 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:50:16 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> And what, you'd prefer that everyone had to pay a kind of
>> mid-range-price
>> for the top version, when 90% of home users won't care about all the
>> features in the top version? Or that MS develop 2 or 3 totally separate
>> product lines, probably making all prices higher due to far more
>> development
>> required?
>
> No, I would prefer they do the same thing as Apple.
Fine go buy a copy of OS X and install it on your PC... oh wait you can't.
It's easy to sell the OS at one price when it's constricted to one
hardware platform that you also own.
Scott nailed it, it's makes more econmical sense to make one OS then
disable some of its parts and sell them at a 'discount'. You're
same time those who are willing to pay the full whack for the 'added'
features will do so.
you're coining it elsewhere.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Fine go buy a copy of OS X and install it on your PC... oh wait you can't.
Yes, I can:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:42:00 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Fine go buy a copy of OS X and install it on your PC... oh wait you
>> can't.
>
> Yes, I can:
>
> http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Only to the extent it seems that you either require access to a Mac or
another OS to actaully install it, plus the compatible hardware etc. So
it's doable, but I doubt it really figures large in Apple's marketing
strategy.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's amazing...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And what, you'd prefer that everyone had to pay a kind of
> mid-range-price for the top version, when 90% of home users won't care
> about all the features in the top version? Or that MS develop 2 or 3
> totally separate product lines, probably making all prices higher due to
> far more development required?
How about they just allow unlimited CPUs on all versions? That would
cost them nothing in development terms...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Huh? If the cylinders are smaller then the engine is usually smaller too.
> The amount of metal in the engine only needs to be strong enough to stop
> it falling apart. Bigger cylinders usually means higher internal forces,
> so you then need *thicker* metal around the cylinders, not thinner! When
> you look at the specs of cars, the ones with bigger engine sizes are
> heavier...
The blocks used to be standard, designed with a bit of a margin
even for the largest stock piston designed for the block. You could
bore out the pistons larger with a small risk of the block cracking later
and put in even bigger non-stock pistons. I'm not sure what the
current cost of iron is but at one time it was about $25 a ton.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And what, you'd prefer that everyone had to pay a kind of mid-range-price
>> for the top version, when 90% of home users won't care about all the
>> features in the top version? Or that MS develop 2 or 3 totally separate
>> product lines, probably making all prices higher due to far more
>> development required?
>
> How about they just allow unlimited CPUs on all versions? That would cost
> them nothing in development terms...
But it would more than likely lose them profit.
Believe me, they will have all sorts of models, data and empirical formulae
to determine the best pricing structure and sales strategy. I am 99% sure
if they implemented your suggestion they would make less money overall.
Why? Because there is a significant group of people who are willing to pay
extra for (almost) unlimited CPU support (among other features). If MS does
not take advantage of this (as you suggest), then they have immediately lost
that income. Will they make it back in extra sales of the single version?
Unlikely, the people who previously could not afford the cheap version will
not suddenly want to buy it just because it supports unlimited CPUs now,
they are at the wrong end of the market. So they have to up the price of
the single version. This certainly will reduce sales though, but will the
reduced sales be offset by the increased price? This is what the economics
of selling a product is all about, and MS probably have quite a lot of good
people working on it.
Why do adults have to pay more than children at the cinema? It's the same
answer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The blocks used to be standard, designed with a bit of a margin
> even for the largest stock piston designed for the block. You could
> bore out the pistons larger with a small risk of the block cracking later
> and put in even bigger non-stock pistons. I'm not sure what the
> current cost of iron is but at one time it was about $25 a ton.
Yeh I heard about that, but nowadays I don't think anyone would risk doing
that to a modern engine. I suspect the aluminium block is designed almost
exactly for each cylinder size to reduce weight (and hence fuel economy and
emissions). OK not quite as exactly as a Formula 1 engine (which you often
see coming apart every 500 miles or so) but I think today things are a lot
more precise due to the computing power available for simulations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yeh I heard about that, but nowadays I don't think anyone would risk doing
> that to a modern engine. I suspect the aluminium block is designed almost
> exactly for each cylinder size to reduce weight (and hence fuel economy
> and emissions). OK not quite as exactly as a Formula 1 engine (which you
> often see coming apart every 500 miles or so) but I think today things are
> a lot more precise due to the computing power available for simulations.
I've yet to see a fast car that gets really good gas milage.
I have seen some of those lightweight 3 cylinder coffins with wheels.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I've yet to see a fast car that gets really good gas milage.
You can get a BMW 123 (which actually has a 2.0 engine) diesel which is
pretty quick for a road car (0-60 in 6.9 seconds, top speed 148 mph) and
gets pretty good gas mileage (54.3 MPG). Did you want something faster than
that, or with better gas mileage?
Fuel economy (and hence emissions level, which is what we get taxed on here)
are pretty much proportional to the weight of the car. If you can reduce
the weight of the car while not compromising safety then you are on to a
winner. That is why car manufacturers are always pushing suppliers to
reduce the weight of everything.
> I have seen some of those lightweight 3 cylinder coffins with wheels.
I don't know what you mean by the lightweight 3 cylinder jobbies, but if you
get a *proper* lightweight car (eg a Caterham or Lotus) they are usually
much stronger than a normal car because they are designed for the race
track. I have seen a Caterham (weight = 500 kg) roll about 10 times end
over end and then hit into a solid grass bank, the wheels and engine were
totally ripped off, but the driver compartment was in almost perfect shape -
the driver climbed out and walked away. Would you expect the same to be
possible with your average road car? Ditto for an F1 car (weight = 600 kg),
you can drive it head on into a concrete wall with a couple of rows of tyres
at 150mph and not have any serious injuries.
It is possible to build light cars strong, just expensive.
How about taking an F1 car (600kg), making it a bit bigger so 2 people can
fit in (700kg), replacing the engine with that BMW 2 litre diesel one
(800kg) and adding all the stuff to make it look a bit more like a normal
car (900kg). You now have a car that would likely get insane gas mileage
(probably around 70 or so mpg, so you could do 1500 miles on a tank!), be
insanely fast (0-60 would likely be under 5 seconds) and probably impossible
to injure yourself with. Only problem, it would cost a million dollars :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
