Lessons From The Death of HD-DVD

[Woochifer]

I understand that Wooch. Earlier Mac OS's were designed around the Motorola MC68000 series microprocessors, but I see that's not the case anymore. I guess you could say I'm in my own little world with my love/hate relationship with the behemoth that's MS.

The Mac has now gone through two major architectural transitions, and each one went relatively smoothly. First one transitioned the Mac from the 68XXX series to the PowerPC family. And more recently, Apple transitioned its hardware from PPC to the Intel X86 processors. Their OS and major apps are now written as universal binaries in which both processor architectures are supported, and older programs written for PPC run fine (albeit slower) on an Intel Mac using Apple's Rosetta emulator. The transition to Intel presents all sorts of interesting possibilities that are just beginning to show up.

I can't offer any opposition to this information. I'm sure there are a lot of Mac users who'll find this useful but again, I've picked my poison.

No need to pick a poison, you can have it all. With a virtualization program like VMWare or Parallels, you can install just about any OS onto a Mac, and run them all simultaneously without having to reboot. Running Windows XP or Vista (or even Windows98 or 3.1, if you prefer) on a Mac using these virtualization apps is as simple as opening up an Office program, and there's minimal hit on performance.

Somebody actually installed more than 50 different operating systems on his Mac (IIRC, this included every version of Windows ever made, multiple Linux variants, different UNIX versions, BeOS, etc.), and actually ran them all simultaneously! He posted a screenshot just to prove that it's possible.

I think virtualization is the future. And heaven forbid that I give MS some unsolicited advice on how to make their products better and more useful, but I think they need to do a clean rewrite of Windows and let anyone who needs legacy support run older versions of Windows using virtualization. Windows' trump card has always been its backwards compatibility, but performance and security suffer as a result. With virtualization, MS no longer needs to bake all that legacy support into the OS.

[Woochifer]

I'll do it my way if you dont mind.
AND "APPLE" puts out 300-400 buck computers all the time, they just charge a hellava lot more.

Really? I didn't know that you've actually spec'd out and cost-compared the components on Macs to reach this conclusion! Why don't you list out those components and their retail prices so that we can all build out own $300 Mac equivalents (I'll even disregard the fact that Apple uses a more advanced EFI firmware on its motherboard rather than a typical PC BIOS)? Please do! Last thing I would want to do is call you out for LYING THROUGH YOU TEETH, right?

Microsoft conspriacy nutjobs are a lot like the jewish revolutionaries in the movie,
life of Brian

Uh, difference is that Life of Brian is a work of fiction, whereas Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior is fact, and documented in the public record using sworn testimony from company officials.

Figures that you would use a Monty Python reference, because your rants venture into that level of absurdity, albeit without the humor or coherency!

And its funny, either Jews, the "vast right wing conspriacy", or MICROSOFTS plot
to take over the world, these guys "can't make a decent OS", but they can keep this hugh complicated plot on track.
YOU try to build an OS that will work on every flavor of computer in the world.
If you are handy you can work on a PC, if you need a new one you can take parts off of the old one and save a bit in building the new one.
Thank IBM for a lot of this, but also give credit to micro for making an OS that will work with every incarnation.
And I am not even going into the fact that micro did nothing to stop MP3, EVEN THO IT WAS A RIPOFF FROM mpeg1.
Or Micros behind the scenes help with Divix, or a lot of other things that they never get credit for.

No one's faulting MS for creating standards via the Windows OS. Rather, the U.S. and E.U. court decisions against MS have entirely hinged on how MS uses their control over these standards to expand their market dominance into other markets. It's anti-competitive and illegal, and after court decision after court decision to that effect has gone against MS, they've had to settle numerous lawsuits (a de facto admission that they were not competing fairly or within the law) and agree to consent decrees in order to avoid more damaging penalties.

Do they try to acheive hegemony? SURE!
SO DOES EVERY OTHER BUSINESS.

Difference though is that "every other business" does not abuse a desktop OS monopoly to gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage. MS used to claim that they had an internal "Chinese wall" separating their OS and applications divisions, and that they never gave any unfair advantages to their own applications to the detriment of competing applications. Yet, when put under oath during the U.S. anti-trust action, the MS officials admitted everything that competitors had suspected all along -- that MS' OS and applications divisions developed collaboratively to gain a competitive advantage, and that they purposely withheld information about the OS from other developers in order to ensure that competing products would not work optimally. That's not conspiracy, that's reality.

What do you think this "format" war was about in the first place.
If you think any company in MICROSOFTS position wont take some advantage you are not living in the real world

Yeah, and in the real world, that's why anti-trust laws exist, because monopolists like MS are willing to use their monopoly position to stifle competition and control the market.

[Woochifer]

Think you nailed it here...too many backdoor vulnerabilities by design. Also, the whole concept of users and administrators in Windows has lagged behind Linux/Unix and Mac for years now too.

Definitely the case with XP (I haven't used Vista enough to say anything one way or another). Logging in using a limited account in XP is practically useless for any extended usage. Problem is that just about every Windows program installation and system revision requires access to the registry, system folders, and shared program files. You can't modify those (or even run certain system utilities) with a limited account, so I always log in as an administrator, despite the obvious security risks involved. I've always wondered why Windows has to have the hardware settings, system settings, AND application settings kludged together into a single monolithic registry file that just slows the system down as it grows progressively larger.

My understanding is that Vista's user log in now allows for more useful access, but they've now inserted those annoying User Account Control nags, which apparently a lot of people shut off, thus negating whatever measure of security UAC is supposed to provide.

By default, the Mac won't let anyone access the root directory, unless they specifically request root access, log out, and then log back in as the root user. Program installations don't require access to system directories, and there's no centralized registry to mess with. Only if an installation requires access to the frameworks or kernel does the password dialog come up. I guess that Vista tried the same thing with UAC, but Windows installations by default require more access to the system folders and everything has to go through the registry to begin with, so those dialogs will just come up a lot more often because of how the system and applications operate.

[pixelthis]

Really? I didn't know that you've actually spec'd out and cost-compared the components on Macs to reach this conclusion! Why don't you list out those components and their retail prices so that we can all build out own $300 Mac equivalents (I'll even disregard the fact that Apple uses a more advanced EFI firmware on its motherboard rather than a typical PC BIOS)? Please do! Last thing I would want to do is call you out for LYING THROUGH YOU TEETH, right?



Uh, difference is that Life of Brian is a work of fiction, whereas Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior is fact, and documented in the public record using sworn testimony from company officials.

Figures that you would use a Monty Python reference, because your rants venture into that level of absurdity, albeit without the humor or coherency!



No one's faulting MS for creating standards via the Windows OS. Rather, the U.S. and E.U. court decisions against MS have entirely hinged on how MS uses their control over these standards to expand their market dominance into other markets. It's anti-competitive and illegal, and after court decision after court decision to that effect has gone against MS, they've had to settle numerous lawsuits (a de facto admission that they were not competing fairly or within the law) and agree to consent decrees in order to avoid more damaging penalties.



Difference though is that "every other business" does not abuse a desktop OS monopoly to gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage. MS used to claim that they had an internal "Chinese wall" separating their OS and applications divisions, and that they never gave any unfair advantages to their own applications to the detriment of competing applications. Yet, when put under oath during the U.S. anti-trust action, the MS officials admitted everything that competitors had suspected all along -- that MS' OS and applications divisions developed collaboratively to gain a competitive advantage, and that they purposely withheld information about the OS from other developers in order to ensure that competing products would not work optimally. That's not conspiracy, that's reality.



Yeah, and in the real world, that's why anti-trust laws exist, because monopolists like MS are willing to use their monopoly position to stifle competition and control the market.

So what good are those "laws"?
Microsoft is still here arent they?
So either they arent breaking any "laws" or such laws are useless.
Actually this just shows how clueless you are, "antitrust and other laws are used by the big boys to keep the competition out.
A.T.T run the biggest monopoly in history, so did the post office, they were PROTECTED by the govt.
As for the rest of your delusional rant I am not a fly swatter.
But I will guarentee that Microsoft will be around a long time, probably a lot longer than you, or Apple for that matter

[Woochifer]

So what good are those "laws"?
Microsoft is still here arent they?

And MS is operating under a consent decree that they are now trying to convince the federal judges to let expire. No laws = no consent decree

Many of the architectural changes and options to change the program defaults that got introduced in XP SP2 are a direct result to those decrees. And the fact that they've been submitting formats like VC-1 and OOXML to international standards committees for approval rather than simply forking proprietary extensions into Windows, is yet another indicator that these anti-trust decisions have forced them to be more above board with other companies.

Monopolies are allowed to continue operating all the time. If you think the purpose of anti-trust laws is to put monopolies out of business, then that's yet another clueless assumption among many. Then again, you seem to think that your inane ramblings somehow have something to do with "free market" libertarianism. If I were a libertarian, I'd be embarassed to be associated with the nonsense you write.

So either they arent breaking any "laws" or such laws are useless.

If they weren't breaking the law, MS wouldn't have been forced to settle those myriad lawsuits with Novell, Sun, AOL/Netscape, et al, and the E.U. wouldn't have levied a $1.3 billion fine against them just this week for violating the terms of their 2004 consent decree with the E.U. Your ignorance is just making this all too easy.

Actually this just shows how clueless you are, "antitrust and other laws are used by the big boys to keep the competition out.
A.T.T run the biggest monopoly in history, so did the post office, they were PROTECTED by the govt.

Uh, wasn't AT&T broken up by a government anti-trust action more than 20 years ago? Pretty clueless to use an example that actually contradicts you!

And by definition, the USPS is exempt from anti-trust actions. If you want the USPS to be subject to anti-trust? Then get your congressman to change the federal charter.

As for the rest of your delusional rant I am not a fly swatter.

In other words, you can't prove any of my points wrong!

Of course, that's not surprising considering that you make all these claims about Macs, yet don't even know the first thing about them. Oh right, you don't have time to "play" with them, but got plenty of time to ramble on about them!

Are you now going to tell me again that Apple doesn't make its source code available?

I challenged you to list out a $300 Mac equivalent, since you claim that Apple makes $300 computers that they overcharge for. Yet, this is all you have to offer in response?!

Well, thank you for proving me correct -- you were indeed LYING when you made that statement. Now, will you admit this, or are you not man enough to admit you're FLAT OUT WRONG? C'mon, it's not a sign of cowardice to admit to your failings ... you can do it ... DOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!! You were so close!

But I will guarentee that Microsoft will be around a long time, probably a lot longer than you, or Apple for that matter

Nice little nonsequiter, but that's not the topic, now is it?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And MS is operating under a consent decree that they are now trying to convince the federal judges to let expire. No laws = no consent decree

Many of the architectural changes and options to change the program defaults that got introduced in XP SP2 are a direct result to those decrees. And the fact that they've been submitting formats like VC-1 and OOXML to international standards committees for approval rather than simply forking proprietary extensions into Windows, is yet another indicator that these anti-trust decisions have forced them to be more above board with other companies.

Monopolies are allowed to continue operating all the time. If you think the purpose of anti-trust laws is to put monopolies out of business, then that's yet another clueless assumption among many. Then again, you seem to think that your inane ramblings somehow have something to do with "free market" libertarianism. If I were a libertarian, I'd be embarassed to be associated with the nonsense you write.



If they weren't breaking the law, MS wouldn't have been forced to settle those myriad lawsuits with Novell, Sun, AOL/Netscape, et al, and the E.U. wouldn't have levied a $1.3 billion fine against them just this week for violating the terms of their 2004 consent decree with the E.U. Your ignorance is just making this all too easy.



Uh, wasn't AT&T broken up by a government anti-trust action more than 20 years ago? Pretty clueless to use an example that actually contradicts you!

And by definition, the USPS is exempt from anti-trust actions. If you want the USPS to be subject to anti-trust? Then get your congressman to change the federal charter.



In other words, you can't prove any of my points wrong!

Of course, that's not surprising considering that you make all these claims about Macs, yet don't even know the first thing about them. Oh right, you don't have time to "play" with them, but got plenty of time to ramble on about them!

Are you now going to tell me again that Apple doesn't make its source code available?

I challenged you to list out a $300 Mac equivalent, since you claim that Apple makes $300 computers that they overcharge for. Yet, this is all you have to offer in response?!

Well, thank you for proving me correct -- you were indeed LYING when you made that statement. Now, will you admit this, or are you not man enough to admit you're FLAT OUT WRONG? C'mon, it's not a sign of cowardice to admit to your failings ... you can do it ... DOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!! You were so close!



Nice little nonsequiter, but that's not the topic, now is it?

Well, burnout pixel has really messed up this time messin wit my bro. Well, when pixelbutt gets turned to saw dust messin with Wooch, at least we can sweep up the scrapings and deposit them in the refuse. Or will it refuse?

[Woochifer]

Well, burnout pixel has really messed up this time messin wit my bro. Well, when pixelbutt gets turned to saw dust messin with Wooch, at least we can sweep up the scrapings and deposit them in the refuse. Or will it refuse?

We'll wait until he figures out that whole fly swatter thing before letting someone take ownership of the remains!

[kexodusc]

Well, burnout pixel has really messed up this time messin wit my bro. Well, when pixelbutt gets turned to saw dust messin with Wooch, at least we can sweep up the scrapings and deposit them in the refuse. Or will it refuse?

I'd say Wooch is schooling him, but that implies he's actually learning. Some people would rather cling the lie to save face than accept the truth and admit defeat.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'd say Wooch is schooling him, but that implies he's actually learning. Some people would rather cling the lie to save face than accept the truth and admit defeat.

Are you talkin about Pixelneck? Cause this sure describes him.

[kexodusc]

Are you talkin about Pixelneck? Cause this sure describes him.

Was there anyone else getting butt kicked by Wooch in the war of words??? He seems to have run off. Probably hasn't run into anyone with Wooch's endurance before.

[pixelthis]

Well, burnout pixel has really messed up this time messin wit my bro. Well, when pixelbutt gets turned to saw dust messin with Wooch, at least we can sweep up the scrapings and deposit them in the refuse. Or will it refuse?

Nobody asked for an opinion from the pointy headed section

[pixelthis]

[

you want a rebuttal you brainless nincompoop, well, you asked for it

Woochifer]And MS is operating under a consent decree that they are now trying to convince the federal judges to let expire. No laws = no consent decree

That "consent " decree was in leiu of real punishment

Many of the architectural changes and options to change the program defaults that got introduced in XP SP2 are a direct result to those decrees. And the fact that they've been submitting formats like VC-1 and OOXML to international standards committees for approval rather than simply forking proprietary extensions into Windows, is yet another indicator that these anti-trust decisions have forced them to be more above board with other companies.

As a matter of fact they have always been above board with other companies, you haven't offered anything to show otherwise

Monopolies are allowed to continue operating all the time. If you think the purpose of anti-trust laws is to put monopolies out of business, then that's yet another clueless assumption among many. Then again, you seem to think that your inane ramblings somehow have something to do with "free market" libertarianism. If I were a libertarian, I'd be embarassed to be associated with the nonsense you write.

Did you even read what I posted? This is exactly what I said.

Its a basic tenet of libertarianism that antitrust and other govt "laws" are there soley to protect the big boys, like when established automakers used these same laws to break up Tucker Motor company

If they weren't breaking the law, MS wouldn't have been forced to settle those myriad lawsuits with Novell, Sun, AOL/Netscape, et al, and the E.U. wouldn't have levied a $1.3 billion fine against them just this week for violating the terms of their 2004 consent decree with the E.U. Your ignorance is just making this all too easy.

Now I know you are really clueless, MICROSFT MAKES 30 BILLION A YEAR off of its operating system and thats not even a major income producer( preinsatalls on new computers is) If you think a 1.3 billion fine is more than a nuiscance to a company like Microsoft then you must still be in high school

Uh, wasn't AT&T broken up by a government anti-trust action more than 20 years ago? Pretty clueless to use an example that actually contradicts you!

ATT voluntarily GAVE UP their monopoly on telepony, don't tell me they didnt, I WAS THERE , you, however were probably a stain on your mamas side of the bed.ATT saw the future of the phone (cell) and gave up their mostly land line business so they could covertly dominate the cell industry with their "baby bells"

You really don't know ANYTHING DO YOU?



And by definition, the USPS is exempt from anti-trust actions. If you want the USPS to be subject to anti-trust? Then get your congressman to change the federal charter.

PROOF again of what I was saying, a monopoly can't exist without govt help.You don't need to keep arguing MY side, I can do fine by myself

In other words, you can't prove any of my points wrong!

A retarded baboon , even sir talky, could prove your "points' wrong, ass
except for the one on top of your head, that one points true north

Of course, that's not surprising considering that you make all these claims about Macs, yet don't even know the first thing about them. Oh right, you don't have time to "play" with them, but got plenty of time to ramble on about them!

You dont know "anything" about them either, or you wouldnt be using one.]I dont know anything about plumbing or other s***t associated thing either

Are you now going to tell me again that Apple doesn't make its source code available?

Who cares if they do or not? How many people actually use their idiotic operarting system? HACKERS dont even bother trying to hack it

I challenged you to list out a $300 Mac equivalent, since you claim that Apple makes $300 computers that they overcharge for. Yet, this is all you have to offer in response?!

Well, thank you for proving me correct -- you were indeed LYING when you made that statement. Now, will you admit this, or are you not man enough to admit you're FLAT OUT WRONG? C'mon, it's not a sign of cowardice to admit to your failings ... you can do it ... DOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!! You were so close!

When you are correct I will gladly defend you, but the only time you were "correct" was when you were quoting ME.And did you lose your virginity the other night?

OHHH NO! YOU WERE SO CLOSE!!!



Nice little nonsequiter, but that's not the topic, now is it?[/QUOTE]

Myself any other grownups will decide the "topic" punk

[pixelthis]

And yes Apple does make 300 $ computers, in fact they are worth even less because
a PC can outperform one , especially in video.
You are confusing the cost of making something with its value, you really are a child.

If you made a CHEVY IMPALLA for a million dollars you still wouldnt be able to sell it for that, it would still be worth what a regular chevy is.
Doesnt matter if a Apple has gold plated britches, it STILL aint worth more than a
300$ pc
INDEED, A 300$ pc MIGHT BE WORTH more

[kexodusc]

Pixie, my boy, you aren't making any sense at all...

Now I know you are really clueless, MICROSFT MAKES 30 BILLION A YEAR off of its operating system and thats not even a major income producer( preinsatalls on new computers is) If you think a 1.3 billion fine is more than a nuiscance to a company like Microsoft then you must still be in high school

Explain to us how preinstalls is excluded from the OS sales?

Second, MS doesn't make $30 billion a year...they're doing alright around the $12-14 B mark but let's not get excited and make up big numbers here, mmmkay...and that's off all operations, not just windows.

Don't downplay the significance of those fines either...MS stock has plummeted some 27% since November....most companies don't get fined 10-15% of their profits in a given year. $1.3 Billion in fines isn't exactly maximizing ROI for shareholders is it?

They'd better smarten up...bit by bit their core businesses are slipping through their fingers. They can't grow their core operations, so they're trying to expand into other industries with the likes of Xbox, Zune etc. People are wising up to their forced-obsolescence model too.

Investors certainly seem to have lost a bit of faith...things aren't going to get any easier for the bad boys from Redmond either.

[Woochifer]

you want a rebuttal you brainless nincompoop, well, you asked for it

Too bad you're not really providing a real rebuttal. Just a bunch of irrational rants disguising the fact that you don't know squat about the subjects I brought up.

That "consent " decree was in leiu of real punishment

Hey Einstein, that's the whole point of a consent decree -- MS accepted those terms voluntarily so that they wouldn't get harsher terms imposed on them involuntarily. If they were doing nothing wrong or illegal, why would they agree to have their operations tied down by those terms?

As a matter of fact they have always been above board with other companies, you haven't offered anything to show otherwise

Swing and a miss ... strike 45 and counting!

If they were always above board, then why would they settle lawsuits with Netscape, Novell, Sun et al rather than let them go to trial? If they got both the facts and the law on their side, then presumably those lawsuits would get tossed out at the first opportunity, right?

Its a basic tenet of libertarianism that antitrust and other govt "laws" are there soley to protect the big boys, like when established automakers used these same laws to break up Tucker Motor company

So that explains the anti-trust actions over the years that include Standard Oil, IBM, Microsoft, and other non "big boys" right?

And BTW, Tucker was not a monopoly and the government never broke up the company. It was an SEC fraud investigation, and Tucker was ultimately acquited. And if govt laws in general exist solely to protect the "big boys" then why have so many smaller companies successfully won court decisions and settlements against Microsoft? By your so-called libertarian logic, Microsoft would have simply crushed all of those suits out of hand since govt. laws would have protected MS, right? Ho hum, just another effort to turn your delusions into facts. Oh well, try and try again. One of these days, you'll get something right!

Now I know you are really clueless, MICROSFT MAKES 30 BILLION A YEAR off of its operating system and thats not even a major income producer( preinsatalls on new computers is) If you think a 1.3 billion fine is more than a nuiscance to a company like Microsoft then you must still be in high school

Aside from the BS figure you pulled out of your backside (as kex pointed out, their profits last year were more in the $14 billion range), the point you keep missing is that this fine is on top of whatever restrictions the E.U. imposed on them as part of a 2004 consent decree. Their stock performance over the past few years indicates that investors aren't very bullish on the direction that the company is going in to begin with. A fine that's close to 10% of their annual profits doesn't help their P-E ratio very much.

ATT voluntarily GAVE UP their monopoly on telepony, don't tell me they didnt, I WAS THERE

Oh really, so you were in AT&T's executive offices when they "voluntarily" gave up their phone monopoly? Just you like "you were there" when Apple was developing the GUI and MS was developing Windows? Let's not get full of ourselves, especially when you're the clueless one wearing the empty suit.

, you, however were probably a stain on your mamas side of the bed.

Try again.

ATT saw the future of the phone (cell) and gave up their mostly land line business so they could covertly dominate the cell industry with their "baby bells"

Problem in your fantastical scenario is that you've overlooked one basic fact -- it was the government that filed the anti-trust against AT&T to begin with! You really think that AT&T would have been broken up in the absence of an anti-trust suit? Oh right, monopolies don't exist in your libertarian fantasyland.

You also forgot that the U.S. anti-trust action originated in 1974 and AT&T fought it for years. It was only when they wanted to enter the personal computer market that the parent company agreed to break up terms.

You really don't know ANYTHING DO YOU?

Nope, nothing but the facts.

PROOF again of what I was saying, a monopoly can't exist without govt help.You don't need to keep arguing MY side, I can do fine by myself

Actually, you need all the help you can get.

A retarded baboon , even sir talky, could prove your "points' wrong, ass
except for the one on top of your head, that one points true north

So, you're saying that your mental acuity can't outduel a "retarded baboon"? You haven't successfully refuted a single point that I've brought up, yet even a baboon by pure random chance can come up with the right answer at some interval.

You dont know "anything" about them either, or you wouldnt be using one.

Actually, I know plenty about Macs BECAUSE I use them. I also know plenty about Windows PCs and servers BECAUSE I use them. You on the other hand, know NOTHING about Macs, as you've clearly demonstrated. Yet, in your delusional haze, you still feel obligated to try challenging me anyway. Always sad to see someone that thinks they can engage in a battle of wits without the proper armament, or in your case, any armament at all.

I dont know anything about plumbing or other s***t associated thing either

You've clearly demonstrated that you don't know anything about a lot of things.

Who cares if they do or not?

Well, you apparently care if Apple releases this source code, since you were the one that claimed Apple didn't.

How many people actually use their idiotic operarting system?

Plenty. The only idiots are the ones like you who think they are experts on the Mac OS without actually using it.

HACKERS dont even bother trying to hack it

They've tried, but nothing has ever come of it partly due to the built-in security safeguards associated with using a UNIX-based OS. Of course, you wouldn't know this since you've never used OS X and seen how secure the default setups are, and how the application space and system core are kept well separated from one another. Unlike in Windows, you can't damage your system or install malware by simply opening an executable file or clicking on an Active X link.

When you are correct I will gladly defend you, but the only time you were "correct" was when you were quoting ME.

Spin spin spin. Just won't own up to your lies, will you?

And did you lose your virginity the other night?

Nope, many years before the other night. Judging by the pent-up testosterone emanating from your keyboard, I'm not so sure you've lost yours. At your age, you should write a movie about this -- Steve Carell's got nothing on you.

Myself any other grownups will decide the "topic" punk

Punk? Just pointing out when you switch the subject to avoid taking responsibility for your own nonsense. No need to whine when you get called out for it, right?

And yes Apple does make 300 $ computers, in fact they are worth even less because
a PC can outperform one , especially in video.

So tell me once again, how can I make a $300 Mac? I'll even give you $300 if you can prove to me that a consumer can build one for that cost. You keep claiming that these $300 Macs exist, yet I can't find one or even tally up an equivalent. The parts equivalents on newegg.com by my tally come up higher than $300, so maybe you've got a different source that you can point us to. Time to put up or shut up.

You are confusing the cost of making something with its value, you really are a child.

Actually, you're dumber than my child, since you can't even admit that your point was entirely about "cost" and I called your bluff for the lie that it is. If you want to associate "value" with your stupid cost example, then the Mac is worth even more than a Windows PC for the time that it saves, the extra security that it provides, the more stable and enjoyable user experience, etc. But, of course you wouldn't know this, given your overall ignorance of OS X.

If you made a CHEVY IMPALLA for a million dollars you still wouldnt be able to sell it for that, it would still be worth what a regular chevy is.

Stupid example given that off-the-shelf parts for building PCs are readily available, those parts are readily transplanted from one model to another (PCs and Macs share many core components in common, but you can't transfer body or drivetrain parts from an Impala onto an Accord) and assembling one does not require specialized equipment or manufacturing processes.

Doesnt matter if a Apple has gold plated britches, it STILL aint worth more than a
300$ pc
INDEED, A 300$ pc MIGHT BE WORTH more

Well, to you it might be worth more, since you're content with ignoring any other options outside of whatever MS shoves down your throat. Those of us who actually know how OS X operates, and how its advantages stack up against Windows, are in better position to actually assess the real world "value" of a Mac.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nobody asked for an opinion from the pointy headed section

Ohh, you manged to pull your head out of yer bum and speak up huh? I say stick it back in, it is better at guarding your colon than it is trying to respond to anything that is audio or video related.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Was there anyone else getting butt kicked by Wooch in the war of words??? He seems to have run off. Probably hasn't run into anyone with Wooch's endurance before.

War......words.....can I play?