Mark Haase <no@spam.please> writes:

> unjustified expenses) to many. (Even at $800, the eMac might be a great
> deal, but its still too much for some families. Why else would Walmart
> sell a $200 Lindows machine??) You know its true, and I know its true,

It's not really quite close to true. To make that $200 machine
usable - at all - requires at least the salvage of some other
hardware (possibly off of another machine that one is about to
dump).

I went the cheap-pc route for a linux box for the house. The
basic machine at $399 was pretty slick, but before it was
in any way usable, I had to dump another $150 in ram and a
video card, salvage a monitor, etc. Top to bottom, the eMac,
which includes MacOS, rather than Linux/Lindows (which while
interesting are still not really useful to most end users),
is really not a substantially more expensive choice. A
comparable Windows machine costs very close to the same.

> Personally, I don't have the money to buy a new G5, and I won't for at
> least a couple of years, but I am basically a minimalist when it comes

The G5s are interesting, but I don't see myself getting another
desktop machine like that any time soon. The real demand explosion
will come with that chip gets into the notebooks, I think.

And, of course, the elimination of the G3s. Last ones left
are the iBooks, no? Given the 12" powerbook with its recent
price drop, we're almost there.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

On 24 Jun 2003 15:01:43 -0400, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

>Mark Haase <no@spam.please> writes:
>
>> unjustified expenses) to many. (Even at $800, the eMac might be a great
>> deal, but its still too much for some families. Why else would Walmart
>> sell a $200 Lindows machine??) You know its true, and I know its true,
>
>It's not really quite close to true. To make that $200 machine
>usable - at all - requires at least the salvage of some other
>hardware (possibly off of another machine that one is about to
>dump).

Please explain how a 128MB Linux machine (AMD 1.1 Ghz) with CDROM and
10GB (20GB?) HDD is unusable. Please bear in mind that was a fairly
high end machine in the Wintel world just 3 years ago.

>I went the cheap-pc route for a linux box for the house. The
>basic machine at $399 was pretty slick, but before it was
>in any way usable, I had to dump another $150 in ram and a
>video card, salvage a monitor, etc. Top to bottom, the eMac,
>which includes MacOS, rather than Linux/Lindows (which while
>interesting are still not really useful to most end users),
>is really not a substantially more expensive choice. A
>comparable Windows machine costs very close to the same.

$200 for the Lindows box, plus $100 for a 17" monitor (Staples and
Office Depot have specials from time to time) is still just $300 -
pretty cheap.

>> Personally, I don't have the money to buy a new G5, and I won't for at
>> least a couple of years, but I am basically a minimalist when it comes
>
>The G5s are interesting, but I don't see myself getting another
>desktop machine like that any time soon. The real demand explosion
>will come with that chip gets into the notebooks, I think.
>
>And, of course, the elimination of the G3s. Last ones left
>are the iBooks, no? Given the 12" powerbook with its recent
>price drop, we're almost there.

Just $600 to go - or 60% more than the base iBook.

foo <foo@bar.com> writes:
> On 24 Jun 2003 15:01:43 -0400, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
>
> >Mark Haase <no@spam.please> writes:
> >
> >> unjustified expenses) to many. (Even at $800, the eMac might be a great
> >> deal, but its still too much for some families. Why else would Walmart
> >> sell a $200 Lindows machine??) You know its true, and I know its true,
> >
> >It's not really quite close to true. To make that $200 machine
> >usable - at all - requires at least the salvage of some other
> >hardware (possibly off of another machine that one is about to
> >dump).
>
> Please explain how a 128MB Linux machine (AMD 1.1 Ghz) with CDROM and
> 10GB (20GB?) HDD is unusable. Please bear in mind that was a fairly
> high end machine in the Wintel world just 3 years ago.

At a minimum, add more RAM. Probably have to add a video card
with its own video memory, too. Typical $200 machine uses
motherboard RAM for video and video's crap. There's another
$100 or so additional right there.

> >which includes MacOS, rather than Linux/Lindows (which while
> >interesting are still not really useful to most end users),

> $200 for the Lindows box, plus $100 for a 17" monitor (Staples and
> Office Depot have specials from time to time) is still just $300 -
> pretty cheap.

Toss in the $100 for hardware, and another $100 for an OS -
I use Linux daily - I'm on it now - but I'm not delusional
enough to consider it usable for general purpose end-user
activities. Until I'd be willing to let set my mom up with
an OS, it's not ready. Windows barely makes it. OS X has
been working like a charm.

Your $200 machine is now $500.

> Just $600 to go - or 60% more than the base iBook.

Of course, the bottom-end eMac comes with a pitiful 128MB
ram, too, so you'd have to bump that up from $800 to $900
to get a decent, usable machine. But it also comes with
a 40GB drive. Toss another $100 onto your $200 machine
to bring the drive up to there.

Your $600 cheapie versus the $900 eMac. For the $300,
you're getting a faster machine and the simplicity of
simply pulling it out of a box and plugging it in. Maybe
worth it, maybe not. Typical end user isn't going to
know what to do to get that piecemeal $600 system cooking,
either. But, of course, that's assuming you're starting
with a $200 generic box. Had you simply started with a
package deal, say, the $500 system Dell's got listed
right now - 2.2ghz P4, 30GB drive, 256MB, 17in CRT, even
a freebie cd-burner and including WinXP. Hell, that's
a hell of a lot of system for $500 and indeed does kick
the ass, pricewise, of any Mac system I can think of.

Seems like the way to go is definately not to start with
a generic $200 lindows box.

[Of course, jTroll might whine, as this Dell doesn't
include a floopy drive...]

But you're right. Indeed, one can get a pretty capable
windows machine pretty cheap - substantially cheaper than
a comparable eMac.

However, you're quite delusional if you think a $200
Lindows 1.1Ghz AMD is in any way comparable to the
current bottom-of-the-line eMac. It can become comparable,
but you have to invest a lot more than that $200 alone.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

> From: BreadWithSpam@fractious.net
> Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
> Newsgroups:
> comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system ,comp.sys.mac.apps
> Date: 24 Jun 2003 15:01:43 -0400
> Subject: Re: No IE 6 -- Is this Good or Bad???
>
> Mark Haase <no@spam.please> writes:
>
>> unjustified expenses) to many. (Even at $800, the eMac might be a great
>> deal, but its still too much for some families. Why else would Walmart
>> sell a $200 Lindows machine??) You know its true, and I know its true,
>
> It's not really quite close to true. To make that $200 machine
> usable - at all - requires at least the salvage of some other
> hardware (possibly off of another machine that one is about to
> dump).

Yeah, but if you know what yer doing, it's trivial salvage that's already
paid for.. otherwise yer right.

I've bought two different 7600 systems including shipping for under $350,
from that I've built one system with G3, two HDs (3G & 1G) and upgraded
graphic card and a USB card.. PLUS two monitors (17" Sony & 15" Apple AV)
and two printers (only one worth mentioning is the HP 870cse) Just to make
clear, that included shipping of everything for both systems.

Cheap Macs aren't hard to come by.. but "cheap new off the shelf" Mac is
almost an oxymoron. Market is too small and Apple just doesn't have the
heart, or guts, to make it happen. In many ways, not much has really
changed between the iMac and the old 5/6/7xxx "system of the week" days.

Hardware is only one issue, of course.. computers are nothing without
software.. if OS X (or a subsequent Mac OS version) breaks some or all of
the critical software I use, then that's not an upgrade path.. it's a brick
wall.. A shelf full of useless Mac software isn't much of an incentive to
keep buying Mac hardware that only run's the offending brick wall OS -- for
a number of reasons. Supporting OS 9.x avoids that problem. Dumping
support creates it.

*Just* upgrade.. *just* buy new.. yeah..? How'bout: Just send me your name,
credit card number and date of expiration. :-)

d.

In article <BB1E3DF5.13B9E%don.romero@verizon.net>,
Don Romero <don.romero@verizon.net> wrote:
> The thing is.. Apple HAS low-end machines that people are out here USING..
> they just keep dropping support for 'em.. Worse -- once considered one of
> MS's cardinal sins -- they've put out a new OS that essentially REQUIRES a
> new generation of hardware.

Which one? I'm a little worried that 10.3 will drop support for beige
G3s, but 10.2 and earlier work on mine just fine. It certainly doesn't
REQUIRE that I buy one of the newer computers. If 10.3 requires that I
use a computer that was made more recently than five years ago, I'll
keep using 10.2.x.

Or by "new generation" did you mean anything made in the last 5-6 years?

As it is, I'm still debating on whether to get a new dual G5 tower when
10.3 comes out, or wait to see what the dual 3 GHz model costs in a
year. My currently just over five-year-old Mac will certainly keep me
going that long; I'm mainly interested in playing with making movies and
iDVD; my general benchmark is that a new computer has to be ten times as
fast as the computer it is replacing. It appears that Apple has reached
that point now.

Jerry

--
It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
http://www.ItIsntMurder.com/

In article <BB1E3DF5.13B9E%don.romero@verizon.net>,
Don Romero <don.romero@verizon.net> wrote:

> I've got $200 in a 7600/G3/256MB, 17" sony monitor and HP870cse printer.
> Shipping included. Basically I'm the low end Apple blatantly doesn't give a
> rodent's rear about.

That machine was discontinued six years ago. That's the last time they
saw any of your hardware money. Do you really blame them?

On 24 Jun 2003 19:37:17 -0400, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

>foo <foo@bar.com> writes:
>> On 24 Jun 2003 15:01:43 -0400, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
>>
>> >Mark Haase <no@spam.please> writes:
>> >
>> >> unjustified expenses) to many. (Even at $800, the eMac might be a great
>> >> deal, but its still too much for some families. Why else would Walmart
>> >> sell a $200 Lindows machine??) You know its true, and I know its true,
>> >
>> >It's not really quite close to true. To make that $200 machine
>> >usable - at all - requires at least the salvage of some other
>> >hardware (possibly off of another machine that one is about to
>> >dump).
>>
>> Please explain how a 128MB Linux machine (AMD 1.1 Ghz) with CDROM and
>> 10GB (20GB?) HDD is unusable. Please bear in mind that was a fairly
>> high end machine in the Wintel world just 3 years ago.
>
>At a minimum, add more RAM.

NOT needed for a basic home user, but available - $10 for 128M, $20
for 256M at your local Office Depot.

>Probably have to add a video card
>with its own video memory, too. Typical $200 machine uses
>motherboard RAM for video and video's crap. There's another
>$100 or so additional right there.

....and completely unnecessary for the vast majority of people out
there. But if you want to add a PCI nVidia card, you can do so for
far less than $100.

>> >which includes MacOS, rather than Linux/Lindows (which while
>> >interesting are still not really useful to most end users),
>
>> $200 for the Lindows box, plus $100 for a 17" monitor (Staples and
>> Office Depot have specials from time to time) is still just $300 -
>> pretty cheap.
>
>Toss in the $100 for hardware, and another $100 for an OS -
>I use Linux daily - I'm on it now - but I'm not delusional
>enough to consider it usable for general purpose end-user
>activities. Until I'd be willing to let set my mom up with
>an OS, it's not ready. Windows barely makes it. OS X has
>been working like a charm.

For many, that will work fine. It's still a $300 machine - most
people just don't need 1GB of RAM or XP's interface or a flashy video
card (what - your mother plays games? C'mon!)

>Your $200 machine is now $500.

No, $300. Maybe $310 if one for some odd reason needs the extra RAM.

>> Just $600 to go - or 60% more than the base iBook.
>
>Of course, the bottom-end eMac comes with a pitiful 128MB
>ram, too, so you'd have to bump that up from $800 to $900
>to get a decent, usable machine.

Only on the Mac. On Linux memory requirements are nowhere near as
high.

>But it also comes with
>a 40GB drive. Toss another $100 onto your $200 machine
>to bring the drive up to there.

Why? (Nevermind $100 buys a 160GB drive) 10GB is fine for many people
that don't download movies/pictures - I know people using 4G and less
on their machine; a 10G drive will be fine for most people.

>Your $600 cheapie versus the $900 eMac. For the $300,

$300 vs. $900, you mean.

>you're getting a faster machine and the simplicity of
>simply pulling it out of a box and plugging it in. Maybe

And one can't do that with the Lindows machine because...???

>worth it, maybe not. Typical end user isn't going to
>know what to do to get that piecemeal $600 system cooking,
>either.

$300 system, you mean? Well, turn it on, plug it in....

> But, of course, that's assuming you're starting
>with a $200 generic box.

We're not talking about a generic box. Walk on over to walmart.com or
kmart.com and check out the Lindows or other Linux OS boxes.

> Had you simply started with a
>package deal, say, the $500 system Dell's got listed
>right now - 2.2ghz P4, 30GB drive, 256MB, 17in CRT, even
>a freebie cd-burner and including WinXP. Hell, that's
>a hell of a lot of system for $500 and indeed does kick
>the ass, pricewise, of any Mac system I can think of.

So does the Lindows system at $300. It *works*. It doesn't have XP,
but for many people, it's a fine system for e-mail and the web and
basic word processing. And we *are* talking about the low end of the
market here.

>Seems like the way to go is definately not to start with
>a generic $200 lindows box.

Only if you desire to spend more money.

>[Of course, jTroll might whine, as this Dell doesn't
> include a floopy drive...]

Available for $20 if needed, but not needed by many.

>But you're right. Indeed, one can get a pretty capable
>windows machine pretty cheap - substantially cheaper than
>a comparable eMac.
>
>However, you're quite delusional if you think a $200
>Lindows 1.1Ghz AMD is in any way comparable to the
>current bottom-of-the-line eMac. It can become comparable,
>but you have to invest a lot more than that $200 alone.

Why? Linux doesn't need the RAM, and the user doesn't need the hard
drive space or the video card (what - your mother plays Quake??)

In article <sdfisher-6E5B1C.21042724062003@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <BB1E3DF5.13B9E%don.romero@verizon.net>,
> Don Romero <don.romero@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I've got $200 in a 7600/G3/256MB, 17" sony monitor and HP870cse printer.
> > Shipping included. Basically I'm the low end Apple blatantly doesn't give a
> > rodent's rear about.
>
> That machine was discontinued six years ago. That's the last time they
> saw any of your hardware money. Do you really blame them?

Right now I'm using a 7200/120 with an upgrade card fron Sonnet. My wife
is using my son's old 7100/80 for her newletter and publicity activities.

My 17 inch monitor was free from the recycling center. Her B/W portrait
monitor is all she needs for her work. It's amazing how well "Personal
Press 2.01" still works. It was a hellava lot cheaper than anything
equivalent today. I bought portrait monitor driven by a Radius card when
I got a LCII many moons ago; rest in peace LCII!

My first Mac was a Plus at 8MHz, 1 M RAM and 20M HD. Wow, and to think
that was all I really needed.

Al

--

Reverse address to reply.

In article <sdfisher-6E5B1C.21042724062003@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <BB1E3DF5.13B9E%don.romero@verizon.net>,
> Don Romero <don.romero@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I've got $200 in a 7600/G3/256MB, 17" sony monitor and HP870cse printer.
> > Shipping included. Basically I'm the low end Apple blatantly doesn't give a
> > rodent's rear about.
>
> That machine was discontinued six years ago. That's the last time they
> saw any of your hardware money. Do you really blame them?

I don't think they're doing it deliberately, I think it's just sloppy,
inefficient programming. Having said that, I'm going to have to get a
new machine now (my current one is 4 years old and for some reason
doesn't run OS 9.1).

--
Department of Planning and Infrastructure W. Aus. website:
"Paying riders and passengers using a three or four-wheeled bicycle do not
have to wear a helmet."

Mr Dewsons wrote:

> I don't think they're doing it deliberately, I think it's just sloppy,
> inefficient programming. Having said that, I'm going to have to get a
> new machine now (my current one is 4 years old and for some reason
> doesn't run OS 9.1).

Well, given that the problem is mostly missing drivers, I'd say it's
nonexistent and brutally efficient programming rather than inefficient
programming. :)

a processor upgrade on a machine that old is like throwing a
supercharger on a pinto. a new processor won't do much since the
memory bus of the 7500 is so slow. we put a sonnet g4 upgrade on the
pm g3 tower at work and it's still ungodly slow (the g3 600 imac is
plenty faster). any kind of upgrade to an older machine like that
(especially in an effort to run os x) is a complete waste of time and
money.

ben

foo <foo@bar.com> wrote in message news:<b7nbfvgup8mj80feq5iereki0g4p4btc6e@4ax.com>. ..
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:08:04 -0400, "D.F. Manno"
> <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <gwestonREMOVE-FB2399.09104822062003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> > Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > foo <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Apple's moved to OS X. You should too.
> >> >
> >> > Some of us don't have the thousands of dollars it would take to move.
> >>
> >> Most of us didn't spend thousands of dollars in the course of the move.
> >> I'm curious why your situation would required such an expenditure
> >> up-front.
> >
> >Because I'd have to buy a new computer. OS X won't run on a PM 7500.
>
> Sure it will - slap a G4/700 in there ($300?) and you're all set.
>
> >With a new computer, I'd have to buy a new printer.
>
> Why? You might need to buy an interface or similar, and if it's a
> cheap printer it might be easiest to buy a new one with USB (inkjets
> are dirt cheap these days and the quality is very good - even a good
> personal laser is only $150!).
>
> >I don't know which if any of the software I currently use would break
> >under OS X, but if any of it does that would be an additional expense.
> >(Switching to OS X would seem to be pointless if I'd be running all of
> >my software in Classic mode. I'm doing that now at no cost.)
>
> ... except the OS wouldn't constantly crash and you could run Safari,
> which prompted all this.

On 26 Jun 2003 06:59:30 -0700, barnyardgumble********.com (Ben) wrote:

>a processor upgrade on a machine that old is like throwing a
>supercharger on a pinto.

One only needs to read a few Barefeats.com reports to realize that's
unfair and untrue.

>a new processor won't do much since the
>memory bus of the 7500 is so slow. we put a sonnet g4 upgrade on the
>pm g3 tower at work and it's still ungodly slow (the g3 600 imac is
>plenty faster).

Did you also upgrade the RAM and hard drive? Those make a significant
difference also. An easy HDD upgrade (ATA card + modern 7200 RPM HDD)
can make a huge difference.

>any kind of upgrade to an older machine like that
>(especially in an effort to run os x) is a complete waste of time and
>money.

To some, yes. To many others, it's a great way to get more life out
of an older machine.

>ben
>
>foo <foo@bar.com> wrote in message news:<b7nbfvgup8mj80feq5iereki0g4p4btc6e@4ax.com>. ..
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 11:08:04 -0400, "D.F. Manno"
>> <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <gwestonREMOVE-FB2399.09104822062003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> > Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > foo <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Apple's moved to OS X. You should too.
>> >> >
>> >> > Some of us don't have the thousands of dollars it would take to move.
>> >>
>> >> Most of us didn't spend thousands of dollars in the course of the move.
>> >> I'm curious why your situation would required such an expenditure
>> >> up-front.
>> >
>> >Because I'd have to buy a new computer. OS X won't run on a PM 7500.
>>
>> Sure it will - slap a G4/700 in there ($300?) and you're all set.
>>
>> >With a new computer, I'd have to buy a new printer.
>>
>> Why? You might need to buy an interface or similar, and if it's a
>> cheap printer it might be easiest to buy a new one with USB (inkjets
>> are dirt cheap these days and the quality is very good - even a good
>> personal laser is only $150!).
>>
>> >I don't know which if any of the software I currently use would break
>> >under OS X, but if any of it does that would be an additional expense.
>> >(Switching to OS X would seem to be pointless if I'd be running all of
>> >my software in Classic mode. I'm doing that now at no cost.)
>>
>> ... except the OS wouldn't constantly crash and you could run Safari,
>> which prompted all this.

> Alright, understood. Sorry I interpreted things wrong. There are a whole
> lot of people who complain about the cost of OS X who really could
> afford it, but are just whining for some stupid reason. It's odd,
> because I really don't remember anything like this in the past with
> various OS upgrades.

Something that's easy to overlook with OS X though is that though your
computer might *run* OS X, that doesn't mean it'll be fun to run.
I've got an iBook 500 right now, and though I use OS X daily, booting
into OS 9 is like getting a brand new, roaring fast machine (tried
Camino again for the first time since Safari came out and that, by
itself, doubled my frustration with speed. Thank heavens for Safari).
You almost have to upgrade two generations worth to get the kind of
speed you're used to getting in OS 9-, which is why I can't wait to
get a G5 tower. I think that's probably also why you don't remember
this degree of complaints, though that's a bit strong, with older
upgrades, where the perceived performance penalty wasn't nearly so
high.

And heck, if I'm a typical personal computing person (PCP?), I just
want Internet, email, mp3s, and instant messaging. There are several
good OS 9 IM clients, Mozilla 1.0 does okay and IE 5 still does quite
well, and iTunes is available for OS 9. MS Word or AppleWorks work
quite well as well. Outlook Express is a great email client, and
there's been no better email client ever written than Em@iler. OS 9
is a great system, in my horribly biased, Mac-loving opinion.

If that's all you're doing (ie, no new software needed), no need to
upgrade to OS X. And going from, say, a 117 MHz 603e to a 466 MHz G3
is a great upgrade that will make that old box pretty snappy. Not to
mention you can keep your favorite ADB keyboard & mouse, use Appletalk
over the modem port to build a really cheap network, keep printing to
that rock-solid ImageWriter II, etc etc... Just be ready to reboot
every so often!

Ruffin Bailey

On 6/22/03 12:30 PM, in article
gwestonREMOVE-BEB449.12304822062003@netnews.attbi.com, "Gregory Weston"
<gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

> In article <dommanno-E1AA42.11080422062003@corp-radius.supernews.com>,
> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <gwestonREMOVE-FB2399.09104822062003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "D.F. Manno" <dommanno@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> foo <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apple's moved to OS X. You should too.
>>>>
>>>> Some of us don't have the thousands of dollars it would take to move.
>>>
>>> Most of us didn't spend thousands of dollars in the course of the move.
>>> I'm curious why your situation would required such an expenditure
>>> up-front.
>>
>> Because I'd have to buy a new computer. OS X won't run on a PM 7500.
>
> Interesting point. But you can get a new machine that blows the doors
> off that 7500 for about US$1000. Not knowing what you use your machine
> for, I can't make any serious projections, but I can caution you to be
> aware of the potential opportunity cost of using a machine that was
> discontinued over 7 years ago. Or you can buy a used but more recent one
> for less than that.
Snip

Hey daddy Warbucks, not everybody is rich like yourself and Steve jobs. For
a $1000 he can buy a dell with a monitor and still have a few hundred bucks
left in his pocket. Plus he gets to work with the rest of the computing
world. In terms of real productivity, there is little OS X can do for him
other than run his Classic applications more slowly. To take full advantage
of OS X, he would also have to buy all new software because the Classic
emulator totally sucks. He would have done nothing but put a few more
dollars in Steve Jobs pocket and then continue to get racked for more money
as Apple puts out new updates for OS X. The worst thing he will lose is
usability and elegance of the Classic OS.

Get your head out of Steve Job's ass!

Bob Frost wrote:

> Hey daddy Warbucks, not everybody is rich like yourself and Steve jobs. For
> a $1000 he can buy a dell with a monitor and still have a few hundred bucks
> left in his pocket.

eMac.
- $799 with monitor.
- $999 with larger hard disc, faster CPU and CD burner.