Re: How to check for a virus...

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 05:05:58 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <vibml1p8daaq1moe56ufqd9erh3mib6p9m@xxxxxxx>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:00:41 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <di3ml1li45m9q3a30mpamoe0b2jqrv0l0b@xxxxxxx>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:46:20 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
>> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <hq7ll1l1u7rf49db6h8meveslflkt8g8sk@xxxxxxx>,
>> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:27:10 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
>> >> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <p5kil1dlhl8iv72p9jt7vek8q6nul5rgpl@xxxxxxx>,
>> >> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:47:26 -0400, Stuart Krivis
>> >> >> >> <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:17:00 GMT, Tom Elam
>> >> >> >> ><tom_elam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:00:18 -0500, Travelinman
>> >> >> >> >><nowhere@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>Why is it that idiot PC trolls can't understand anything but
>> >> >> >> >>>price?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>Why is it that Maccies cannot comprehend that price is an
>> >> >> >> >>important component of value?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Price has very little to do with actual value, unless what you
>> >> >> >> >value is price. :-)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Really? So you got Feature A for the same value whether it cost
>> >> >> >> you $1 ot $1,000,000? You'd actually say that you got Feature A
>> >> >> >> for the exact same value in both of those situation? Perhaps you
>> >> >> >> should look up the word value sometime.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You're deliberately conflating the value of Feature A with the value
>> >> >> >of what is exchanged for Feature A. These are typically not the
>> >> >> >same.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In order to have a common medium of exchange we have invented money.
>> >> >> People value money. Its useful for measuring what else they value by
>> >> >> seeing how much money they will part with for an item,
>> >> >
>> >> >But typically people will only buy something if its value to them
>> >> >*exceeds* its price. So, how much someone pays for something doesn't
>> >> >tell you what that thing's value is, it only sets a lower boundary.
>> >>
>> >> The price most people are willing to pay usually doesn't have all that
>> >> wide a range. For instance, If I am willing to pay $10 for something I
>> >> probably won't go much beyond $15-20, depending on the item. Its not
>> >> like the range is $10-$10,000.
>> >
>> >The range is often larger than one might think. Take computers, for
>> >example. Some of the people who buy cheap computers today bought much
>> >less powerful computers a decade ago for five or ten times as much money.
>>
>> Of course it didn't hurt that those were your only choices a decade
>> ago. Its not like anyone could hop in a time machine, zip to the
>> future, buy a modern computer and take it back to 1995 with them.
>> When looking at the range you need to look at what is available at the
>> time not for all of history.
>
>No, that's exactly the point. When you're trying to determine the value
>of a product to an individual, you have to look at the *maximum* amount
>they would be willing pay for it, which is often much higher than the
>market price.

But you need to look at all of that at in the same time period. Saying
that people were willing to pay more for less compouter ten years ago
is meaningless to today's market.

>
>> >> >Anyway, to return to the original discussion, an item does not
>> >> >have more value if it is cheaper. A given item has the same value
>> >> >regardless of its price. If it costs less we might it is 'a
>> >> >better value', but that doesn't mean it has more value, only that
>> >> >you get more value for each dollar.
>> >>
>> >> Which is exactly what we were talking about in the first place.
>> >> When I say the Mac doesn't offer good value that's what I mean. It
>> >> doesn't do anything more for me than any other system and it costs
>> >> at least twice as much.
>> >
>> >It doesn't cost that much more
>>
>> Actually it does unless you want to count the Mini which is little
>> more than a 5 year old laptop shoehorned into a different case. This
>> makes the best cometitor to the Mini the used PC market.
>
>We've been through this before as well, Mayor. You think the Mac mini is
>inferior to a cheap Wintel box.

My opinion is based on objective standards. A look at the specs for
the thing shows it to be little more than a five year old laptop
inside a different case. You can argue that its still usable by many
people but you can't argue with the specs unless you're willing to
argue against reality.

> That is not an objective statement;

Its entirely objective. The Mini has a three generation old chip with
a dog slow HD and mediocre graphics. There's simply no new PC HW that
it compares to. To get an honest comparison you need to dig up a used
PC.

>it
>is based on a specific set of beliefs you hold about what factors are
>and are not important when choosing a computer. Other people --
>including, I would argue, most consumers -- do not share those beliefs.

I would submit that my criteria is shared by most people. Most people
aren't interested in paying new prices for older HW. And since the
Mini hasn't exactly been lighting up the world with its sales numbers
I'm pretty confident in that.
>
>[snip]

--
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."

Jim Polaski

"I guess you're not ...a liar"

Joe Ragosta
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: mac sales down
    ... Mac as the baseline instead of the user's wants and/or needs. ... Only in some right-wing fantasy world where all market participants have ... Apple's numbers are up and the Mini isn't in that picture. ... people just don't do anything very intense with their computers. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Apple Lags Behind On DVD-R/RWs?
    ... just look at the Mini and the iMac. ... mainstream computers. ... No Mac user is buying laptops with Celeron processors, ... Core 2 Duo 2Ghz besides the Air, by definition, no Mac ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Apple Lags Behind On DVD-R/RWs?
    ... mainstream computers. ... with faster drives. ... To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Apple Lags Behind On DVD-R/RWs?
    ... mainstream computers. ... with faster drives. ... To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Apple Lags Behind On DVD-R/RWs?
    ... mainstream computers. ... with faster drives. ... To get a Blue-Ray player inside a Mini or iMac, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)