Intel based Macs now available

[pixelninja]

I just saw that Apple is now selling their first Intel based iMac and laptop, dubbed the MacBook.

http://www.apple.com/

[binary visions]

Resistance is futile.

You have been assimilated.

[Tenchiro]

To mac users every, I say this.


HA HA!

[Ciaran]

Next report will be that Apple is using a microsoft based OS. :D

[sanjuro]

Because I am not Mac expert, what is the big deal between Intel and Motorola chips? I would think a good, portable o/s should be able to run on both.

[Pau11y]

Because I am not Mac expert, what is the big deal between Intel and Motorola chips? I would think a good, portable o/s should be able to run on both.

Yeah really! Quick, someone run out and get one. Then, try and install WinXP or Longhorn on it....FWWAAAHAHAHA...MicroBook, iSoftCover :love: :love: :love:

[sanjuro]

Why would anyone install WinXP? They like downtime and anti-virus software?

[kinghami3]

Because I am not Mac expert, what is the big deal between Intel and Motorola chips? I would think a good, portable o/s should be able to run on both.
Power consumption is the big difference; the Intel is just as fast or faster with much less power consumed, which makes it possible to put it in a laptop. The Mac OS now runs on both processors, though still only on Apple machines.

Tenchiro, I think lack of progress with power consumption of the G5 can be attributed to the fact that Microsoft was using it for their new baby, the XBox 360.

[pixelninja]

Next report will be that Apple is using a microsoft based OS. :DClose...

Apple is saying that while they won't sell or support Windows itself, they also hasn't done anything to preclude people from loading Windows onto the machines themselves.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10794396/from/RS.3/

[binary visions]

Apple is saying that while they won't sell or support Windows itself, they also hasn't done anything to preclude people from loading Windows onto the machines themselves.
Interesting.

They did preclude people from loading MacOS onto non-Apple machines, though :rolleyes:. Nothing like keeping your environment as proprietary as possible.

[sanjuro]

Here's is a stupid question: is there any need for anti virus software on Macs? The only reason I can think of is to wipe email attachments so you don't infect your Win brothers...

[Tenchiro]

Here's is a stupid question: is there any need for anti virus software on Macs? The only reason I can think of is to wipe email attachments so you don't infect your Win brothers...

They are technically just as vulnrable as any other PC, but there are such a small target as compared to Windows that nobody bothers.

[sanjuro]

They are technically just as vulnrable as any other PC, but there are such a small target as compared to Windows that nobody bothers.
You're saying the reality is the Macs are just as vulnerable as Windows, the buggyiest O/S ever?

[binary visions]

You're saying the reality is the Macs are just as vulnerable as Windows, the buggyiest O/S ever?
I wouldn't go as far as to claim that MacOS has exactly as many vulnerabilities as Windows - but only because I don't know, and can't back my claim up.

I would guarantee, though, that if MacOS had as much of a market share as Windows, there would be a tremendous quantity of viruses and vulnerabilities written for it.

To argue on a 1:1 scale is just idle speculation, but the overwhelming reason why there are very few viruses and vulnerabilities found for MacOS is due to its tiny market share.

[Tenchiro]

You're saying the reality is the Macs are just as vulnerable as Windows, the buggyiest O/S ever?


What I am saying is that if their market shares were reversed we would be seeing the same frequency or exploits and viruses. Especially considering that the most explotable part of any computer is the user.

While the security holes, and technical details will differ between the two. The biggest security feature of the Macintosh is its small presence on the internet.

[blue]

x86 cpu architecture confirmed? Can I run Tigger on my PC now? mmm...

[binary visions]

x86 cpu architecture confirmed? Can I run Tigger on my PC now? mmm...
Apple is keeping everything wrapped up - in order to run Mac software, you need to be on a Mac. Apparently they're not putting the restriction in the other way, but my guess is that installing Windows on one of those machines might be a nightmare.

[Tenchiro]

Apple is keeping everything wrapped up - in order to run Mac software, you need to be on a Mac. Apparently they're not putting the restriction in the other way, but my guess is that installing Windows on one of those machines might be a nightmare.

The dev realese of the MacOS for Intel was cracked within hours, and ran on any Intel PC. I imagng the final release will be also.

[binary visions]

The dev realese of the MacOS for Intel was cracked within hours, and ran on any Intel PC. I imagng the final release will be also.
Well, the programmers will never be able to keep up with the hackers, so that's to be expected :D

[kenjikuro]

well.. for every 1000 programmers, there are 100 000 hackers. how are programmers ever going to keep up with them? lol

[Ridemonkey]

To mac users every, I say this.


HA HA!
...why? We still have the best operating system on the planet, and now the laptop is literally four times faster....the downside is what exactly?

[Tenchiro]

...why? We still have the best operating system on the planet, and now the laptop is literally four times faster....the downside is what exactly?


After working at Apple for a few years I know that there is an phobia of all things Intel (and MS for that matter) amongst many Apple owners. While there may be no technical downside, there are many mac users who are unhappy nonetheless.

i just wanted to antagonize those people if they are around. :monkey:

[Ridemonkey]

Intel and MS are two VERY different things. Apple is about user experience, and they've just taken the next step to improve their user experience to a whole new level.

[binary visions]

Intel and MS are two VERY different things.
Maybe, but I've heard for years from Mac fanatics that the PowerPC chip was so much better than anything Intel offered, and blah blah blah we have superior hardware.

Now, Apple switches over to Intel hardware and all these same Mac people start praising the almighty Apple for doing what's best for the user and switching over to superior hardware :rolleyes:.

Not you, specifically, mind you. I just find it funny.

[Tenchiro]

Intel and MS are two VERY different things.

Of course they are, but in alot of peoples minds they are synonymous w/ PC's.

Although I get the feeling that if the next MacOS were to be written by MS, there would be a number of people touting it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

:oink:

[Ridemonkey]

Maybe, but I've heard for years from Mac fanatics that the PowerPC chip was so much better than anything Intel offered, and blah blah blah we have superior hardware.

Now, Apple switches over to Intel hardware and all these same Mac people start praising the almighty Apple for doing what's best for the user and switching over to superior hardware :rolleyes:.

Not you, specifically, mind you. I just find it funny.

Yes, and at the time the PowerPC chips were much better. That's changed, and Apple has evolved, as they always do.

Everyone sees this as Apple "finally giving in", and it's not that at all in my opinion. In the past they used PowerPC chips because they were the best, and now they're switching to the best chips of this phase. Look for them to change again another ten years down the road when another hot processor comes out.

I'll take a company that is willing to evolve and adapt to give me the best possible product over a company that will stick with an old provider to save face.

[blue]

Apple is about user experience

Does that include refinancing your house in order to purchase a laptop?

Last I heard, "user experience" wasn't about making your widgets far more expensive than everyone else's relatively equal widgets because they were white, rounded plastic...

[Toshi]

blue,

apple's prices on notebooks are fully in line with the industry:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/samsungs-core-duo-pair-149230.php

vs.

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/whatsinside.html

show me a laptop with a core duo processor, ddr2 memory, pci express, a 1440x900 screen, and a dvd burner for much less than the $2000 that apple charges. now show me one that will boot both mac os x and windows vista.

qed.

[binary visions]

Funny, Toshi, I see this:

http://gateway.com/products/GConfig/proddetails.asp?system_id=nx560xl&seg=hm

...for $1299, which competes with the $2000 Apple model.

I see this:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?CS=19&kc=11111&oc=ie1705s1

...for $2000 that beats out the $2499 Apple model.

If you want to nitpick about specs one way or the other that's your business, but don't deny that Apple laptops are more expensive.

...and who the hell cares if it can boot both operating systems? What's your point there? Your Windows Vista installation isn't going to be out-of-the-box, and with the same amount of expertise, MacOS has already been hacked for use on PCs.

QED.

[Ridemonkey]

If you want to argue value then you're really barking up the wrong tree. When I compare my productivity on my Mac to the productivity I had on my PC there's NO question that over the last year I've saved money as a result of buying a Mac.

I'm a recent convert. Up until last year I worked on a PC exclusively. In relative terms, I had a pretty reliable PC. I work in design, and web development, and put my machines through the works day in and day out, and I have to say, I was always impressed with how my PC managed it. I had to reboot it two or three times a week to unlock it, or clear the cobwebs, and I was ok with that. Programs seemed to open and run relatively quickly, and only crashed periodically...causing me to lose work now and then. Again, all things we accept as PC users.

Then I switched to a Mac with similar specs. It has NEVER, not once, crashed and I've never had to reboot it to free up RAM, etc. I probably get at least 15-20% more done from day to day than I did on my PC. Those minutes add up.

Now, since we're talking about economics, let's mention the free software like iCal, Mail, Address Book, and iPhoto which come preinstalled with any Mac. I think they're far better than the PC counterparts like Outlook, which sells for hundreds. Not to mention all the great freeware in the Mac community. You can say PC has freeware, but having used both, I can tell you there's way more for Mac and it's vastly superior.

So...yeah, you can look at similarly spec'ed Macs and PCs, and say "OMG the Mac is $500 more!!!" but you're just scratching the surface. You're paying for quality. If you want to talk value/dollar, there's no question in mind that Macs are ahead by a landslide.

[binary visions]

So...yeah, you can look at similarly spec'ed Macs and PCs, and say "OMG the Mac is $500 more!!!" but you're just scratching the surface. You're paying for quality. If you want to talk value/dollar, there's no question in mind that Macs are ahead by a landslide.

Your argument is too subjective to even address effectively. You as a personal user have had this experience, which is fine - you get more done, it's more valuable to you, great. I'm very happy for you.

Me? My computer never freezes. It runs 24/7 and I reboot it about once a week, but only because I'm constantly modifying it and need the reboot cycles to, say, run tests on my latest overclock. It's not a reliability thing or need to free up more memory, as my memory is handled fine by Windows XP.

My programs never crash, and never cause me to lose data. I did webpage design for several years and never lost a client's data. Now, I do digital photography and process large batch files through Photoshop or edit big scans when my dad has a particularly problematic slide scan that he wants me to take a whack at (by big scan, I mean 30-70mb). I would be no more productive on a Mac simply because there is nothing slowing me down on the PC. No crashes, no memory errors.

Your experience with a Mac is not an experience I have had with a Mac. I used Macs mostly through schools but also some friends, and they crash. More frequently than my machine, that's for sure, but I have had numerous instances of lost data because I got a box telling me to click here to reboot, 'cause I don't have a choice.

It's fine that it works better for you, but as I said, your subjective and user-specific experience (not to say unique experience, but it will vary from user to user), is a little different from providing objective evidence that Macs cost more money. Which is what Toshi was arguing about.

As far as shareware/freeware goes, I have a lot of really great, high quality freeware on my machine. Certainly as good as anything else on the market. I don't think your claim of one system having better freeware is valid - you haven't tried it all, and I haven't tried everything available for the Mac.

[Ridemonkey]

Your argument is too subjective to even address effectively. You as a personal user have had this experience, which is fine - you get more done, it's more valuable to you, great. I'm very happy for you.

Me? My computer never freezes. It runs 24/7 and I reboot it about once a week, but only because I'm constantly modifying it and need the reboot cycles to, say, run tests on my latest overclock. It's not a reliability thing or need to free up more memory, as my memory is handled fine by Windows XP.

My programs never crash, and never cause me to lose data. I did webpage design for several years and never lost a client's data. Now, I do digital photography and process large batch files through Photoshop or edit big scans when my dad has a particularly problematic slide scan that he wants me to take a whack at (by big scan, I mean 30-70mb). I would be no more productive on a Mac simply because there is nothing slowing me down on the PC. No crashes, no memory errors.

Your experience with a Mac is not an experience I have had with a Mac. I used Macs mostly through schools but also some friends, and they crash. More frequently than my machine, that's for sure, but I have had numerous instances of lost data because I got a box telling me to click here to reboot, 'cause I don't have a choice.

It's fine that it works better for you, but as I said, your subjective and user-specific experience (not to say unique experience, but it will vary from user to user), is a little different from providing objective evidence that Macs cost more money. Which is what Toshi was arguing about.

As far as shareware/freeware goes, I have a lot of really great, high quality freeware on my machine. Certainly as good as anything else on the market. I don't think your claim of one system having better freeware is valid - you haven't tried it all, and I haven't tried everything available for the Mac.

Sure, of course it's personal experience, but it's a LOT of experience. I've also worked in network installation, PC repair/troubleshooting, etc., so over the years I've worked on many, many PCs, not just my own.

On a similar note, you can't compare your experience with your PC to the experience someone would have with an out-of-the-box Dell (for example), which is what you're comparing the Mac's pricing with.

By the sounds of things (overclocking, etc.), you're an advanced user, and have customized your PC fairly extensively? If that's the case then you probably have a pretty solid machine. I certainly wouldn't dispute that. However, it's rare to get a machine like that straight from a manufacturer. ie. Joe Blow user is going to have a hard time finding a machine as reliable as yours from [insert PC manufacturer here]. Whereas an advanced user can likely tweak and modify their machine to make it run as it should.

Having dealt with new PCs from Dell, IBM, Gateway, Toshiba, etc, over the years I can safely say none of them perform as well as my self-built PC. So yeah...it's possible.

The difference is Macs come like that out of the box. That means that on average, for a user who doesn't want to have to work on the machine they just bought, or build their own they're going to be far better off with a Mac.

Whenever I hear people ranting about how great their PC is, it's aways someone who has either built their own, or has a highly modified one. I never hear positive PC ranting from any of the lawyers, accountants, brokers, teachers, CEO's, etc that I used to deal with when I worked in PC/Network service, and who have out-of-the-box PCs. So, while I don't deny that it's possible to make an excellent PC, MOST people who use PCs have a less positive experience when they're using an out-of-the-box machine.

On the flip side, MOST people who use Mac DO have a positive experience with their out-of-the-box machine, and that's why I feel it's worth it for most people to spend a few hundred extra....if that's even the case anymore.

[Tenchiro]

When I worked for Apple, the quality of their products was absolutley atrocious. They had multiple recalls on products in almost every single lineup of computers. So much so that the demand for replacements FAR exceeded their production abilities. Multiple laptop, desktop & display models were crippled with engineering defects that made them inoperable.

At the same time they were charging people upwards of $1000 to replace something like a motherboard out of warranty. If you cracked your laptop display, the bill would be over $1000. This was even the case on product lines that were basically obsolete.

I remember talking to one guy who had an old Powerbook 500c and at the time it was a year out of warranty or so. Due to Apples financing he still owed about what it would have cost him to buy outright brand new (2 years prior), even though he had been paying on it for those 2 years. Plus the repairs he needed were in excess of $2000, which was almost of the price for him to go out and buy a brand new Powerbook 5200c (their current model at the time).

Now I don't know if Apple still does business this way, because when Steve Jobs was rehired they had just released the iMac before our dept got layed off.

[Ciaran]

Me? My computer never freezes. It runs 24/7 and I reboot it about once a week, but only because I'm constantly modifying it and need the reboot cycles to, say, run tests on my latest overclock. It's not a reliability thing or need to free up more memory, as my memory is handled fine by Windows XP.

My programs never crash, and never cause me to lose data. I did webpage design for several years and never lost a client's data. Now, I do digital photography and process large batch files through Photoshop or edit big scans when my dad has a particularly problematic slide scan that he wants me to take a whack at (by big scan, I mean 30-70mb). I would be no more productive on a Mac simply because there is nothing slowing me down on the PC. No crashes, no memory errors.

:stupid:
I've said it before and I'll say it again... People who have issues with their PC's don't have them set up correctly. (Or have screwed them up themselves. Can't protect the user from themselves)

[Ridemonkey]

:stupid:
I've said it before and I'll say it again... People who have issues with their PC's don't have them set up correctly. (Or have screwed them up themselves. Can't protect the user from themselves)

...this is my point exactly. With a Mac, you don't have to "set it up correctly", it just works.

I know how to set up a PC correctly, but most don't, and that's why 99.999% of PC owners curse at their machines.

[Tenchiro]

:stupid:
I've said it before and I'll say it again... People who have issues with their PC's don't have them set up correctly. (Or have screwed them up themselves. Can't protect the user from themselves)

In all fairness there have been some really crappy PC products, some that just didn't work. But for the most part I agree with you. I can't tell you the number of computers I have looked at that had over a dozen icons in their system tray, had startup lists longer than I care to remember and were chock full of spyware and viruses.

[Tenchiro]

...this is my point exactly. With a Mac, you don't have to "set it up correctly", it just works.

I know how to set up a PC correctly, but most don't, and that's why 99.999% of PC owners curse at their machines.

there is a huge difference between setting something up correctly, and crippling it with every piece of crap you find on the internet.

Which you can easily do on both PC and Macs.

[Ridemonkey]

I can't tell you the number of computers I have looked at that had over a dozen icons in their system tray, had startup lists longer than I care to remember and were chock full of spyware and viruses.

Funny...I've never seen a mac like that...:p

[binary visions]

By the sounds of things (overclocking, etc.), you're an advanced user, and have customized your PC fairly extensively?
Yep, and I won't dispute that my machine is not typical of your average PC. Just pointing out that not all people will obtain any kind of benefit from switching brands.

The difference is Macs come like that out of the box. That means that on average, for a user who doesn't want to have to work on the machine they just bought, or build their own they're going to be far better off with a Mac.
Maybe. I dunno, I've talked to a lot of frustrated Mac users and worked on a lot of crappy Mac computers.

Like I said, it's not clear cut one way or another since it's so subjective. Have you taken into account how rabidly loyal Mac users are? Rabidly loyal customers are typically very unlikely to complain about a product, even if it's not that great. Look at all the iPod fanatics - their batteries suck compared to the rest of the market, but most of 'em won't even admit to it, let alone acknowledge that it might make their player a poor choice for certain applications. iPods aren't bad. Macs aren't bad. But this cult following doesn't properly represent their products.

There are so many variables present... Hell, even consider the tiny market share Apple has - what kind of users are buying these machines? Are those users a good cross section of the general public who often ruins their machines by installing six billion games on it, or who browses porn sites all day and is hit by spyware that's designed for the majority of the market (Windows)? I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right but I AM pointing out that your subjective experience is just that - subjective - and is not necessarily applicable to all users or all applications.

A machine that is $500 cheaper, however, is applicable to all applications and all experiences. It might be worth it, but it's still there.

[binary visions]

I'd suggest that one of the biggest problems lies in the million companies that package these OEM boxes. A clean Windows install with installation of only the programs a user needs typically leads to an extremely stable machine. When you pull a Dell or a Compaq out of the box, you have sixty five unnecessary programs that are installed because the company has a contract with the software vendor.

Apple has everything wrapped up so the price goes up, but they have total control over the package.

That's neither here nor there and is not part of my arguement, I'm just talking :)

[Tenchiro]

Funny...I've never seen a mac like that...:p

I have seen people do things to their macs (and PC's) that would make you lose sleep.

[Ridemonkey]

Which you can easily do on both PC and Macs.

Uhh..no.

Perfect example: My parents are HORRIBLE computer users. Their PC was LOADED with crap. Spyware, viruses, adware...anything you can imagine. They don't do it intentionally...just through regular amateur computer usage they contracted all that crap.

6 months after getting a Mac, it's still clean....and trust me, it's not because they've learned a lesson.

[binary visions]

6 months after getting a Mac, it's still clean....and trust me, it's not because they've learned a lesson.
No, THAT'S because your parents now have a machine that 90% of the viruses and spyware isn't written for.

No arguements there, you have a teeny tiny market share and the list of viruses and spyware is appropriately long.

If Macs made up 50% of the market, they would have 50% of the viruses and 50% of the spyware.

[Ridemonkey]

Like I said, it's not clear cut one way or another since it's so subjective. Have you taken into account how rabidly loyal Mac users are? Rabidly loyal customers are typically very unlikely to complain about a product, even if it's not that great.

Sure...there are Mac owners who are blinded by their love for Mac...but you have to ask where that love comes from. When I talk about happy Mac users, I'm referring mostly to recent converts - people who used PCs their whole life then switched to Mac and would never consider going back.


There are so many variables present... Hell, even consider the tiny market share Apple has - what kind of users are buying these machines? Are those users a good cross section of the general public who often ruins their machines by installing six billion games on it, or who browses porn sites all day and is hit by spyware that's designed for the majority of the market (Windows)?

Sure, most viruses, spyware, etc are targeted towards Windows, that's the reason they're more commonly infected, but...all the more reason to buy a Mac no?

Yes, you can say I'm speaking from my subjective experiences...but what else is there? I spent my life on PCs, and switched to Mac last year, so if anything, my allegiances should lie with PC, but Mac is just that much better.

[Ridemonkey]

No, THAT'S because your parents now have a machine that 90% of the viruses and spyware isn't written for.

No arguements there, you have a teeny tiny market share and the list of viruses and spyware is appropriately long.

If Macs made up 50% of the market, they would have 50% of the viruses and 50% of the spyware.

Right...so wouldn't it make more sense to buy a machine that isn't targeted? Maybe 10 years from now that won't be the case, but for now of course I'd rather not be a target.

I've never understood why this argument is always used by PC advocates. It's like saying "Sure more people die in war than in peace because war is incredibly dangerous"...then choosing war because you've explained why it's true.

[binary visions]

Sure, most viruses, spyware, etc are targeted towards Windows, that's the reason they're more commonly infected, but...all the more reason to buy a Mac no?
Erm, what do you think is going to happen when you convince everyone in the world to switch to Mac? :p

If one of the reasons for a Mac being better is that its small market share means fewer viruses, it seems like a bizarre arguement. "Buy a Mac. It's better because nobody buys Macs."

Does that not seem odd to anyone else?

Yes, you can say I'm speaking from my subjective experiences...but what else is there? I spent my life on PCs, and switched to Mac last year, so if anything, my allegiances should lie with PC, but Mac is just that much better.
Nothing, but this started out as an issue of cost. The cost is objective - Macs are more expensive than PCs. Then you started talking about "value", and I was emphasizing that your perception of value was not necessarily applicable all around.

Now that this has gone straight into a Mac vs. PC debate, subjectivity and personal experience is all we've got to argue with, so please proceed :D

[Tenchiro]

Right...so wouldn't it make more sense to buy a machine that isn't targeted? Maybe 10 years from now that won't be the case, but for now of course I'd rather not be a target.

I've never understood why this argument is always used by PC advocates. It's like saying "Sure more people die in war than in peace because war is incredibly dangerous"...then choosing war because you've explained why it's true.

We don't choose PC's because they are more dangerous. We choose them because we can do things like go to the store and buy software. Personally I build all my own PC's and there is no way to do that with a Mac. Not only that but PC's do everything I need and do it well, and for a fraction of the price.

[Ridemonkey]

Uh, not exactly. Maybe: "One reason to buy a Mac is because they're less subjected to viral attacks."

Ok, so let's get back on track. I'm not going to argue which machine has a higher sticker price, it's pretty safe to say that for a base machine you're going to pay a little more for a Mac. Few would dispute that. It's tricky saying "Mac A" has the same specs as "PC A" because the hardware is simply different, and I'm not here to debate which hardware is "better".

My point is simply this: No PC I've ever worked on has allowed me to work as efficiently as I can on my Mac. I'm a constant, the work is a constant, the software is a constant, the only variable is the machine (hardware/OS). To me, that increase in efficiency is worth far more than the $x increase in sticker price. I will also say, that through interactions with others who have made the same transition, that this is a common experience among converts.

[Ridemonkey]

We don't choose PC's because they are more dangerous. We choose them because we can do things like go to the store and buy software. Personally I build all my own PC's and there is no way to do that with a Mac. Not only that but PC's do everything I need and do it well, and for a fraction of the price.

And Mac software is delivered by elves on unicorns?

I don't question that you can do it well on a PC...I did my job well on a PC...now I do it better, and at most we're talking about a 25-30% price difference...depending where you shop.

[Tenchiro]

And Mac software is delivered by elves on unicorns?

I just like being able to go to the store and buy my software and not wait (and pay for) for shipping. Don't even get me started on gaming.

[syadasti]

Don't think the mac is less vulnerable simple cause of less virus' either, you just need one exploit...

http://secunia.com/product/96/

If you didn't patch OSX, you could have up to KNOWN 63 holes in it. If you have it all patched up, there are still 2 unpatched holes in it and definately are other unreported ones too.

PCs are the MUCH bigger target, so there are about twice as many known security faults:

http://secunia.com/product/22/

Newer PCs (ie Athlon 64 and Intel P4/D cores with 64-bit extensions) have hardware based buffer overflow protection which covers a great deal of these exploits. Apple won't have this feature until July at the earliest with the Intel Conroe Core.

Apple's OS had best ease of use until OSX came out - somethings don't "just work" as claimed. What I've personally had to do to make things right on systems I supported:

Have to use CUPS and terminal to get print sharing to work right with gimp (Apple included) beta freeware non-native drivers (lower quality print experience - not all features are supported), turn off the finder via scripts to delete hidden files the "simple" uninstall by dragging to the trash didn't delete (or that stuffit expanded to hidden files - in windows you can unhide files with a simple menu option), or edit lots of firewall settings to get iChat to work when AIM/MSN/Yahoo all work without any hassle on the same consumer firewall. Thats not user friendly for the average user. I like the OS, but its not a magic bullet...

[syadasti]

Reality of other flaws that keep the Apple products from "just works experience":

Applications that break from service pack to service pack (ie Panther to Tiger).

Apple is infamous for first/second/third generation flaws in their products (I know PCs aren't immune either) - exploding powerbooks, uniformity on Cinema displays, bad battery system in ibook, cube lexan flaws, soft iPod material scratching too easily, ipod battery flaws, easy paint chipping off the "titanium" PowerBooks, bad wireless reception, iBook hinge problems, RAM slot failures (and aftermarket RAM going bad after software updates), and iBook keyboard issues and magnetic latch problems. In 12/03 MacWorld reported that 3 of their 6 first-gen PowerBooks had to be returned - 50% were defective - just works, eh?

http://www.macworld.com/2003/12/reviews/15inchpowerbookg4s/

Because of this almost all keen Mac users are sure to buy Applecare too cause something typically goes wrong and the proprietary parts cost a lot more.

Think different, think again. Its just another brand of PC with plus and minuses like any other.

[Ridemonkey]

I just like being able to go to the store and buy my software and not wait (and pay for) for shipping. Don't even get me started on gaming.

I buy software from the store all the time...or I pay for the download, which is far more convenient anyway.

[Ridemonkey]

Reality of other flaws that keep the Apple products from "just works experience":

Applications that break from service pack to service pack (ie Panther to Tiger).

Apple is infamous for first/second/third generation flaws in their products (I know PCs aren't immune either) - exploding powerbooks, uniformity on Cinema displays, bad battery system in ibook, cube lexan flaws, soft iPod material scratching too easily, ipod battery flaws, easy paint chipping off the "titanium" PowerBooks, bad wireless reception, iBook hinge problems, RAM slot failures (and aftermarket RAM going bad after software updates), and iBook keyboard issues and magnetic latch problems. In 12/03 MacWorld reported that 3 of their 6 first-gen PowerBooks had to be returned - 50% were defective - just works, eh?

http://www.macworld.com/2003/12/reviews/15inchpowerbookg4s/

Because of this almost all keen Mac users are sure to buy Applecare too cause something typically goes wrong and the proprietary parts cost a lot more.

Think different, think again. Its just another brand of PC with plus and minuses like any other.
Whatever. No one said they're perfect, of course there are flaws, but you're missing the point. There's no perfect machine, but I'll take the flaws on the Mac over the flaws on a PC in a heartbeat.

[syadasti]

Whatever. No one said they're perfect, of course there are flaws, but you're missing the point. There's no perfect machine, but I'll take the flaws on the Mac over the flaws on a PC in a heartbeat.

I haven't seen a PCs with flaws/problems as bad as those since the Win9X based WinMe. Never had the pleasure of owning WinMe personally :p

A 50% failure rate would spell death for a marketplace as competitive as PC notebooks - its a commodity market.

Its always great to pay a premium for the pleasure of these flaws too. Never seen such cognitive dissonance!

[Ridemonkey]

I haven't seen a PCs with flaws/problems as bad as those since the Win9X based WinMe. Never had the pleasure of owning WinMe personally :p

A 50% failure rate would spell death for a marketplace as competitive as PC notebooks - its a commodity market.

Its always great to pay a premium for the pleasure of these flaws too. Never seen such cognitive dissonance!

...huh?

[syadasti]

Macs, you know the topic of this thread...

[Toshi]

Funny, Toshi, I see this:

http://gateway.com/products/GConfig/proddetails.asp?system_id=nx560xl&seg=hm

...for $1299, which competes with the $2000 Apple model.

I see this:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?CS=19&kc=11111&oc=ie1705s1

...for $2000 that beats out the $2499 Apple model.

If you want to nitpick about specs one way or the other that's your business, but don't deny that Apple laptops are more expensive.
dell:
- 8.2 lbs.
- did i mention that it's 8.2 lbs?
- no remote control vs. remote control
- 80 vs. 100 gb hdd
- combo drive vs. dvd burner
- no bluetooth
- (no firewire)
- (no pci express)
- (no built in isight video camera)
- (no magsafe power cord)

configure the dell with non-parenthetical items to bring it in line, now it's $2187. is apple overcharging for the $2500 top end macbook (1" thick, 5.6 lbs, snazzy new-technology lithium-polymer battery)? i don't think so. 0/1 so far.

the gateway is closer on size (but not quite the same, at 1.3" and 6.3 lbs) but not on specs:

- 60 vs. 80 gb hdd
- 1280x800 vs. 1440x900
- Radeon® X1400 SE vs. Radeon X1600 with dual link DVI
- no bluetooth
- no pci express
- no remote
- no magsafe power cord
- no built in isight

granted, $1300 is pretty dang cheap and the size is in the ballpark, unlike that beast of a dell you threw out there, so i'll grant you 1/2.

for the casual reader i'd just like to point out that you didn't come up with comparable machines in either case, and i for one would hesitate before buying a gateway. perhaps this is "nitpicking on specs" but the point stands that apple is in the same ballpark as other companies with regard to pricing.

[Toshi]

oh, and Tenchiro, your experiences at apple in the early 90s, what with powerbook 540s and system 7.6, are NOT RELEVANT ANY MORE. you can stop bringing them up.

:nuts:

[syadasti]

Toshi, here you go, $500 premium and you get less

Macbook Pro
Al Chassis
Intel 1.83 GHz Core Duo (slower)
AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth (no free Bluetooth headset)
2GB 667 DDR2 - 2x1GB SO-DIMMs
SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW) (no Dual Layer)
100GB Serial ATA HDD (20GB less capacity)
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
.3MP iSight Camera
15.4-inch 1440 x 900 (inferior spec)
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 - 256MB GDDR3
60 watt hour battery (shorter battery life)
HDD shock protection
$2,899.00
(Advantages - magsafe, built in keyboard lighting, 1 lbs lighter, runs OSX or Windows
Disadvantages - Inferior screen, weaker warranty (only 90 day phone), Slower CPU, does not include DL drive, does not have built in 5-in-1 memorycard reader, does not have modem built-in, no PC Card slot (your old investments are trash), shorter battery life, weaker Al instead of carbon fiber, no free bluetooth headset, and lower quality built-in camera)

Acer TravelMate 8204WLMi (PCMag's Editor Choice Dual Core Laptop, Jan 2006)
2006 IF design award winner
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060107/20060107005001.html?.v=1
Carbon Fiber Chassis
Intel Core Duo 2 GHz
2GB DDR2 667 SDRAM
120GB SATA Hard Drive
Modular Super-Multi DVDRWDL Drive
5-In-1 Card Reader
15.4" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050)
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 256MB
Built-in 1.3 MP digicam/webcam
802.11a/b/g WLAN
Bluetooth
Bluetooth Headset (for VoIP, etc...)
Gigabit LAN
V.92 Modem
87 Whr Battery
PC card AND Expresscard slot
HDD Shock Protection
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
1 year international valid warranty (important for travelers)

Chumbo .com for 2,389.99 (before release, price prices drop signficantly after release, while macs adhere to retail during lifecycle)

Due the commodity nature PCs will get even cheaper after they are available...

Not to mention, on PC service packs are free, on the Mac if you bought OSX when it first came out, you spend about $500 or so?

Mac OS X v10.0 "Cheetah"
Mac OS X v10.1 "Puma"
Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar"
Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther"
Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" (current release)
Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard"

WinXP - major revision/service packs free. There was:

WinXP
WinXP SP1
WinXP SP1a
WinXP SP2
and soon WinXP SP3
Each added significant updates - especially SP2

[Toshi]

ok, that's a comparable (and cool) machine. :) you do know that the price difference shrinks substantially if you don't upgrade the ram on the apple machine, so the true price difference is more like $200-250. am i and other consumers willing to pay that? yes.

[syadasti]

ok, that's a comparable (and cool) machine. :) you do know that the price difference shrinks substantially if you don't upgrade the ram on the apple machine, so the true price difference is more like $200-250. am i and other consumers willing to pay that? yes.

What do you mean 2GB Macbook Pro vs. 2GB Acer - its a fair comparison. Acer is going to have a lower spec version for $1999 retail, so that will be at least $500 still.

Not to mention as I said PC prices drop after the product is available.

The 8104 retailed for 2500 on release, it now sells for $1540. You don't see much more than a few hundred off after Macs become obsolete with a new model even. Mac buyers are suckers I guess :blah:

[jimmydean]

Having just ordered my G4 17", I look forward to seeing the MacBook after a few revs. There was a test machine in my lab running OSX for x86 machines 6 months ago and it seemed to run well enough.

I'm not a huge fan of first gen hardware, so I will wait a few revs. Plus, my G4 will do just fine.

As a note:
Anyone who removes OSX to install either XP or Vista is a jackass. You woun't understand unless you've run it for a week. You'll never look at Windows the same again...

[syadasti]

As a note:
Anyone who removes OSX to install either XP or Vista is a jackass. You woun't understand unless you've run it for a week. You'll never look at Windows the same again...

Wouldn't it make more sense to use the new intel fancy virtualization tech which promised near native performance - run windows in a sandbox in OSX.

Guess we'll probably have to wait a while for that though :(

Dual booting is a PITA, dual machines for me with VNC seems like the most fun. I don't like using KVM or USB switch with dual input monitors - I want to use both at the same time :mumble:

[Ridemonkey]

Why would you want to run Windows anyway? Speaking strictly from a user experience standpoint?

[syadasti]

Why would you want to run Windows anyway? Speaking strictly from a user experience standpoint?

Pay attention - see page 2 of this thread, BV already covered this :p

Besides that you need to be able to communciate with the rest of the world, about 90% runs Windows and some applications are pretty platform specific. 3-6% of the world runs Mac OS (not OSX, but all Mac OS) and that number hasn't changed much on average since sometime in the 90s. If MacOS was significantly better, business would see that those that switched had an advantage and eventually converted by now - it never happened. In the real world the advantages don't outweight the disadvantages.

On the otherhand Solaris has always been important in the corporate world and linux has caught on big in back office applications and made Microsoft very nervous. These OS offer real tangible benefits that have caused notable trends...

[binary visions]

for the casual reader i'd just like to point out that you didn't come up with comparable machines in either case, and i for one would hesitate before buying a gateway. perhaps this is "nitpicking on specs" but the point stands that apple is in the same ballpark as other companies with regard to pricing.

Sorry, Toshi, I didn't pick up on how big the Dell was - but besides that, your argument on specs doesn't hold a lot of water. The (specs) aren't really deal breakers - the lack of PCIe doesn't detract from that killer video card, if sales of webcams are any indication, the lack of a video camera is hitting a pretty limited audience (and there are plenty of aftermarket alternatives), and Firewire is really the only thing there that could impact people - but Firewire still hasn't caught on as much as people had hoped. Other specs can be upgraded as necessary.

Then, you have to look at street pricing. Apple does, what, 10% education discounts? Dell has rotating coupon codes, available on any website or you can subscribe to their coupon mailings (right from Dell), to give you $500 off $1500 or $750 off either $2000 or $2100 (depending on the week). That slashes the price of the notebook dramatically and these are not super secret hidden codes - they're widely available to anyone who wants to use them.

They're just more expensive. Period. Which is not the indication you gave. Is some equipment included in the Mac over the Dell? Sure. Would I pay $500+ for it? No way. Given the way consumers want cheap over quality, I don't think most people will.

[binary visions]

By the way, Toshi, I'm not arguing that you don't get more with the Mac. Apple has always offered a very well-thought-out package with a lot of nice little touches. Those touches, though, are hitting a limited audience.

With the market offering up $1200 dual core notebooks, to compete or increase market share, you'd better bring to the table something other than a few unique touches and a nice package for $800 more. You'd better have a dirt cheap laptop for the masses. You'd better have a middle-of-the-line laptop for the more hardcore consumers. After those requirements are satisfied, going after the power users with your PCIe video card and other top notch specs makes sense.

[Ridemonkey]

Pay attention - see page 2 of this thread, BV already covered this :p

Did you read a different page two than I did?


Besides that you need to be able to communciate with the rest of the world, about 90% runs Windows and some applications are pretty platform specific.

That hasn't been an issue for 5 years. All mainstream software is also available in a Mac version. Much of the PC software that isn't available on Mac is because Mac has a better alternative. Seriously, get with the times. The days of Mac incompatibility are long gone.

[syadasti]

That hasn't been an issue for 5 years. All mainstream software is also available in a Mac version. Much of the PC software that isn't available on Mac is because Mac has a better alternative. Seriously, get with the times. The days of Mac incompatibility are long gone.

Seriously get with the times, there are lots of VERY expensive specialized financial, engineering, and custom software applications you'll never see on the mac. The programs that make businesses work :blah:

[Ridemonkey]

By the way, Toshi, I'm not arguing that you don't get more with the Mac. Apple has always offered a very well-thought-out package with a lot of nice little touches. Those touches, though, are hitting a limited audience.

With the market offering up $1200 dual core notebooks, to compete or increase market share, you'd better bring to the table something other than a few unique touches and a nice package for $800 more. You'd better have a dirt cheap laptop for the masses. You'd better have a middle-of-the-line laptop for the more hardcore consumers. After those requirements are satisfied, going after the power users with your PCIe video card and other top notch specs makes sense.

Let's face it, the majority of the US market has never been overly concerned with quality. That's why McDonald's, Walmart and Compaq do so well. It's all about getting the next best thing for less money.

[Ridemonkey]

VERY expensive specialized financial, and engineering software applications

Yeah...exactly the kind of stuff used by a VERY small portion of the market. As for the custom software, that's just as easily developed for Mac...if not more easily. It's a lousy argument, sorry.

For Joe Officeguy who only needs Microsoft Office and a web browser day to day (90% of the business world) there's no issue at all.

[syadasti]

Yeah...the kind of stuff used by a VERY small portion of the market. As for the custom software, that's just as easily developed for Mac...if not more easily.

Small portion of the market...key to the vital functions of industry.

[Ridemonkey]

Right....so let them keep using PCs, it's no reason for the rest of the market to stay tied to them.

[syadasti]

For Joe Officeguy who only needs Microsoft Office and a web browser day to day (90% of the business world) there's no issue at all.

Joe Officeguy doesn't not need a PC. Thin-client is getting pretty popular again - its much easier to manage a few servers compared to an armanda or PCs or Macs....

[Ridemonkey]

Right. 10 years from now the concept of "software" will be pretty much dead to the average business user. Web/Intranet-based applications are the wave of the future for sure. Then it just comes down to a browser and an email client.

So...I think if it isn't already, software restrictions are a moot point for most.

[syadasti]

Let's face it, the majority of the US market has never been overly concerned with quality. That's why McDonald's, Walmart and Compaq do so well. It's all about getting the next best thing for less money.

Nice theory, only its WRONG - Apple is more popular in its home country:

Apple Computer's market share of the U.S. computer market climbed to 4.3% in the September quarter, according to market research firm IDC. That's an increase from 3.3% from the year-ago quarter. Apple was the number five vendor in the U.S. market, behind Dell, HP, Gateway, and Lenova (formerly IBM's PC division), and the company showed a steeper climb in U.S. unit sales, 44.6%, than any other company in IDC's report.

IDC broke Apple's U.S. unit sales at 737,000 units. By comparison, number one vendor Dell shipped some 5.638 million PCs in the US. Dell had 33.2% of the market, well ahead of perennial number two HP, which had 20.3% of the market.

...

Worldwide, Apple saw a 48% increase in unit sales, but didn't crack the top five PC vendors (Dell, HP, Lenova, Acer, Siemens). IDC didn't specify Apple's worldwide market share, but extrapolating from Apple's own total Mac unit sales of 1.236 million Macs, a record quarter for the company, the company had some 2.3% global market share.

[Ridemonkey]

Who said anything about the world market? I'm talking about the US (North American) market, and why machines from companies like HP/Compaq (if you defend them so help me God...) can outsell Apple. Despite the fact that your average Compaq is literally crippled with Compaq System Tray and Startup Item junk right out of the box, more American's buy them because they're dirt cheap.

That's always going to be the way, and that's why Apple, and other quality-oriented brands will never have the largest market share. Price is more important than quality to most North Americans. Period.

[syadasti]

Right. 10 years from now the concept of "software" will be pretty much dead to the average business user. Web/Intranet-based applications are the wave of the future for sure. Then it just comes down to a browser and an email client.

So...I think if it isn't already, software restrictions are a moot point for most.

You don't know Jack :D

http://www.eversa.nl/picture_library/jackpc.jpg

All PCs are huge compared to JackPC:

http://www.chippc.com/products/jackpc/

[jimmydean]

But what you seem to forget is that OSX is a big hit with Linux users because you have a stable platform and still use all the cool Linux tools you want.

Look at some of the countries (government computers for government business) that have switched to Linux:
Germany
China
India
Brazil

That is just in the last 2 years. There are a lot more on the way. Why? Because for "Joe office user" Linux is fine and for a system or network administrator, it's a dream come true for security and reliability. If they try and like Linux, then switching to OSX is a dream come true.

There is a good reason all the people in my last 2 companies ran Mac, and with the MacBook, you will see Intel drop the Thinkpad and go Apple in the next year, all running OSX.

[syadasti]

That's always going to be the way, and that's why Apple, and other quality-oriented brands will never have the largest market share. Price is more important than quality to most North Americans. Period.

Not really the bottom line is that PCs are cheaper and offer the most bang for the buck (advantages outweight disadvantages). Businesses don't refuse technology that will save them money. Apple has never offered the business world (traditionally the biggest user of computers) enough reasons to switch.

Most small and some medium-sized businesses stick with commodity PC hardware for the desktop and low-end server stuff Apple competes in and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[Ridemonkey]

You don't know Jack :D

All PCs are huge compared to JackPC:

http://www.chippc.com/products/jackpc/

That's definitely an interesting concept. Don't have time to look for specs, but I'm sensing major performance issues with a solution like that...

[syadasti]

Look at some of the countries (government computers for government business) that have switched to Linux:
Germany
China
India
Brazil

That is just in the last 2 years. There are a lot more on the way. Why? Because for "Joe office user" Linux is fine and for a system or network administrator, it's a dream come true for security and reliability. If they try and like Linux, then switching to OSX is a dream come true.

There is a good reason all the people in my last 2 companies ran Mac, and with the MacBook, you will see Intel drop the Thinkpad

Those governments run Linux on PC commodity hardware, not OSX on Macs. Macs are not worth the premium. Macs were always slower when they claimed to be faster and now they are on the same hardware, its even easier to see the price premium.

[Ridemonkey]

Those governments run Linux on PC commodity hardware, not OSX on Macs. Macs are not worth the premium. Macs were always slower when they claimed to be faster and now they are on the same hardware, its even easier to see the price premium.
No, they weren't slower, and the Mac price difference isn't just about hardware. I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall here.

[syadasti]

No, they weren't slower, and the Mac price difference isn't just about hardware. I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall here.

Well those goverments get cheaper hardware and a powerful FREE OS...

[Ridemonkey]

Yeah, they do...but are you now telling me that Linux is better for the average user than OSX?

[syadasti]

No, they weren't slower

Spec performance of macs always lagged behind and any comprehensive (ie not just a handful optimized vs. unoptimized software selections) benchmark has proven they were slower. Hell Jobs has said at the last two Macworlds the G5 could not cut the mustard - what more do you need to hear...

[syadasti]

Yeah, they do...but are you now telling me that Linux is better for the average user than OSX?

No I was clarifying that the governments are using Linux. Not Windows or OSX.

[jimmydean]

Well those goverments get cheaper hardware and a powerful FREE OS...

They are not using a free OS at all. Redhat Enterprise is about $150 a pop, but over the course of a year will prove its value when compared to the same system running XP when you factor in uptime, overhead, mantenance and what-not.

Also, for $150, you get the whole deal including Office apps and the like. Don't think they switched to a free version of Linux.

As for Intel, they WILL be running Mac's with OSX starting this year. Intel is cutting the ties to M$ because they have learned the hard way.

My new company is made up of Sun servers and Mac laptops. There is just no better way to do things :D

[syadasti]

I could not remember which linux they were using, I read about it a while ago. It makes sense they are using a commercial linux solution

My new company is made up of Sun servers and Mac laptops. There is just no better way to do things :D

Is the change department or organization wide? Will they be the various Sun server lines using the superior AMD Opteron and Sun CPUs :D

2005 was a great year for AMD, not sure if they can 1up the 800 lbs Intel Gorilla for long, but you never know what they have up their sleeve.

[jimmydean]

I could not remember which linux they were using, I read about it a while ago. It makes sense they are using a commercial linux solution



Is the change department or organization wide? Will they be the various Sun server lines using the superior AMD Opteron and Sun CPUs :D

2005 was a great year for AMD, not sure if they can 1up the 800 lbs Intel Gorilla for long, but you never know what they have up their sleeve.

It's not a change, it's how the company was built. The data centers are built out using Sun hardware, then all the employees use Powerbooks with a few Apple desktops tossed in. The development is on Linux software, so OSX makes sense. I got the 17" and will have it tomorrow. The whole office is wireless, so you don't have to worry about jacks. The Intel campus I was on was wireless as well, but not as good.

I haven't done the data center tour yet, I wasn't scheduled to start work until Monday, but came in to get a head start. Plus i will have my new Powerbook to play with over the weekend :D

[syadasti]

It's not a change, it's how the company was built. The data centers are built out using Sun hardware, then all the employees use Powerbooks with a few Apple desktops tossed in. The development is on Linux software, so OSX makes sense. I got the 17" and will have it tomorrow. The whole office is wireless, so you don't have to worry about jacks. The Intel campus I was on was wireless as well, but not as good.

I haven't done the data center tour yet, I wasn't scheduled to start work until Monday, but came in to get a head start. Plus i will have my new Powerbook to play with over the weekend :D

Its a new division of Intel then, not company-wide? How big is this company and what does it do?

Pretty funny Intel is using sun hardware considering they don't use Intel CPUs/chipsets. Let me know which servers and/or CPUs ;)

[jimmydean]

No, I WAS working at Intel and no longer do. I was working on the Linux Desktop group at Intel running very nice and buff Intel hardware. It was in support of new Intel motherboards built for Linux based desktop systems that will soon be sold by OEMs.

My new company does POS transaction processing for major retail chains. The transactions are real-time using Sun based hardware. The development of the software is done on Apple machines.

I was at Intel when the deal was struck with Apple for hardware support. Intel is making a huge push to "other than windows" environments because of how bad Windows makes thier hardware look.

[Tenchiro]

Something you never want to hear about;

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2006/20060303.jpg