You said it. I would have to go way out of my way to spend $1500 on a new machine. That's true even for a laptop. Forget a desktop.

There's a reason that Apple has the lead in the over $1000 market. PCs haven't had to cost that much in a LONG time.

The fact that Linux is gratis largely doesn't matter anyways. People get a "free" copy of Windows with their PCs and are loathe to upgrade. People hold onto ancient XP machines because they seem to work well enough and people are afraid of change.

Free upgrades might not even matter for Windows users. That fear of change and fear of tech in general will keep them away.

> If you really felt that way you wouldn't bother with this at thread at all.

That EXACTLY the reason why I would bother with this thread at all. This is just another example of the mindless hype that the media tries to artificially create. The media are acting like an unofficial divison of Apple Corp rather tha proper journalists.

It's not "hatred", it's simple pragmatism.

The only positive value of Apple hardware is the fact that it is authorized to run MacOS. Beyond that, Apple hardware is inferior and more expensive. You get to spend more to get less.

I don't have to run "old" hardware with Linux. I can spend less, still get more box, and have cycles to spare for a VM or two.

If the freebie aspect of this current release of MacOS were actually relevant, I could run it on such a VM.

It cost the shareholders $472 million. The men and women mismanaging Knight Capital drew their paychecks and benefits as before and didn't lose a dime in remuneration.

The only lesson learned here was that no lesson was learned.

> Linux is just irrelevant to the desktop market.

So is MacOS really. This was true even when it was competing with MS-DOS of all things.

So any "helpful suggestions" will likely be total nonsense.

Computing history is littered with the corpses of companies that conformed to whatever "advice" you care to come up with.

No you can't. The hardware requirements of the newer versions of MacOS won't allow for it.

Every so often, those icky "specs" matter.

Plus you are contradicting that common bit of fanboy propaganda regarding "resale value".

The value of being able to avoid hardware with a fruity logo is far more interesting than using "older" hardware.

> Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.

You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.

It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.

Some fanboy was really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular bit of propaganda. It makes it sound like they've run out of anything meaningful to say. It smacks of desperation.

> I sit 6 feet away from an 80" projection screen. Tell me more about how going past 1080p has no value.

That makes you a freak. That doesn't prove that 1080p is generally useful.

This isn't about staring test patterns. This is about viewing motion picture content.

This could be useful for physical media formats. Although even that has the same problem that streaming and broadcast has. Once you get into really large screen sizes, the size of the data becomes a difficult problem.

4K could be an interesting home theater format.

> Yeah, you should actually try it in real life. It absolutely is visible.

I have. You're full of sh*t. Even the math doesn't support your side of the argument. There are very nice diagrams on the web that demonstrate the other guy's point.

If the TV is not the centerpiece of your home, chances are that you aren't going to see the benefits of HD. Forget about 4K.

People also tend to completely ignore the sound aspect of this.

Just because it's being force fed to you, it doesn't mean you are actually using it.

I own a Smart TV but I have a Roku attached to it. If my next TV also has "smart tv" features, they will be completely transparent to me. It's like a PC that has a force bundled copy of Windows on it.

Will never see it. Will never use it.

The real question here is "where's the content?".

If Valve can help resolve whatever problems you think still require documentation, then that will yield a positive result for distributions that aren't SteamOS.

If there isn't any need to consult the M, then there won't be any motivation to tell people to RTFM.

Although if Microsoft was dependent on people installing Windows on their own they would have been dead a long time ago.