The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
How Do I Setup/Configure a PC to Run Like a Mac
Old 22nd September 2011
  #181
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosleepPDX View Post
P.P.S.

Also, as far as looks of the physical machine / tower, I personally don't like to keep mine visible. The only things I / the client sees, are the keyboard trackball and monitor. If they were to go look at the tower its simply solid black.

Sorry if that's off topic but it seems like the inability to make a machine that looks like a Mac (with everything built into the monitor etc.) is an important point, but I would make the argument that I would want anything that can be out of sight to be that way, which is possible with a PC tower in a studio environment.

--Adam

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Gearslutz.com App
I've never understood why people want to keep their tower or other case in view -- particularly on the desktop.* I keep my tower under my work table. It's very quiet to begin with. Under the desk it's effectively quieter than my very quiet laptop on the lowest fan setting. And my work table only has a mouse, keyboard and monitor on it.

As far as an all in one case like the iMac or other, similar all-in-one form factors, it's an interesting design challenge and if you're truly short on space, well, there you go. But it seems, at least sometimes, to make for an unsightly desktop with bunches of wires dangling from that nice big form factor. The iMac I use most frequently looks like a medusa. And that's all up on the desk with cables going in all directions to peripherals. No doubt, it could be dealt with differently. But, for me, with space under my work desk, having the tower out of sight, with cabling to peripherals out of sight (except for the keyboard, mouse, and monitor, of course) works nicely.


Obviously, of course, those are form factor issues, not platform issues, since other makers have iMac like all-in-ones as well.


*The craziest thing was the notion of putting the 'tower' horizontal on the desktop and putting the monitor on top of that... What kind of anti-ergonomic insanity was that?!? Tilting your head back and up just to see the monitor? (I suppose it all works out if you have bifocals that force you to read through the very bottom of your lenses. But it's gonna kill your neck, sooner or later.*) My very first computer back in the mid 80s, the case went under the desk and the monitor stand sat directly on the desk so I could look down at a slight angle. I can't believe it took so long for people to get the picture on that. I still see some computers set up like that, particularly when I help my mom's friends or neighbors.


*How about this for a theory? Maybe some forms of senile dementia aren't actually Alzheimer's or related brain diseases but rather a cutoff of blood flow to the brain caused by tilting the head back in order to read through bifocals? (OK... I didn't say it was a serious theory.)
Old 22nd September 2011
  #182
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nosleepPDX View Post
Alot of what you're paying for is the brand, but it seems like Mac users are fairly open to this interpretation of late. There's a look and feel and community to Apple and to an extent you pay for that brand (we all agree on this right? [Probably not I guess...])
This is complete nonsense. Case in point: the Cube was one of the best looking, best designed Macs ever, but never sold, because it was too expensive for the tech it was offering. Mac users did not buy it, regardless of brand recognition and visual design.

'Design' is a lot more than visuals. It includes things like rigidity, motor memory, workflow, etc.

When you compare prices: include the software. How much is a SAN file system if you have to purchase it separately? Developer tools? Good movie editing software? Good font management software?

You also pay for innovation. Someone has to come up with an interface like the iPhone's first, before you can offer a cheap, crappy copy that does not respond properly to gestures.
Old 22nd September 2011
  #183
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xill View Post
I think we pretty much always get what we paid for in the computer and professional audio equipment world.
Very much agree with that. Regarding any kind of equipment. Some boutique guitars and amps are in a whole different class than standard gear. But - if you cannot play, you won't notice any difference.
Old 22nd September 2011
  #184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xill View Post
[...]

I think we pretty much always get what we paid for in the computer and professional audio equipment world.
I do note you use the qualifier pretty much...

But if that was always the case, we wouldn't have to find out anything about the products we buy -- we could just go to a vendor or flip open a catalog, pick out the most expensive pieces of kit available and know we were getting the very best gear.

I definitely think it makes very good sense to buy the best pieces your gear budget affords -- once you've figured out appropriate proportions and or a complementary upgrade-over-time strategy -- but those are not always the most expensive -- and sometimes by a long shot.

It's relatively easy to find overpriced -- sometimes wildly overpriced -- computer and pro audio gear that is not just not a bargain, but that is surpassed by less expensive gear.

I can personally attest to the possibility of spending two arms and three legs on a computer and getting screwed. Why did it happen? Because I didn't do my homework. I took outside advice by buying an editor's choice machine from a boutique vendor I had previously been unaware of (and would soon swear to never do business with again, ever). I didn't educate myself as to the particulars.

It was my second computer and I thought that by plunking down what was, at the time, enough money to buy a decent used car (or a new Yugo just about) I would be assuring myself of good performance that wouldn't be outmoded soon enough. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

What ended up happening was that I ended up with so much invested in that machine that I hung onto it -- despite numerous problems that I'd later trace back to its design (once I'd gained a little knowledge) -- long after a much smaller investment would have bought me a far superior machine. (And when I did end up replacing it, it was with a machine that ended up costing about 1/10th as much, not counting monitor. And it was a far better machine.)
Old 23rd September 2011
  #185
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
This is complete nonsense. Case in point: the Cube was one of the best looking, best designed Macs ever, but never sold, because it was too expensive for the tech it was offering. Mac users did not buy it, regardless of brand recognition and visual design.

'Design' is a lot more than visuals. It includes things like rigidity, motor memory, workflow, etc.

When you compare prices: include the software. How much is a SAN file system if you have to purchase it separately? Developer tools? Good movie editing software? Good font management software?

You also pay for innovation. Someone has to come up with an interface like the iPhone's first, before you can offer a cheap, crappy copy that does not respond properly to gestures.
So you are saying that Apple do NOT have a huge profit margin on everything because they can charge for the brand? So how do you explain this: Apple cash on hand: $76 billion. US Treasury: $74 billion. - CSMonitor.com



Alistair
Old 23rd September 2011
  #186
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I do note you use the qualifier pretty much...

But if that was always the case, we wouldn't have to find out anything about the products we buy -- we could just go to a vendor or flip open a catalog, pick out the most expensive pieces of kit available and know we were getting the very best gear.
With always the exact same profit margin for the manufacturers and resellers...

That is of course a preposterous idea. Just one of those platitudes people throw around in lieu of engaging their brains.

Quote:
It's relatively easy to find overpriced -- sometimes wildly overpriced -- computer and pro audio gear that is not just not a bargain, but that is surpassed by less expensive gear.
Or just go to a price watch site and see hugely differing prices for exactly the same product. I remember once looking up external drives and noticed one LaCie drive that was up to four times as expensive depending which shop you bought it at. Clearly you are not getting four times more for your money.

Alistair
Old 23rd September 2011
  #187
Lives for gear
 
charlieclouser's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
So you are saying that Apple do NOT have a huge profit margin on everything because they can charge for the brand? So how do you explain this: Apple cash on hand: $76 billion. US Treasury: $74 billion. - CSMonitor.com



Alistair
Here's how you explain it: MAP (minimum advertised price). You'll notice that Macs are never available deeply discounted, no matter where you look. Most of the big Mac retailers will basically charge the same price that the Apple website charges, although to try to make a deal they will often throw in a crappy printer or some off-brand RAM. Even with my "5-up" "pro" deal at my favorite audio dealer (who are also authorized Mac resellers) I can't get more than 5% or so off the list price. Every other brand I can buy for 5% above dealer cost, or around 60% of list - but Macs still cost me 95% of list price.

So there's that...

But the big pile of cash that Apple's sitting on is mainly from their consumer-line products; iPhone, iPad, iAnything... the high-end machines don't move enough volume to account for the billions in cash that Apple's hoarding.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #188
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlieclouser View Post
Here's how you explain it: MAP (minimum advertised price). You'll notice that Macs are never available deeply discounted, no matter where you look. Most of the big Mac retailers will basically charge the same price that the Apple website charges, although to try to make a deal they will often throw in a crappy printer or some off-brand RAM. Even with my "5-up" "pro" deal at my favorite audio dealer (who are also authorized Mac resellers) I can't get more than 5% or so off the list price. Every other brand I can buy for 5% above dealer cost, or around 60% of list - but Macs still cost me 95% of list price.
You havn't explained anything. Just that they don't budge on their large margin.

Quote:
But the big pile of cash that Apple's sitting on is mainly from their consumer-line products; iPhone, iPad, iAnything... the high-end machines don't move enough volume to account for the billions in cash that Apple's hoarding.
They certainly make a lot of their money on the consumer side but I'm quite sure they also have rather large margins on all the Mac products too.

Alistair
Old 23rd September 2011
  #189
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlieclouser View Post
Here's how you explain it: MAP (minimum advertised price). You'll notice that Macs are never available deeply discounted, no matter where you look. Most of the big Mac retailers will basically charge the same price that the Apple website charges, although to try to make a deal they will often throw in a crappy printer or some off-brand RAM. Even with my "5-up" "pro" deal at my favorite audio dealer (who are also authorized Mac resellers) I can't get more than 5% or so off the list price. Every other brand I can buy for 5% above dealer cost, or around 60% of list - but Macs still cost me 95% of list price.

So there's that...

But the big pile of cash that Apple's sitting on is mainly from their consumer-line products; iPhone, iPad, iAnything... the high-end machines don't move enough volume to account for the billions in cash that Apple's hoarding.
Apple resellers simply don't get any margin to deal with. Even without MAP (as in Europe, illegal here), there is no "headroom" for price stunts.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #190
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
This is complete nonsense. Case in point: the Cube was one of the best looking, best designed Macs ever, but never sold, because it was too expensive for the tech it was offering. Mac users did not buy it, regardless of brand recognition and visual design.

'Design' is a lot more than visuals. It includes things like rigidity, motor memory, workflow, etc.

When you compare prices: include the software. How much is a SAN file system if you have to purchase it separately? Developer tools? Good movie editing software? Good font management software?

You also pay for innovation. Someone has to come up with an interface like the iPhone's first, before you can offer a cheap, crappy copy that does not respond properly to gestures.
I don't mean this point as an insult. The reason I included that Mac owners seem open to this interpretation of late is because friends of mine say that want it for just the fact that its apple too. And that's something i understand. Its a reason I see as making sense to a certain extent. Even the in store "Genius" (this is the name right?) customer service is different than you'll get from another brand.

Its apple that makes that happen. HP or Dell or any company that makes windows machines, ime, has never provided an end User customer experience that is as defined as Apple's. At least not that exists in the now.

You would theoretically experience the same situation when buying any product, right? Cars, clothes.

I'm NOT saying you pay only because of brand, I think that's dismissive. Only partly for it, which I think is fine. Especially if you do want a Mac. By no means do I think the company survives on only that basis.

Really, I don't want to fan any flames

The editing etc software you mentioned, which is not applicable to a DAW but I will address, would currently still be cheaper if you had invested in Adobe or something on a previous windows machine and continued to upgrade for a fraction of the price. But Macs don't come with wildly fabulous font management software or movie editing that couldnt be similarly obtained for free (or smaller price from buying a windows 7 PC..) on a PC. That is absolutely NOT the ticket into OSX on its own; though it is cool, and, again I like the system alot and things are setup well, that is equally involved in brand as anything! (E.g. when you get a Mac you get -blank-)

Again I just don't mean that as an insult. I feel like Mac owners proudly do buy Mac, and its a good product so that's something to be happy about; right? Its getting your job done thus far...
Old 23rd September 2011
  #191
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
So you are saying that Apple do NOT have a huge profit margin on everything because they can charge for the brand? So how do you explain this: Apple cash on hand: $76 billion. US Treasury: $74 billion. - CSMonitor.com



Alistair
Not at all, we were talking about why Mac users choose Macs, not about profit margins. Completely unrelated.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #192
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Not at all, we were talking about why Mac users choose Macs, not about profit margins. Completely unrelated.
The bigger the profit margin, the less you are paying for what you get. It is quite a simple concept really. (Remember, any R&D is part of the cost, not the profit margin).

Alistair
Old 23rd September 2011
  #193
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Not at all, we were talking about why Mac users choose Macs, not about profit margins. Completely unrelated.
Correction, *you* have been talking about why "Mac users choose Macs", or maybe more particularly why you do.

This thread however has had quite a variety of discussion revolving around themes related to but not directly intersecting how to "setup/configure a PC to Run Like a Mac". However since the OP still hasn't chimed in to explain exactly what was meant by that question, color me unsurprised this thread is still running with the ball in whatever direction posters see fit heh

And personally I choose Macs for Logic and Final Cut, and Windows for Softimage and a few other apps that still run better on Windows (Scope DSP software, Wavelab 5/6, Soundforge etc) because those are the ones that are specifically unavailable on the other platform.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #194
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
So you are saying that Apple do NOT have a huge profit margin on everything because they can charge for the brand? So how do you explain this: Apple cash on hand: $76 billion. US Treasury: $74 billion. - CSMonitor.com



Alistair
Not saying that Apple products don't carry a large profit margin, but there are specific reasons why Apple are sitting on so much cash:

For one, the stock has been so consistently in the black that they have not paid out dividends to their shareholders, nor have their shareholders demanded dividends.

Apple have not made any large mergers or acquisitions, perhaps biding their time for the big one, as they are about 75% of the way to being able to purchase Google.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #195
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
The bigger the profit margin, the less you are paying for what you get. It is quite a simple concept really. (Remember, any R&D is part of the cost, not the profit margin).

Alistair
Did you actually mean the bigger the profit margin, the more you are paying for what you get?
This is a little simplistic. I linked to this article earlier, it's about trying and failing to find a PC replacement for a MacBook Air at the same price point. It has some good explanations on why Apple can keep prices for MacBook Airs lower than competing PCs with a similar feature set. Same is true for the iPad. Part of keeping the profit margin high is keeping production cost low, etc.

Regarding prices, have a look at software prices as well. Developer Tools are free (the competition charges thousands for comparable tools), SAN is free with Lion (again, thousands for comparable software), Apple's Server OS goes for $50, Aperture for $80, Motion for $50 - these are pro level apps.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #196
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
Not saying that Apple products don't carry a large profit margin, but there are specific reasons why Apple are sitting on so much cash:

For one, the stock has been so consistently in the black that they have not paid out dividends to their shareholders, nor have their shareholders demanded dividends.

Apple have not made any large mergers or acquisitions, perhaps biding their time for the big one, as they are about 75% of the way to being able to purchase Google.
If I remember correctly, Tim Cook has also made some significant changes to the supply chain in the last 10 years, also to keep cost down, and margins up..
Old 23rd September 2011
  #197
Lives for gear
 
ritelec's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaPi61 View Post
Every time there's a thread like this (someone asking for PC help), there's always a mac fanatic coming here to tell us that Win 7 is oh-so-bad and that he has a "friend" whose virus-riddled PC explodes three times a day. Just give it up, keep your precious mac but don't come here to belittle people who make different choices.
I'll keep my precious mac


And the 3 dead pc's sitting in storage...heh.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #198
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

I've never seen a PC explode, but I have seen stats from 2010 and 2011 where PCs were scanned for malware on a large scale, and found that 48% and 50% of the computers were infected.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #199
Lives for gear
 
ritelec's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
but I have seen stats from 2010 and 2011 where PCs were scanned for malware on a large scale, and found that 48% and 50% of the computers were infected.
I would have been in the 2000-2007 stats...heh
Old 23rd September 2011
  #200
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Did you actually mean the bigger the profit margin, the more you are paying for what you get?
No but it is indeed an ambiguous sentence as it stands so I should clarify by saying: The higher the profit margin the less your are paying for the actual product a.k.a "what you get". A larger percentage is going to other things. It could be the brand or, in the case of scarce resources, a premium for scarcity etc.

Alistair
Old 23rd September 2011
  #201
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
I've never seen a PC explode, but I have seen stats from 2010 and 2011 where PCs were scanned for malware on a large scale, and found that 48% and 50% of the computers were infected.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #202
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
I've never seen a PC explode, but I have seen stats from 2010 and 2011 where PCs were scanned for malware on a large scale, and found that 48% and 50% of the computers were infected.
I read the ZDNet article and looked through the linked PDF for 3Q 2009.

A couple of observations: those numbers appear to be raw percentages of machines scanned by Panda Software's scanning service. So, we can assume that the people who go there already have reason to believe they may be infected.

But it's especially important to note that no real information on what constituted an 'infected' machine appears to be offered -- and it appears that they may be counting tracking cookies and phishing attempt emails as 'infections.' (It's certainly not unreasonable to count such inert threats -- but lumping them together with active infections makes the value of the overall number not very helpful -- except perhaps to motivate people to buy security software.)

It's perhaps worth further consideration that Panda has about 3.2% of the anti-malware marketshare.


EDIT: Just caught up with the second link in the quoted post, which is actually from Panda, itself, and offers more information on breakdown of malware found by their online scans. But, once again, when interpreting these numbers, it's crucial to understand that this is not representative of all computers -- but is rather based only on those people using Panda's own online scan -- and it's an entirely reasonable supposition that most of the folks going out of their way to use it probably felt they had a reason to worry.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #203
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
50% of computers is just a rediculous statistic, certainly it's in the interest of AV companies to promote the use of their software. Most 'malware' scanners including Spybot, Malwarebytes, Ad-aware and so on do report cookies as malware, which makes users who use them think 'ah great this sotware is actually working' but it is rather misleading as those same cookies will wind up on your machine regardless of OS, unless you take measures on a per browser basis to deal with them. And of course tracking cookies are just a simple text file...

If you're 'scared' of 'catching something' just by owning a PC, or somehow feel better owning all Macs...well just as with any other B.S. (belief system) you can always find people to agree with you and make you feel comfortable. I've owned at least one Mac from every 2-3 years since the AppleIIe, and the same goes for "PCs" having bought in with a hand-me-down Compaq 'luggable' 8086 from my Dad, through 286/386/486/pentium/ppro/p2 xeon/p3 xeon/prestonia xeon/harpertown xeon and hopefully soon an Ivy Bridge xeon....and have yet to see a virus. If that 50% statistic was at all realistic I must be one lucky sod.

Btw for the 'dead pc' posts...it's worth mentioning that my 2007/2008 Macbook Pro got a refurb thanks to a failed 8600gt Nvidia chip (thankfully they *finally* acknowledged those issues, I spent 6 months dealing with an unresponsive Applecare support queue until Nvidia owned up to the issue--before someone mentions how 'great' Applecare can be...) And before that my "early 2006" CoreDuo iMac developed the 'vertical lines' issue thanks to a similar problem with the previous generation ATI chipset it uses for graphics (x1300 chip also comes desoldered, both Nvidia & ATI got boned by TSMC on that one). Applecare supposedly would trade it out had there been an Apple store here in town, but we didn't get one until this year and I was liable for shipping and potential repair costs without the issue being validated...so I still have that lemon sitting here. Not one of my "PCs" has suffered similar failure. In fact I can only recall maybe having 1-2 harddrive failures and symptoms of a 5v line on a PSU indicating that it was sagging in voltage so that PSU got replaced (and RMA'd for free by PC Power&Cooling) long before it failed.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #204
Lives for gear
 
inthere's Avatar
 

Also, one could say Norton has an interest in reporting a million plus viruses for the PC.

It does however seem that the infections rate is much higher than what Microsoft reported. 22 million is a pretty big sample.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #205
Gear Addict
 

Here's how you don't get viruses on a pc:

#1) Keep your software legal
#2) Stay off porn/shady websites
#3) Don't click email links from people you don't know

Done. You won't even need anti virus software.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #206
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

I agree that stats about worldwide malware infections have to be taken with a pinch of salt. They did scan 22 million computers, which seems to be a significant enough number to provide some meaningful results. On the other hand, anyone selling antivirus software obviously has an interest in creating a market for their product.

That being said - even if these stats are off by as much as 50%, this does not look too favorable for Windows boxes.
Old 24th September 2011
  #207
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
I agree that stats about worldwide malware infections have to be taken with a pinch of salt. They did scan 22 million computers, which seems to be a significant enough number to provide some meaningful results. On the other hand, anyone selling antivirus software obviously has an interest in creating a market for their product.

That being said - even if these stats are off by as much as 50%, this does not look too favorable for Windows boxes.
Like valis said, most of those "infections" were tracking cookies. Mac users don't scan for them and they don't find them. That doesn't mean they don't have them. Proof that on a PC you're actually more secure because you have software that scans for everything. Mac users, meanwhile, get all sort of spyware and they don't even know it. Because they don't use any protection.
Old 24th September 2011
  #208
Lives for gear
 
ritelec's Avatar
 

Mac protection here.

MacKeeper Official Website

oh.....and valis....., Apple care would have taken care of it. They've been very good to me and others I know, and by your post, if you had sent it out, it would have been fixed.


Mac? PC? who cares! Lets go out and make some music!
Old 24th September 2011
  #209
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthere View Post
Also, one could say Norton has an interest in reporting a million plus viruses for the PC.

It does however seem that the infections rate is much higher than what Microsoft reported. 22 million is a pretty big sample.
It's not a sample -- as in the sort of random sample one would take to conduct a scientific survey.

It's a subpopulation who presumably believe they need to go out of their way to use Panda's online scanning service.

But by similar token, the Microsoft numbers reflect only people getting either the regular automatic update or visiting MS to update their OS and other MS software.

So that subpopulation of computer users would tend to more reflect the folks who do get regular automatic updates -- or, at least, those, like me, who undertake the updates at their own initiative (but who may then, presumably, be slightly more susceptible to malware).

So it's not too much surprise that you would get very different results from those populations.


Now, one last thing, that Panda report noted they found a significant number of classic viruses. This flies in the face of what I read (yes, I actually read computer security news, it's not fun but someone's gotta do it) -- for modern machines and OS's. So, I'm thinking that one possible/likely implication might be that the Panda user population may reflect a higher percentage of people using older OS versions that are more susceptible to and targeted by classic viruses.

(A classic virus actually infects system or other files and uses them to do its work and replicate -- examples are the classic boot sector viruses that first appeared on the Apple II and were more than a bit of a pain for Windows users through the 90s. Script/macro based malware was sometimes classified as viral, as well, particularly auto-run macros. Trojans are discrete programs that trick computer owners into loading and running them. Worms are discrete programs that move across networks or connected devices, such as USB/thumb drives, etc. One thing worth noting, though: malware is malware, however it works, whatever the semantic descriptions. If it's designed to steal your data, your computer's resources, or just put a stupid picture on your screen, it's not good.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ritelec View Post
[...]


Mac? PC? who cares! Lets go out and make some music!
I'm for that!
Old 24th September 2011
  #210
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ritelec View Post
oh.....and valis....., Apple care would have taken care of it. They've been very good to me and others I know, and by your post, if you had sent it out, it would have been fixed.
The problem was that Apple didn't officially acknowledge the issue until TSMC did, and then ATI did, and *then* Apple did and offered free fixes but at that point my machine was already out of use and had fully 'died' 6 months earlier (the screen had so many issues it was basically unusable). So until that official acknowledgement came, you had to take it to a genius and have them acknowledge the problem in a store or you were potentially liable for shipping and repair costs (since the problem wasn't yet offiically acknowledged). I could have paid to ship it after that fact and probably been reimbursed once the issue was confirmed to be the known one, but that machine was slow enough I had just moved on anyway.

Anyway the complaint wasn't about Applecare, I mentioned that parenthetically because it's the first thing an Apple user will bring up. My point was that (since Apple uses the SAME hardware as everyone else) even Apple has products that fail and is subject to the same supply issues as anyone else. The iPhone 5's capacitive screen for instance was supposedly delayed 4-6 months by Fukishima...which doesn't mean it impacted the launch date (maybe by a month) but it does mean that their on hand stockpile may be still not on their offically projected targets for the launch date...affecting availability.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump