JP - it's the wording that's got you confused. The machine is NOT "1.2x FASTER", but "1.2x THE SPEED of the old machine".

To say it was 1.2x FASTER would imply an INCREASE of 1.2 times the original speed OVER AND ABOVE this original speed, which is not the case. The INCREASE in speed is the 0.2 part - that is, the machine is 0.2x, or 20% faster than it's predecessor.

You're correct, 2x as fast would "only" be 100% faster. You started at 100%, doubled it, and ended up with 200%, which is "only" 100% more than you started with.

As has been pointed out, this has got nothing to do with RFID. UK bank and credit cards use the chip & PIN system - there's a chip in the card which stores it's information, and you enter a PIN to a terminal to authorise a transaction. Magnetic strips are still present for compatability with old equipment - though since 14th February any retailer who accepts payment without a PIN is liable for the value of the transaction in case of fraud.

All that's happened here is a crooked checkout operator has swiped the magnetic strips the old-fashioned way, and then either doctored the PIN terminal (it's been done before) to keep a record, or more simply watched the customer type the PIN in. The crooks then went to a country with old cash machines which only need the magnetic strip, and entered the PINs. Nothing new here.

Fred - the 12% figure often quoted refers to laptops sold in the month of June. Their actual market share is estimated at around 4.7%, up from 3.9% last year (MacWorld).

Carl - Not sure what you're saying here. He said 20% INCREASE. 120% is just a 20% increase on what you started with. An INCREASE of 120% would imply 120% over and above what you started with, which is 220%.

Fred- Congratulations on a throughly intelligent post. I'm not entirely sure what brought you to the conclusion that I am an "idiot" and "****tard", since you didn't say, but anyway.

Unfortunately, you are quite incorrect. There are two primary purposes of OS X revisions- firstly, to add support for new hardware. This is why, for example, the Mighty Mouse says it requires "Mac OS X v10.4.6 or later". A more major revision came with the x86 releases. Secondly, just like with XP, to fix bugs.

Yes, revisions can also add new features, but this is merely something of a bonus for consumers, or in the case of Apple's more major pay-for upgrades, an incentive to buy. You're incorrect that "new features" are unique to OS X - XP SP2 added a native firewall, native wireless and bluetooth support, pop-up blocking, and new versions of media player and movie maker, amongst others.

As for "garbage about Apple losing its identity" - how do you justify this as "garbage"? Apple started as a computer company which refused to follow the crowd. It now makes computers with the same components as everyone else, and makes most of it's sales in iPods. It used to compete on quality and uniqueness, but now that's been watered down and it's trying to compete on price. I don't know where it's going, and sometimes I get the feeling they're not sure either!

As some have pointed out, this is in fact cheaper than comprable machines from the likes of Dell. However, while this may be a good thing for the small subsection of an already small market share of consumers who would like such a product, it is not a good thing for Apple.

Apple have struggled historically because they tried to do everything themselves. While most computer companies could slap together a bunch of standardised components, install an OS which would work with just about anything (I find it remarkable that the five year-old XP has only had three revisions. Yesterday Apple announced the sixth revision of OS X, which is the same age and only has to work on a TINY subsection of Apple-selected hardware) and still have room to stick a little profit on top, Apple made all the hardware, used a different processor, and wrote their own OS. This gave Apple more freedom with design than other companies - their hardware and OS interface are prettier - but massively increased their R&D costs (developing a whole OS is INCREDIBLY expensive), for which they demanded a fairly substantial price premium.

Gradually, that all changed. Their hardware is now standardised. Their processors are the same as everyone else. They have completely lost their hardware differentiation. There's nothing to seperate the Mac Pro from a Dell but the design of the case. Both have the same hardware. Both can run either OS (yes, it's harder to run OS X on a Dell than the other way around, but this is Apple's fault, not Dell's. Apple made a utility to let their customers run XP, but didn't want it happening the other way. Of course, it wasn't long till someone figured it out, and it's now very easy.).

The last vestige of the "old" Apple was price. In the destop market, it started to go with the Mini. With the Mac Pro, it went at the top end too. For a fairly-high end workstation, the Mac Pro is actually pretty cheap. It's several hundred dollars cheaper than the same machine from Dell - and Dell didn't have the cost of developing an OS. Apples profit per machine must be TINY. You can see where they've cut corners - the case hasn't changed much, and has become more in layout like an ordinary PC one.

It seems to me Apple doesn't know who it is anymore. They still, quite naiively, seem to try to compete on performance, with the old arbitary "X times faster" figures and the like - but realistically, don't go there. At the same time, they're trying to compete on price. You can't do both!

I love how they use "TOP SECRET" as a no-obligation way of saying "DOESN'T WORK YET".

The problem with DRM is that it inherently hits the wrong target market. While the intention may be to prevent piracy, the "real" large-scale pirates who might actually be a problem to the industry will always find a workaround. DRM is only a problem to the non tech-savvy consumer, who can't figure out why his DVD will play on his PC but not the DVD player in the lounge, or why the music he bought from itunes won't work on his non-ipod. Those who know what they're doing will simply follow the pirates, and either remove the DRM or use a different and possibly illegal source which doesn't have it in the first place.

Monkey- I'm afraid I disagree entirely. Based on my experience of Apple products - I used OS 9/X for 6 years while I was in school, as I said, installed OS X on my laptop, own an ipod, and have itunes and quicktime installed on my XP machine - Apple's "attention to detail" is 98% what something looks like. My ipod looks sleek, but functionally it's a piece of crap - the interface is so simple I could have designed it in 10 minutes, it only plays videos in 2 formats, and it lacks any scope for customisation - you can't even make a custom eq! Where's the "attention to detail" in an ipod which ISN'T just what it or it's very basic software looks like? Itunes and quicktime are a similar story - they both look pretty swish, but they're both inefficient, single-function, memory-hogging rubbish.

Bosco - you're correct that PC makers are "in it for the money", much like every other business in existence. However, no good business bases it's decisions on the amount of "effort" involved! Where profits are concerned, surely this would allow firms to demand a higher price for a better looking model, a bit like, well, Apple. That said, looking at Apple's performance with this sort of business model would suggest it to be a bad idea, especially now that Apple effectively make middle-of-the-road PCs in fancy boxes, with an OS which is nice to look at, but in my opinion functionally very poor - I have had the x86 version installed on my laptop, but found it messy and unproductive compared to XP when running multiple applications at once. I also couldn't stand not having a taskbar. Needless to say, despite the lengthy process of getting it all working on non-native hardware, I soon uninstalled it.

Padriac - absolutely ANY bluetooth mouse is "truly wireless" if you've got bluetooth built in, which is an option many computers (Mac and PC) come with, laptops especially. My laptop already had bluetooth, so when I got my Microsoft bluetooth mouse I didn't need the included dongle. This "truly wireless" malarkey is nothing unique to the Apple mouse, nor is it a "feature" - if anything it is a major downside, since anyone who doesn't have bluetooth already will have to buy a bluetooth dongle in addition to their expensive "mighty" mouse, thus making it no longer "truly wireless"!