[VidPro]

Apple is ripping off the old IBM keyboard design! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Actually, the old IBM PC Jr keyboard was very poor, you can see how the "chiclet" name came to be for those chunky keys (IBM wasn't the only one using them), but the ones Apple is using are much thinner. The bezel under the keys is what makes them similar.
For those too young to have known the PC Jr. and its keyboard, here are a couple of websites that may amuse you:
PC Jr oddities
PC Jr pictures

[VidPro]

In reply to:

---

Fair enough, I suppose. Only you are qualified to say how you interpreted something. I have to say, though, that I don't think I've ever been accused of too much subtlety. It didn't occur to me to annotate the post with a "just kidding" because I thought it was obvious as phrased and in context.

---

I think you just answered the question of why you haven't been accused too much of subtlety, maybe you were taken seriously by other forum members than just me, who also didn't think the subtlety was so obvious.
Anyway, I think we have just about beaten this horse to death, so let's lay it to rest and get on with more important matters. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[VidPro]

Oops!
Both shortcuts went to the same page, here is the corrected URL:
PC Jr pictures
I'll just have to get out the gremlin spray again. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[MCJ]

Apple could largely eliminate its inventory risk problem if it built to order; it would no longer have to worry about having a surplus of any one particular product and improve its cashflow without having to artificially dampen demand.
To me this represents a win-win situation - Apple's customers would benefit because they would get a wider choice without having to pay an inflated premium.

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
But they need inventory to send to Authorized Resellers and the brick and mortar stores. On top of that, if they produced each order on demand, it would take a lot longer for the customer to receive it.

[VidPro]

In reply to:

---

Apple could largely eliminate its inventory risk problem if it built to order; it would no longer have to worry about having a surplus of any one particular product and improve its cashflow without having to artificially dampen demand

---

cough Dell cough
Although this works very well for Dell, since they sell basically on price, some (most?) Apple customers want to see the product in a store and if they are already there, take it home then and there.
The ones buying from the online Apple store may very well be willing to wait the extra few days for the BTO computers, but they have that option now with the non-standard but available options.
Having said that, notice how many posts there are on these forums about computers they have ordered, whether on line or through a store, and can't wait for the shiny new computer to arrive.

[Good_Egg]

Thank you for bringing up Dell.
Dell is very good at being an on-demand vendor. They are probably the best at what they do. In response to MCJ, I don't think Apple has set out to be like Dell, which is kind of what you suggest Apple should become like. In order to operate like Dell, you have to have a more elaborate inventory system set up (which increases costs). Plus, you would need to have a large materials and components inventory. Alot of these have to be purchased in huge bulk. Can you imagine if you have widget A and widget B heavily in stock and then have to shift to widget C because of a shift in demand? You wind up with a lot of parts in inventory that take up space and will not wind up in your product. It is much easier to move finished goods than to move raw materials when either is in abundance. What this means is that if I have 100,000 old cd burners or 100,000 old G4 iMacs in inventory, Costco will be more likely to buy my iMacs to sell than my cd burners, which people would be less likely to buy. This is why Apple doesn't offer 14 gazillion options for each model (They would have to keep large quantities of each option on hand). Instead, they offer reasonable upgrades that they can easily add to already finished goods.
In addition to the above, it is easier to control quality on work-in-process inventory and finished goods if there is overall consistency between the models offered. Since Dell's computers are often very different from one another due to the level of customization they offer, they cannot ensure the same standard of quality from one order to another. Dell makes a decent computer, but I have never used one that has the same level of build quality as a typical Apple.
Regards,
The Good Egg

[VidPro]

In reply to:

---

Dell is very good at being an on-demand vendor. They are probably the best at what they do.

---

In addition to everything else you said, while for Apple the economies of scale demand assembly line production in volume, there is a limit to that, and I think Dell is past that point, so for them to do on-demand BTO orders isn't a big deal, especially since I'm sure that even though each computer is "custom" configured, with the numbers they sell, many similar such custom orders come in at the same time, so for most of such orders they can still build a batch of them at once.
As far as the standard of quality, some other posters have remarked that Apple can't be better built than other computers since they use the same factories. Quality control has a price, however, and the manufacturer will do the best they can with the budget they are given. If Apple pays more for sturdier parts in the first place, stricter quality control, and is willing to have more rejects at the factory, then the shipped products will reflect this. There is also a design element, where how the computer is designed will affect its performance. That is why smaller laptops are always more expensive, and why Apple on the whole has smaller, lighter laptops than the competition. While there are smaller subnotebook computers, they cost even more than Apple's products, just as there are more expensive Windows laptops that are bigger and heavier than Apple's too.
I think it was Rolls Royce that once did a study on longevity of car parts and found that the drive shaft hardly ever broke. Rather than strengthen everything else to match, they made it thinner, thus saving money in material costs, and the drive shaft still wasn't the part most prone to breakage. This did, however, keep the failure rate level, while improving the other parts would have improved the reliability of the whole. [/ramble] /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Dan Frakes]

In reply to:

---

as I stated in my earlier post, you cannot talk about HD video playback performance when talking about the GPU, because that is handled by the CPU in OS X.

---

That's not true with the video card used in the Intel mini and the MacBook. Although the CPU does make a difference, the video card is also significant. As Bill Bumgarner wrote:

In reply to:

---

The chip set includes support for regular and HD playback, with the ability to up/down scale video content, as necessary. And it isn't limited to a single stream of HD as it can simultaneously decode and display two streams. It can also handle pretty much any standard HD resolution in both interlaced and progressive scan mode (including 1080p) and it also natively supports both 16:9 and 16:10 aspect ratio displays.

---

So this video card clearly has some HD-related advantages unrelated to the CPU.

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

I think it was Rolls Royce that once did a study on longevity of car parts and found that the drive shaft hardly ever broke. Rather than strengthen everything else to match, they made it thinner, thus saving money in material costs, and the drive shaft still wasn't the part most prone to breakage.

---

Personally I found it was the chauffeur who tended to break down.
...always was a sentimental chappie.

[VidPro]

In reply to:

---

Personally I found it was the chauffeur who tended to break down.

---

I do believe that was before Prozac. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[bluecat1]

Probably when Intel starts producing enough Quad Core chips for it's (just maybe) all-new Macintosh Pro.
And my thought on the Apple's brand new low end laptop line, a $1,499 price on the black MacBook is totally unfair, regardless of its internal specifications. What they should have done is this: Have two models of each color (Black & White), one $999 and $1,299 model.
Do you think that sounds fair enough? Because I'm dying to sink my teeth into that black MacBook, if Apple was very reasonable about their Macbook line.
But anyway, I think Apple's laptop line will look very strong in the coming years, because laptops will become the primary choice for computers in the future, and the MacBook, and the MacBook Pro will probably give Apple a big bang in their profit and market share in the coming years.

[Steve_S]

In reply to:

---

What? My 1G Mini Core Duo plays HD video flawlessly, not to mention the iTunes visualizer. What else could you want at this level?

---

Really? Why don't you share with us the frame rate you're getting on the iTunes visualizer? Show us both windowed mode and full screen mode. If you tell me you're even coming close to the 30fps, I'll won't believe you because I've conducted the same test myself and was very disappointed. Just displaying the visualizer is one thing. Displaying it fluidly as it's meant to be seen at 30fps is another.
Steve

[bastion]

Really? Why don't you share with us the frame rate you're getting on the iTunes visualizer?
I'm not the person you challenged, but I'll accept the challenge. My 512MB Core Solo just showed me 60fps in a largish window and 45 full-screen. When I enforced the 30fps upper limit I never saw it go below 29 except for the quanta after I took the screen shots.
If you tell me you're even coming close to the 30fps, I'll won't believe you ...
Then, to be blunt, why bother with the challenge? You won't believe the words. If I give you a picture you'll just dismiss it as doctored or captured from a different machine. So what, exactly, was your point?