were made like manual cars, but instead of three pedals, they simply removed the clutch. But, on a manual car, the break pedal is a lot smaller to accommodate the clutch, so people (idiots) confused the break pedal for the gas pedal, and well… Most automatic cars (including modern Audi’s) have large break pedals which differentiate them from the gas pedal. Jon.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac?