what a waste of "Universal" Serial Bus to make it, ironically, unUniversal....

Just when you think TI has done something right, they do something like this to bring you back to earth :P

The market value would be slim if the USB cable were to be compatable with Macs only. I would hope a person smart enough to buy TI wouldn't do somthing so nieve as to buy a Mac! But considering the bandwith capabilities of the calculator... Who Cares! Its about time TI invested in somthing important, like a TI-89 with 8+ MB memory and a color screen... Sorry I'm getting off the topic.

I'd Also like to point out that Texas Instruments HAS NOT stated that it would be for Mac only it, said "Allows easy connections between TI graphing calculators and Macintosh® computers with USB ports", (iMacs dont have a serial port so they need a USB port device) and once again 1.5MB is a lot to waste on something that transfers at less than 500kbps

...but you have to admit that if it was for both PC and Mac they could have said...

Allows easy connections between TI graphing calculators and Macintosh® and PC computers with USB ports.

..it would have at least avoided confusion...

it is actually about 1kbps, unless you are using a black link with other software, and then it moves up to an incredibly fast 2kbps.

Ummmm, dude, mac's are cool. once osx comes out, if you are using windows, you will seriously begin to wonder exactly how low your icq (and quality of your operating system) really is. In addition, mac hardware, specifically the processor, is much cleaner than x86 shit. if you don't believe me, study RISC and CISC based processores. then take a look at the g3/g4 assembly instruction set. THEN look at x86, just make sure you have a barf bag available at the time...............

I seriously doubt that anyone who buys a Mac buys it for the processor capabilities. Everyone I've talked to said they liked the new macs because they "looked pretty" in the color cases. I admit I would be really glad the my computer was pretty while I spent hours looking for SOME kind of software for it...

Does anyone know the ratio of mac sales compared to PC compatibles? Just because TI tested these cables on a mac doesnt mean that there will never be a PC version, anyway.

-Anubis

Many Macs are used for scientific purposes with lots of number crunching.

If you compare Apple's sales to the sales of the individual PC makers, you'll notice that they rival those of Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc. You wouldn't consider one of those companies an insignificant market if for some reason a particular product wouldn't work on one of those brands.

These days hybrid CD-ROMs seem to be all the rage with software producers- more market for less box. You'd be suprised how many games these days include versions for both platforms.

You can't compare Apple to ONE PC manufacturer. If you are trying to compare platforms, than you will see that Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc. have much higher sales combined than Apple. The iBook may be the best selling laptop (I am not even sure if it still is), but If you add all the PC laptop sales, it quickly overcomes the iBook.

Umm... you missed the point of my comment.

Its just as well, you seem to have missed the point of mine. It was "x86 PCs as a whole sell better than Macs." Rather obvious.

No, I meant that your reply was unrelated to mine and called question to why you made it. My comment was saying that Macs are a rather significant market for any peripheral or software manufacturer. I understood your first comment, but your second wasn't taking into account what I said.

I re-read your comment and realized that I did miss the point. You are correct in saying that Apple rivals the sales of a major PC company. Oops :-)

Um, correct me if im wrong, but you can't very fairly compare ONE Macintosh Maker to ONE PC maker because there is only ONE Mac Maker bat there are one hell of a lot of PC makers.

>once osx comes out

Yes, but OSX isn't out now! We PC users, on the other hand, have a choice of stable OSs (Windows 2000, Linux, BeOS) and a not-so-stable one (Windows 98). I personally have Win98 and Win2000 running dual-boot on my main PC, and Linux on my laptop. PowerPC architecture may be better than the x86 architecture, but our processors are still faster because we have an extra 500MHz available. That more than makes up the difference. You do know that the fastest G4 is only 500MHz and we can choose AMD Athlon and Intel Pentium III 1000s. 1 GHz. There is a notable lack of software for the Mac, games mostly. Admittedly, Linux and BeOS don't have a lot of software either, but when you combine all the software offerings that we have for these 4 OSs combined. . . We have the benefit of competition. Can you buy an adequate Mac for under $1000? No. Intel and AMD are constantly trying to outdo one another with lower prices. Oh, by the way, Apple is making OSX for the x86 platform too. Hmm...

Number one- you can put Linux and BeOS on a Mac
Number two- Processor megahertz cannot be compared across processors. The G4, hertz to hertz with the Pentium III, is much faster.
Number three- There are ten thousand commercial programs available for the Mac. Almost anything on the PC has a Mac version. There's also much that's available on the Mac but not the PC.

exactly. I don't want to get into another argument about pc vs mac, but the 500 mhz G4 and the 1000 mhz athlon run about the same speed. the g4 can handle graphical operations better, while the athlon can crunch numbers better. They're both completely superior to any p3. I've got an ancient mac, with a 248 mhz g3 upgrade, and I'm not missing anything. If I thought I was, I wouldn't have a mac.

1. No, you can't. Apple has not told developers of other OSs about the G3/G4 processor design, so Linux and BeOS will NOT run on any Macs faster than the old PowerPC 60x chips.

2. No, you are right, you can't compare megahertz. But it is safe to say that 1000 MHz will beat 500MHz no matter how different the architectures.

3. You may be right about the 10,000 programs available for the Mac, but even though I do not know the exact number, I can assure you that there are at least 1,000,000 and probably more available for the various x86 OSs.

I can get a 1 GHz Athlon for far less than a G4-500 that performs about the same if not better. I can play all the 3D games on the market better than on a Mac, if they are even available on that platform. Mac users are stuck with rather lousy ATI Rage series graphics cards. I know that the Voodoo 4 and 5 are coming out for the Mac, but the quad-chip monster (6000) is not coming out for the Mac. I can build my own system if I want to and choose whatever components I wish. I will concede on one point that hasn't even been brought up. That the Mac is easier to use than any OS available on the x86 platform. BeOS comes close, though.

1. Yes they did, and yes they do
2. You can't compare, but it is absolutely NOT safe to say that 1000mhz Athlon will beat 500mhz G4. Have you done side by side tests of your own?
3. What's the point of your third remark?

Macs cost about the same as PCs. Your $400 internet rebates are worthless and designed to swindle.

I was not including the $400 rebates. You can get 400-500MHz computers with 64 MB RAM and at least a 10GB hard drive for under $1000 EXCLUDING THE REBATES. Admittedly, the rebates are a bad deal. I would never do one myself and be locked into a high-priced contract when I could probably get broadband for the same price in a year or two.

yes, pc's are cheeper, in every sence of the word. Can we not get into an argument about this please. I like my mac and you like your PC.

I suppose we don't have to get in an argument. But I am trying to state (hopefully) facts and

>pc's are cheeper, in every sence of the word

isn't a fact. It's an opinion. If we stick to facts, people shouldn't get mad. I could interpret that as an insult, but I don't consider someone maligning the type of computer I use to be one. To each his/her own. I am just giving my reasons for choosing a PC. I know you have your reasons for choosing a Mac. Let's leave it at that.

BTW, I have a Intel Celeron 400, and I don't have a 1GHz Athlon. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything either. Just because I could have a processor as fast as 1GHz doesn't mean I NEED one!

"...you will seriously begin to wonder exactly how low your icq (and quality of your operating system) really is."

do you mean "...exactly how low your iq..."?

I don't see how instant messaging falls into this discussion....

LOL!!!!

heh, look on arstechnica - they ripped OSX preview 3 apart a couple months ago. It's all EYECANDY, and supposedly pretty slow due to all that vector scaling. And go check out their sceenshot of the bar at the bottom, with 1,000 processes running. . .

OSX looks cool, but they haven't promised much functionality wise other than all those nice benefits that come from adapting a Unix-like base. . .