MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Oct 10, 08 - 03:07 pm Comment from: Macintosh

And this $800 rumor is going to come back and bite us all in the ass when they come out to be $899 or something...

Oct 10, 08 - 03:10 pm Comment from: Randian

I sympathize with your observation, Macintosh. But all of a sudden there seems to be a "flight to quality" in this more-than-a-little-beleaguered market. Let us all hope it continues!

"Apple does not want to sully their reputation for quality"

Ummm, you might wanna change that to quantity....

Oct 10, 08 - 03:18 pm Comment from: Macintosh

@You Mom Bluray:

It works either way... They have a reputation for quality, so they don't want to sully it.

Remember, most Mac users have made a conscious technology choice (at one time or another, they've usually been stuck with Windows at work and/or school) and are therefore better informed than most Windows PC users (who have never or hardly used a modern Mac).

Well I said something to this effect on a post here a few days back and it got deleted. BAD MDN!

I said something like this about my observations of the PC/Mac market:

Mac's get a mindshare in college, where kids who came from Windows PC homes want to try something different. But unfortunatly most have to use Windows PC when they get to a workplace, then have to buy a Windows PC for work at home. Then their kids at home learn to use Windows because it's there and mom and dad use them.

When the kids grow up and go to college, they learn Mac's are better and some (like myself) continue to use them throughout their life because their income is not reliant upon having to use Windows at a workplace. However most switch to Windows because it's what they have to use at work. The cycle continues I said.

Now what is wrong in stating the obvious?

Apple needs to break the Windows monopoly and this is how Windows maintains it's monopoly.

To break Microsoft is to break into corporations with a better computer, a flexible computer, a more secure computer, a total cost per machine and paying attention to what corporations need. Price adjustments for volume purchases and stuff like that.

Apple STILL doesn't have a spreadsheet program. (Appleworks is gone)

Apple isn't paying attention to the HUGE opportunity provided to it because of the BLOATWARE and hardware lock (DirectX9) that is Windows Vista requiring a substancial costly hardware upgrade.

Apple can RULE THE WORLD, but is still terrified of Microsoft.

Microsoft is terrified of Google.

Hello?

Hello?

Oct 10, 08 - 03:21 pm Comment from: MacintoshSoftwareList.com

I know that on specs Apple is better. People just can't afford the higher price tag of a Mac. The only way to dominate the market is to have an affordable Mac, regardless of specs.

I think the Mini is a great example of Apple shipping a high quality product at a low price... and they have been doing it for a while.

Oct 10, 08 - 03:26 pm Comment from: Chas

@Raving MacHead

If Apple doesn't have a spraadsheet, what the fsck is Numbers?

If it walks like and duck and squawks like a duck…

=:~)

Oct 10, 08 - 03:26 pm Comment from: Mr. Reeee

Don't bother reading this article. The "author" is looking for hits to justify his existence.

The comments are pure Pee Sea FUD-laced drivel.

"Apple STILL doesn't have a spreadsheet program."

Psst. Stop hitting your head on solid concrete.

"And this $800 rumor is going to come back and bite us all in the ass when they come out to be $899 or something..."

Thank you! I've been saying the exact same thing now for days. The whining idiots will be out in force next Tuesday wondering why Apple didn't release the $800 MacBook they had been promised. They won't have the intelligence to know that Apple has never promised any such thing.

Oct 10, 08 - 03:38 pm Comment from: ken1w

> We can't ship junk. There are thresholds we can't cross because of who we are. The difference is, we don't offer stripped-down, lousy products.

That quote from Steve Jobs IS the impact he has had on Apple since his return, and the effect that saved Apple from being bought out or going out of business.

During the years when he was not at Apple, Apple did ship many stripped-down and sometimes intentionally cripple Mac models. Unfortunately, they still sold them with a relatively high price tag.

Oct 10, 08 - 03:41 pm Comment from: shen

guys, trying to point out where he is wrong to Raving MacHead is like asking a religious fundamentalist to think. give up already.

My Bad, Apple does have a spreadsheet.

There was that LONG period between Appleworks (free) and Numbers.

I switched to NeoOffice on my IntelMac then and forgot all about Numbers.

Guess Apple made a mistake not having something ready when they discontinued Appleworks.

A critical mistake like that just cost the company a lot of money, and if Apple played a part in corporations, would have lost major market share.

Ohoo back to updating my Vista install, overheating my MPB!

A secure computing from OSX? That's non sense. Their operatng system is full of holes and vulnerabilities than Windows and Linux combine. Only IDIOTS will dump Windows and go for a Mac or Linux. I recoomend everyone either upgrade their existing computer to Windows Vista or wait for Windows 7. Why bother switching to another operating system while Windows has it all. I love Windows!!!!

"There was that LONG period between Appleworks (free) and Numbers."

Eight days. A real eternity. You just enjoy making shit up. Like your political blather and conspiracy theories. BTW, it took 17 seconds to find the information.

"Numbers 1.0 was announced on August 7, 2007.
As of August 15, 2007, AppleWorks has reached end-of-life status, and is no longer being sold."

(source: wikipedia)

Keep 'em coming, Raving Head.

"Joy of Tech" has lost his marbles.

I run OS X, Vista and XP (and Linux coming soon) all at the same time using Fusion 2.0.

I don't game, I don't need Vista's "Aero" effects neither. Upgraded PC's need more RAM for Vista, at least a dual core AND a DirectX9 video card. Plus the full Vista costs $250-$300.

By the time one adds up the RAM, video card and Vista, they could buy a PC with all that and more already included.

OS X's "spaces" makes it so easy to switch between full screen windows of each OS as well.

Note: You need a lot of RAM (4GB) and a large hard drive.

Vista TAKES FOREVER TO UPDATE!! AHHHHH!!

Oct 10, 08 - 03:58 pm Comment from: Roger Knights

MDN's article stated: "factor in the bullet points below, and see if the Windows PC offers more value as a Mac:

• Which operating systems the machine can run: Macs are OS-unlimited, Dell et al. are OS-limited: no Mac OS X for you)
• Which software the machine can run: Macs can run all the world's software, Dell et al. cannot: no iLife, Final Cut, etc. for you)
• How much the machine costs you over time: Anti-virus subscriptions, support, repairs, wasted time, frustration, annual wipe and reinstall Windows, etc.: no fun for you)

Windows PCs offer more headaches, yes; more value, no."

Apple needs to put all those points in a nutshell and put that nutshell in an ad. Here's my suggestion:

Visual: a scale (like that held by statues of Justice). The left pan holds a large pile of beans. The right scale holds an apple of slightly smaller size. But the right pan hangs lower than the left one.

Caption: "Weighed and Found Worthy."

This makes the point that the sticker price (which is all that bean counters look at) differs from the bottom line. (But the ad shouldn't EXPLAIN that point--it should flatter readers by treating them as smart enough to figure it out on their own.)

"I love Windows!!!!"

As much as you love spell check?

OS X is a lot like you. They're both tools.

I miss the $499.00 mini. I know many people who can't do the 600.00, so they go to a PC. Usually a cast off from someone they know. I have donated many older Macs over the years, but there are more in need than I can meet. A truly $500.00 Mac should have been continued.

Oct 10, 08 - 05:20 pm Comment from: qka

@ Raving MacHead

Remember, college kiddies grow up to be IT decision makers.

That's how Unix became dominant over other proprietary OS's in the server space. College kids of the 70's & early 80's were weaned on Unix, and in the late 80's and early 90's became the decision makers.

In the 90's, Microsoft copied that move, leading to dominance today.

Apple is now doing the same.

I predict that by 2020, Microsoft will be less relevant in the IT world than IBM is today.

-guy who write this article

i agree with your point that macs are more reliable, support more operating systems, and are cheaper in the long run and when you consider speculations, i think the way you write makes you seem cocky. Macs DO have some problems. When i use some third party software such as games, my computer DOES heat up like crazy. Some applications unexpectedly quit sometimes (although this is fixed). Macs aren't infallible, but the tone in which you write makes it seem like they are. Try to sound more balanced, you'll get much more readers.

Oct 10, 08 - 06:35 pm Comment from: Roger Knights

PS to my weighed-and-found-worthy ad-idea: If several more large companies like Der Spiegel have announced that they are switching over to the Mac, there should be text beneath the caption explaining how their analysts conducted a thorough investigation of the costs and benefits of the PC vs. the Mac before making the switch.

"Remember, college kiddies grow up to be IT decision makers."

And Apple has always been strong in colleges, weak in the real world.

"OS X is a lot like you. They're both tools."

HAW

MDN loves that OS unlimited stuff. If that's so important maybe they should add a full version of Vista and virus software to the cost of a Mac when they do their comparisons.

"MDN loves that OS unlimited stuff. "

There's no room in the world for a hardware limited OS. The latest surge in Mac buying is precisely because they now run Windows somewhat effectively and can now do everything every other PC can.

"That's how Unix became dominant over other proprietary OS's in the server space."

No, it's not. it became dominant because it offered more value for less money, without the risk that your single source OS and hardware supplier would go down the toilet (Which most single source OS and hardware suppliers did).

"I predict that by 2020, Microsoft will be less relevant in the IT world than IBM is today."

Hmm. You clearly work in IT in quite a small company. Or don't work in IT and are speculating based on what you see on your desktop.

"Numbers 1.0 was announced on August 7, 2007.
As of August 15, 2007, AppleWorks has reached end-of-life status, and is no longer being sold."

Duh, Appleworks only ran on PowerPC machines.

There was nothing for Intel Macs for quite some time.

Oct 11, 08 - 11:21 am Comment from: Roger Knights

"No, it's not. it [Unix] became dominant because it offered more value for less money, without the risk that your single source OS and hardware supplier would go down the toilet ...."

But the familiarity of students with it was a contributing factor to its success as well. It's not an either/or case.
=================

"MDN loves that OS unlimited stuff. If that's so important maybe they should add a full version of Vista and virus software to the cost of a Mac when they do their comparisons."

When Windows advocates point out the availability of a greater variety of software for their platform, no one on the Apple side objects, "Yeah, but you have to PAY for that stuff." That goes without saying, and it's irrelevant: it's advantageous to be able to buy more applications for ones platform. Ditto with the new Intel Macs: They have the ability to run their competitor's OS, and their competitor can't return the favor (legally).
===================

"Remember, college kiddies grow up to be IT decision makers."

And Apple has always been strong in colleges, weak in the real world.

First, I don't think Apple's been as strong in colleges as it is now,unless you go back to the 80's. Second, the price/performance gap was too great, until recently, for the real world not to boggle at it.
==================

PPS to my weighed-and-found-worthy ad-idea: Probably the pile of beans should be small, to indicate there's just a small price (beans) penalty offsetting the Apple. That would make the ad less of of a puzzler.

@ Raving Machead

Wrong again! I bought a copy of Appleworks on the day they announced ceasing sales.

It runs great on all my Intel Macs. You are just so full misconceptions. Seriously, you really are ignorant about all things Mac.

@RMH

Key word: Rosetta

Oh and by the way, it runs fast too.

Oct 11, 08 - 11:42 am Comment from: Roger Knights

"A secure computing from OSX? That's non sense. Their operating system is full of holes and vulnerabilities than Windows and Linux combine."

According to some researchers, that's the case. But, despite these supposed weaknesses, which have been pointed at for years, real-world operatives have rarely encountered them. (Most OS X vulnerabilities require the user to do something unwise, I believe.)

"Only IDIOTS will dump Windows and go for a Mac or Linux."

I've switched, after I let MS's guaranteed something-or-other install itself, whereupon it trashed my hard drive. Der Spiegel is witching its 13,000 PCs. More announcements of the same sort of thing are coming.

Oct 11, 08 - 06:57 pm Comment from: alansky

It is taken for granted in the consumer marketplace as a whole that different cars, for example, have different prices because of differences in quality. BMW doesn't have to compete with Chevrolet on price. The same holds true for cameras, or dishwashers, or most any other item you can think of. So why is it that people expect computers to all cost the same? How can this be? It's ludicrous!

Oct 11, 08 - 07:02 pm Comment from: alansky

@Joy of Tech:

Now I get it... You're like Zune Tang. Another neighborhood moron!

"It's an - ahem - cheap trick"

Says the hypocrite:

"• Which operating systems the machine can run: Macs are OS-unlimited, Dell et al. are OS-limited: no Mac OS X for you)"

Wow... talk about bias, Dell et al. can run any OS with the exception of OSX and that is only due to Apple's totalitarian driven restriction

"• Which software the machine can run: Macs can run all the world's software, Dell et al. cannot: no iLife, Final Cut, etc. for you)"

Same counter argument as the last point except this argument is even weaker. How about all the world's software that doesn't run on OSX, i.e. the majority, with Darwine accounted for, how about real world software, business applications, statistical modelling, 3D CAD etc.

"• How much the machine costs you over time: Anti-virus subscriptions, support, repairs, wasted time, frustration, annual wipe and reinstall Windows, etc.: no fun for you)"

That's a joke right? Apple's support is more expensive, and my experiences on Macs and Windows have resulted in near equal frustration and wasted time (proportional to usage, and with Windows re-installing accounted for). I cope more than fine with free AV, firewall and anti-malware software and even if I did pay for this, it would be less than OS upgrades for OSX. Remember most people know a tech savvy Windows user that can help with their problems, Mac users suck it up with putting up with the problems or paying more for it. You can try argue that Apple is better value and reach the small target audience for which this is actually true, but don't say it is cheaper overall.

"Remember, most Mac users have made a conscious technology choice "

So did I, but that didn't make it a good choice.

"Even if Macs really did cost double, we'd gladly pay it while considering it a steal - because we know better."

Typical comment from someone who has paid the premium for the overhyped "privilege" of OSX and feeds himself on biased info in an attempt to re-assure himself that he really did not waste his money, time and effort.

Oct 11, 08 - 10:53 pm Comment from: Roger Knights

"• Which software the machine can run: Macs can run all the world's software, Dell et al. cannot: no iLife, Final Cut, etc. for you)"

Same counter argument as the last point except this argument is even weaker. How about all the world's software that doesn't run on OSX,

That's a neat switcheroo: changing the point at issue from whether the MAC cab run all the world's software (using Boot Camp or virtualization) to the red herring of OS X's inability to do so.
==============

Apple's support is more expensive, and my experiences on Macs and Windows have resulted in near equal frustration and wasted time (proportional to usage, and with Windows re-installing accounted for). ... Remember most people know a tech savvy Windows user that can help with their problems, Mac users suck it up with putting up with the problems or paying more for it.

If it truly were the case that the difficulties and costs with Windows were equivalent to those of the Mac, there'd be an equal number of migrants from each platform to the other. But the overall proportion of migrants is apparently 90% (??) toward the Mac.

If, as I have seen suggested, several large organizations follow in the footsteps of Der Spiegel and announce their switchover to the Mac, or if technical advisory services like Gartners recommend the switch to their clients, that will be hard for Windows-defenders to account for. I look forward to the day.

"That's a neat switcheroo: changing the point at issue from whether the MAC cab run all the world's software (using Boot Camp or virtualization) to the red herring of OS X's inability to do so."

That's as ineffective an argument as your vocabulary (re: "switcheroo"). Again, I could get iLife on my PC through virtualisation too if it weren't for Apple's totalitarian policy. But would I? Would I dual boot for some apps? No, why lose so much productivity by working in a virtualised environment or wait for reboots and almost completely lose any sense of integration. So I think I'm making a reasonable substitution of OSX for Mac in my argument for this context.

"If it truly were the case that the difficulties and costs with Windows were equivalent to those of the Mac, there'd be an equal number of migrants from each platform to the other. But the overall proportion of migrants is apparently 90% (??) toward the Mac."

Windows users don't migrate to Windows, that's why! Most Mac users on the other hand fall for the misleading false promises of trouble free computing, pay for it, then get stuck with it and try to live with it. The number of people I know in this situation befuddles me. These users are usually planning to stay with their Apple software, most putting Windows to replace OSX or running Windows primarily and waiting for their system to be obsolete to go back to PC where they can get decent support, be able to customise their system, and spent their hard earned on better things.

"If, as I have seen suggested, several large organizations follow in the footsteps of Der Spiegel and announce their switchover to the Mac, or if technical advisory services like Gartners recommend the switch to their clients, that will be hard for Windows-defenders to account for. I look forward to the day."

Under that logic, you can say you can look forward to the day of Linux/*nix dominance due to the influx of adoption of the OS in educational and government institutions worldwide.

In my response to your second argument, I meant "These users are usually planning to stay with their Apple hardware", not "... software"

Oct 12, 08 - 12:16 am Comment from: Roger Knights

"That's as ineffective an argument as your vocabulary (re: "switcheroo").

Here's a definition from yourdictionary.com:

"Switcheroo: Slang. a sudden or unexpected shift or change, often a deliberately deceptive one."

It's the <mot juste.</i> Your hauteur wins you no style points.
==============

"I could get iLife on my PC through virtualisation too if it weren't for Apple's totalitarian policy."

Another switcheroo. It doesn't matter to the user, who's concern is what he actually CAN obtain.
===========

"Would I dual boot for some apps? No, why lose so much productivity by working in a virtualised environment or wait for reboots and almost completely lose any sense of integration."

Sure, dual-booting or virtualization isn't cost-free. But the main point defenders of the Mac make when citing its availability is to counter the argument that a Mac user will lose access to certain must-have applications, or that he will have to instantly migrate from a Windows version of an ap to a Mac version.

Many of these aps do not require integration with other aps.

And the cost of virtualization is declining as speedier CPUs and more abundant memory and disk space reduce the impact of its overhead.
================

"So I think I'm making a reasonable substitution of OSX for Mac in my argument for this context."

Tell it to the maroons.
==============

"If it truly were the case that the difficulties and costs with Windows were equivalent to those of the Mac, there'd be an equal number of migrants from each platform to the other. But the overall proportion of migrants is apparently 90% (??) toward the Mac."

Windows users don't migrate to Windows, that's why!

Huh? What does that have to do with the price of peas in Peru?
============

"Most Mac users on the other hand fall for the misleading false promises of trouble free computing, pay for it, then get stuck with it and try to live with it."

So it's all Steve Jobs's reality distortion field at work? But few users have been convinced by Apple's advertising. Apple had been advertising for decades with no effect until they came up with a good OS and made the switch to Intel. In other words, it’s been substance, not emptiness, that has driven the switch. Most users have been convinced by their bad experiences with Windows in combination with the testimony of acquaintances, and the endorsements of authorities like recent convert John Dvorak, who said that the Mac is what he now recommends to people who ask him for advice, because it is more trouble-free, easier to learn, etc.
==============

"If, as I have seen suggested, several large organizations follow in the footsteps of Der Spiegel and announce their switchover to the Mac, or if technical advisory services like Gartners recommend the switch to their clients, that will be hard for Windows-defenders to account for. I look forward to the day."

Under that logic, you can say you can look forward to the day of Linux/*nix dominance due to the influx of adoption of the OS in educational and government institutions worldwide.

Another switcheroo. I didn't claim that the result of more cases like Der Spiegel's would be Apple's "dominance." I said it would cause problems for critics of the Mac who, like you, peddle the line that those who make the switch are deceived or self-deceived.

"Here's a definition from yourdictionary.com:"

I never debated whether or not it was a dictionary word.

"Many of these aps do not require integration with other aps."

I've experienced the need many times on OSX and Linux and I ended up settling for lesser applications than deal with the lack of integration. Heck, even saving a file and getting it into an email attachment is a tedious chore.

"Huh? What does that have to do with the price of peas in Peru?"

Instead of trying to be witty, read again, it's not that hard to understand. Hint: Users usually use Windows by default.

"So it's all Steve Jobs's reality distortion field at work? But few users have been convinced by Apple's advertising. Apple had been advertising for decades with no effect until they came up with a good OS and made the switch to Intel"

It's a simple matter of economics. Product life cycles start in an exponential growth stage. Also, the fact that Mac/OSX has become less terrible in the past few years is somewhat proportional to the luring of customers and more money for Apple for development purposes.

"Most users have been convinced by their bad experiences with Windows in combination with the testimony of acquaintances, and the endorsements of authorities like recent convert John Dvorak, who said that the Mac is what he now recommends to people who ask him for advice, because it is more trouble-free, easier to learn, etc."

And you will have people of the same influence saying that for Linux when it is blatantly not true unless you have a specialised distribution such as the proposal for the OLPC project.

"Another switcheroo. I didn't claim that the result of more cases like Der Spiegel's would be Apple's "dominance." I said it would cause problems for critics of the Mac who, like you, peddle the line that those who make the switch are deceived or self-deceived."

Regardless of whether or not you substitute dominance with a more literal interpretation of what you said, my comment still stands.

Oct 12, 08 - 01:58 am Comment from: Roger Knights

"Here's a definition from yourdictionary.com:"

I never debated whether or not it was a dictionary word.

You said switcheroo was "as ineffective as my argument." You were implying it was inappropriate, or that it was out-of-order because it was slang. I supplied the definition to show you what it meant. You certainly pulled a switcheroo by switching the debate from whether the machine could run Windows (Yes) to whether the OS could run Windows (No), in order to garner a "win." I.e., you set up a strawman.
===========

"Huh? What does that have to do with the price of peas in Peru?"

Instead of trying to be witty, read again, it's not that hard to understand. Hint: Users usually use Windows by default.

It was my folksy way of saying that your statement was a non sequitur. I've read it again. Here's what you said:
"Windows users don't migrate to Windows, that's why!"

In no way does that constitute a to-the-point response to my claim that:

"If it truly were the case that the difficulties and costs with Windows were equivalent to those of the Mac, there'd be an equal number of migrants from each platform to the other. But the overall proportion of migrants is apparently 90% (??) toward the Mac."<i>

In other words, you haven't explained why there are few migrants from the Mac to Windows, which is what I challenged you to do. (If they bought a Mac and found it was inferior to the Windows system they'd used elsewhere, or had heard about from friends, or had encountered recommended in the press, then there ought to be plenty of such Mac-to-Windows migrants.) Why don't YOU read what I'VE written?
==============

<i>"Most users have been convinced by their bad experiences with Windows in combination with the testimony of acquaintances, and the endorsements of authorities like recent convert John Dvorak, who said that the Mac is what he now recommends to people who ask him for advice, because it is more trouble-free, easier to learn, etc."

And you will have people of the same influence saying that for Linux when it is blatantly not true unless you have a specialised distribution such as the proposal for the OLPC project.

That's a weak response. First, Dvorak was a vociferous critic of the Mac for years--so his about-face is significant because he's not a party-line enthusiast, unlike most Linux fans. Second, the fact that there are authorities making misleading claims about Linux's friendliness, etc. doesn't logically imply that similar claims about the Mac are false. (Especially not when they come from ordinary folks like friends and family, who are unlikely to be pushing "misleading false promises of trouble free computing.")

Third, the comparison with Linux is telling. Many opinion leaders have been trying to stampede the masses in that direction, with no success. The arrows in the backs of the pioneers, and their disillusioned feedback, have warned off other potential followers. That hasn’t happened with the Mac. If it had, it would be coming on so strong. If all it took were deceptiveness to create a trend, then Linux would have caught on in a bigger way than the Mac. But it's way back in the pack.
=================

Regardless of whether or not you substitute dominance with a more literal interpretation of what you said, my comment still stands.

"A more literal interpretation of what you said"--that's a good one. There's no "interpretation" involved. You twisted my words in order to have something quite different to refute.

"My comment still stands": Sure, go ahead and use it to knock down the strawman you set up. Congratulations.

Oct 12, 08 - 05:38 am Comment from: Roger Knights

Oops: There's a typo above: I meant to say, "... it wouldn't be coming on so strong."

Oct 12, 08 - 01:35 pm Comment from: Mac Daddy

"The whining idiots will be out in force next Tuesday wondering why Apple didn't release the $800 MacBook they had been promised."

And then the stock will drop because Apple didn't "release the expected $800 laptop."

Oct 13, 08 - 08:15 am Comment from: Mr. Peabody

Apple (and its users) have suffered with a few ongoing prejudices since the very beginning, and this is one of them, [cost]. It has often, not always, but often been true that Apple does not provide "cheap" options, but it has always been true that when you buy a Mac it is a fully functional, ready-to-go, multimedia machine. Did you know that even Mac 128s, 512s, Pluses, and SEs were video and audio capable right out of the box? In those days you couldn't even buy a so-called PC that, out of the box, could match what the Mac did - out of the box. You could buy ISA cards ('member those?) to make a PC do what a Mac did, and if you did, by the time you got a graphics capable monitor, a graphics capable video card, and an audio card all installed, banged your head on the table a couple of times getting it all to actually work - Behold, a PC that could do what a Mac did, and you know what else, the price was the same or more than a Mac.

And so, the Mac continues on, cutting edges and being what it is meant to be, while the uneducated gape in wonder at what the Mac can do, how it does it so well, and how relatively economical all Macs have always been from day one.

"uneducated gape in wonder at what the Mac can do"

Anyone who is uneducated enough about computers to gape in wonder at a Mac doing probably still thinks digital watches and 8 track tapes are cool.