OSNews

Yea, but it's the end of the second half instead of the beginning of the second half. I expected to be running Vista a year from now .
This means Apple will probably release again before Vista.

And linux will be incredibly advanced by then.

Blizzard Ent. always announces too early.

No not really. Most people are just starting to install XP for the first time. I just got my first XP laptop 2 months ago. And still there are a lot of poeple with 98, ME (shudder), and 2000. The truth is Windows 2000 is good enough for most people, it is stable enough, and it mostly works. Microsoft will need to push something really so much better in order to get the excitement that Windows 95 got. I would say something like Windows and Office and Visual Studio, and some good quality video stuff all packaged into one and sold for $100. Anything short of that there is no real point in getting excited about it.

I only upgraded from Windows 2000 to Windows XP a few month ago.

I am not sure what "look old" mean but, when I switched I cared about 2 things only - speed of start up, and better support for non-unicode characters. Looks don't matter much. WHen I install XP (for others) Themes are usually the 1st to be disabled. ("net stop themes" arrrrg!)

I think Vista will ship in 2008, no 2009, maybe 2010 ?

I think you're underestimating the impact that OS X on x86 will have on the market place.

By moving to x86, Apple's hardware is just as likely to be considered as a corporate purchase any any other PC manufacturer. As long as Apple continues to price its hardware the same (and sometimes less) then comparably equipped PCs, there wont be any reason to not consider them. These companies will have the security of knowing that they can run Windows on this hardware but know that they can also have a backup alternative in OS X should security continue to be a problem for Windows. Apple stands to make some serious gains when it makes the transition.

I think you're underestimating the impact that OS X on x86 will have on the market place.

I'm not underestimating OSX's impact on the x86 market place at all; I didn't even mention OSX except as an aside and then not by name;

(quoting what I wrote) "Personally, I hope that Microsoft just gives up reinventing unix/Unix and just does what Apple did; unix-based with extra refinements and propriatory extentions."

None of that is a snub on OSX. It does not degrade what Apple did. OSX is unix-based. It does have extra refinements on the unix model. It does have propriatory extentions layered on the unix model. None of this discusses the impact that OSX will or will not have on the market that Microsoft sells into; x86 PCs.

That said, Apple is not in the same market. They are selling Macs -- not PCs. That Macs use x86 processors is only important to a small number of people. Most will not care beyond a superficial level that the CPU is the same. Those that do -- and I'm one of them -- will have specific reasons why this is a good or bad thing.

That said, Apple is not in the same market. They are selling Macs -- not PCs. That Macs use x86 processors is only important to a small number of people. Most will not care beyond a superficial level that the CPU is the same. Those that do -- and I'm one of them -- will have specific reasons why this is a good or bad thing.

What you are missing is that the x86 architecture will allow the machines to dual-boot or concurrently run Windows via a hypervisor. Suddenly having Macs on the desks in the design department at MegaCorp isn't going to give the IT department quite the same kind of heart attacks. I see this all the time, where Macs aren't welcome because your box won't be able to run XYZ custom app to file your timecards, handle your accounting, etc. x86 Macs will allow IT departments to think of Mac boxen as "Windows boxen plus."

By no means do I expect Macs to sweep the enterprise, at least not anytime soon. There are reasons for that as long as my arm. But I have no doubt that the x86 nature of the new Macs will help.

What you are missing is that the x86 architecture will allow the machines to dual-boot or concurrently run Windows via a hypervisor. Suddenly having Macs on the desks in the design department at MegaCorp isn't going to give the IT department quite the same kind of heart attacks. I see this all the time, where Macs aren't welcome because your box won't be able to run XYZ custom app to file your timecards, handle your accounting, etc. x86 Macs will allow IT departments to think of Mac boxen as "Windows boxen plus."

What does any of that have to do with anything that I wrote?

Maybe you should post to another thread instead of attempting to argue a point that I have no interest in.

"That said, Apple is not in the same market. They are selling Macs -- not PCs."

Actually they will be selling PCs, which coincidentally will also be Macs.

I think you are right that, the adoptation to Vista will be slow on the corporate desktop. The major driving force for an update would be Microsoft dropping support for previous versions. If I remember correctly support for XP will be dropped around 2011, and this is when we will see the effects of Vista.

Today the most common OS on the corporate desktop is win2k. The big question is really if companies will upgrade win2k to Vista directly, or if they switch to XP first. My guess is that they will due to lower hardware requirements.

Or they could have gone with a reimplementation of VMS, beneficiating from its following and its aura of security, stability, reliability, and keeping the possibility to gladly bash all things UNIX ;-)

"Apple has what 2-3% of the desktop"

You, like so many people on this board are mistakenly intechchanging market share with install base. In certain circumstances, a company can have 99% install base and 1% market share. The 2-3% figure is the market share figure.

Apple's install base is much larger than its market share. Don't confuse them.

"What leads you to believe that Apple will change its current policy of keeping the highest profit margins in the PC hardware business?"

Nothing. Apple retains its large margins not by pricing its hardware disproportionatly with the PC industry. They do so by limiting the number of configurations you can buy thus requireing you to by more and pay more. If a PC were equipped with the exact same (or as close as possible) components in hardware, software and operating system, the two would be equally priced... and in many instances, the Mac would cost less.


"Even with x86 they're selling a "value-added" type product - commodity PC components plus Apple design and usability. That kind of model requires margins that are always going to be higher than Dell or HP."

And they achieve that by limiting the number of configurations you can buy thus requiring you to buy more and pay more. That doesn't mean that their hardware is disproportionatly priced. It means that PC manufacturers simply allow you to buy less and spend less.


"Apple currently doesn't engage the enterprise market very well."

Only because they just started.

Yes, OS X will only run on Apple hardware. That means that when companies are set to by new PCs, they will be just as (more) inclined to buy Macs, because the Intel Macs will be indistinguishable (function-wise) to all the other PCs, but Apple's PCs will also be able to run OS X... unlike all the other PCs.

> As confirmed by Apple, Mac OS X for Intel will only run
> on Apple hardware.
They will require Apple-authorized Intel CPUs, but every other part of the PC will be normal commodity hardware.

> They will require Apple-authorized Intel CPUs, but every other part of the PC will be normal commodity hardware.

so... I think that it will be possible to run MacOS X on other hardware than Macs. While Darwin is Open Source, there's nothing difficult in "disabling" feature like detecting if installed CPU is authorized or not.

I think people assumed it was going to be in the middle of the second quarter. This might as well be regarded as the 3rd quarter.

Second HALF... not quarter...

You're right... I got my naming conventions mixed up. Anyways, what I was getting at is that it might as well be regarded as fight quarter (or first half) of '07

Lol Apple does not compete against pcs, And changeing to the x68 does not mean they now compete, Being able to dual boot is not really a benifit in most shops i have seen,, You still will fall into the extra price of dual booting, You still get to pay the added price of the apple, And THEN have to buy the RETAIL VER of windows, That adds about $250 ontop of the cost of the box.

"Lol Apple does not compete against pcs, And changeing to the x68 does not mean they now compete"

Why not. The Intel Mac will do everything that the Dell PC can do. In essence, it *IS* a PC. The difference comes that The Mac (unlike the PC) can also run OS X. As long as the Mac retains its price advantage (or price equality) with PCs, it most certinly is competing in the same space.


"Being able to dual boot is not really a benifit in most shops i have seen"

Maybe because the advantage of dual booting into Linux didn't provide enough reason to want to dual boot or maybe it was the dual boot execution process. Lets wait to see how Apple handles the matter before you assume that it will be identical to the dual boot setups you've seen in the past.


"You still get to pay the added price of the apple"

Well, if we're honest about pricing, you're not having to pay any additional price over that of a comperably equipped PCs. The Mac may actually be less expensive when compared with a comperably equipped PC. The Mac may require you to buy more and pay more, but the way you said it made it sound like Mac cost more than comperably equipped PCs.


"And THEN have to buy the RETAIL VER of windows"

Well, then there goes the Apple price advantage. They will then be priced equally rather than the Mac costing less than the comperably equipped PC.

You were talking about how only a very small number of people will care about the x86 move in any non-superficial sort of way. I pointed out a very important, very large group of people who will care - enterprise IT departments - and explained why. You also asserted that "Apple is not in the same market. They are selling Macs -- not PCs" - my post also served to point out that, with the x86 move, they are in essence selling both, which again, might be very important in enterprise IT. Maybe you should post to another thread if you are unable or unwilling to keep up or have a civil conversation.

This is beyond the pale. Macs AREN'T x86 PCs even if they use 98% of the same hardware. In a corporate environment to treat them as such would not make any sense at all. Only a small group of non-corporate uses are likely;

* Paying for x86 Macs to use as Windows PCs when there is a larger group of ready-to-run Windows PCs is silly.

* Paying for x86 PCs to use as Macs won't work in a corporate environment even when it's hackable to do so since you won't be able to get support.

That's why what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. You focused on your own agenda and ignored everything else I did write about. That's really rude.

PS: If you reply, please remember to hit the reply link so people can find it.

* Paying for x86 Macs to use as Windows PCs when there is a larger group of ready-to-run Windows PCs is silly.

I was specifically talking about areas where Mac policy is a problem in enterprise IT, such as design departments. These creative professionals either already use Macs and are off the IT grid or are forbidden from using Macs, but would rather use Macs if the IT dept. could be convinced. x86 Macs will help meet those requirements for these individuals and departments for the reasons I've outlined (usually custom software that all employees are required to use). I've seen these problems first-hand many times, and have no doubt that x86 Macs will help. These discussions are already taking place, I was a part of one at a Fortune 100 installation a couple weeks ago. But as I've said now a dozen times, none of this means x86 Macs will sweep the enterprise - only that the door is cracking open.

* Paying for x86 PCs to use as Macs won't work in a corporate environment even when it's hackable to do so since you won't be able to get support.

There's nothing "hackable" about this; Apple says the boxes will run Windows, and enterprise departments have their own Windows licenses and already provide their own support. I'm not talking about junior's PC in the basement.

You focused on your own agenda and ignored everything else I did write about. That's really rude.

I was replying to one of your assertions, as someone who actually has first-hand experience that your assertion is incorrect. And I did it without being rude or uncivil, as you seem incapable of doing.

"Macs AREN'T x86 PCs even if they use 98% of the same hardware."

Actually, the x86 Macs will in fact be x86 PCs. The only difference is that Apple's x86 PCs will be able to run OS X.


"In a corporate environment to treat them as such would not make any sense at all.

I don't see why not. They'll be just as cost effective and will give busineses one more desktop/server oriented OS to choose from.


"Only a small group of non-corporate uses are likely"

We'll see.

"That's a big difference. Differences like that don't come from limiting configurations."

Yes, actually it does because it forces the consumer to buy more and spend more. For example... If I want to buy the least expensive computer Dell sells I can pay as little as $200. If I want to buy the least expensive computer Apple sells I must pay $500. The two systems are hardly comparable. The Mac is equipped with more... maybe more in software... maybe more in hardware... maybe both. But the Mac *IS* equipped with more so therefore you pay more. If the PC were equipped with the same indentical equipment it would cost the same or more.


"Differences like that don't come from limiting configurations. Apple spends $1.00 and charges $1.28, Dell spends $1.00 and charges $1.10."

That's simply not true. Dell makes its money by selling in unlimited configurations and at low prices but sells lots of them. They can achieve high profits by moving lots of volume. Apple too sells its equipment at the same price, but they require you to buy more because they limit the number of configurations you can buy.


"You can certainly make an argument, for example, that a Mac is so much better in various ways (the OS, the software, the quality, the support, the design - what have you) that it's worth paying the higher margins."

That's not true either. You're not paying more simply for it being a better computer... though many would agree that it IS genuinely better. You're paying more because you're getting more.... be it specs, OS or bundled software.

"The arguments you are making are based on memes in Mac advocacy and have nothing to do with reality

C'mon. Stop being condasending.


"if Apple spends $1.00 and charges $1.28, but Brand X spends $1.00 and charges $1.10, it means that Apple is charging more for the same outlay of expenses."

But Apple doesn't mark up their computers. Thats what I'm telling you. The easiest way to find this out is to custom build a PC with the exact same components in hardware and software and operating system and then see what the prices are. On the low end Apple's prices are comperable. However, as you go up the scale, Apple has traditionally been less expensive.

I know what you're saying... I know how margins work. I'm just telling you that Apple doesn't price their computers more than the competition. It seems that way because there aren't as many options to choose from which allow you to buy less and thus spend less like you can if you were to buy an x86 PC.

"You can believe what you want to believe."

Its not about believing or non believing. That's simply what the numbers are.


"When Apple spends $1000 on hardware they, on average, turn around and sell that hardware to the consumer for $1280. When most other companies spend $1000 on hardware they, on average, turn around and sell that hardware to the consumer for $1100."

If so, its also because they're giving you less too. When the two computers are matched up spec for spec, the Mac typically comes out less. I've done these comparisons time and time again. And the only time their not equal prices or the Mac doesn't come out less is when an item on the PC wasn't matched up to the Mac because the person specing the PC said that such and such item wasn't necessary. Necessary or not, its one fewer spec item and to do a fair comparison they need to be matched as closely as possible. Unfortunately, comparing a Mac to another OEM PC makes for a bad comparison because the none of the OEM PCs have an exactly spec'd PC to match the specs of the Mac so a custom built PC must be compared against the Mac.


"As I already stated many messages back, none of this means that the "total value" of a Mac isn't worth the extra margin."

You have that only partially right... The Mac *IS* a better computer in most instances but Apple isn't charging you more for it. They're getting more for it, but only because they're giving you more.

You're missing his point.

He's not talking about spec. He's talking about cost. It's clear enough.

For every $1100 a PC manufacturer sells equipmment for they get $1000. For Apple they get an extra $180. Whether the Apple stuff is better or not for the price (which I don't agree with anyway) is not the point. The point is that their margin is bigger and so you're paying more for your equipment.

"He's not talking about spec. He's talking about cost. It's clear enough."

A PC *can* cost less in the way that a cheap plastic razor costs less than a nice electric one. When I refer to spec, I'm saying that if you get two electric razors of equal quality and feature set, the Mac razor is going to cost less than the PC electric razor. At worst it will cost the same. Apple simply doesn't sell a cheap plastic razor with minimum features. It only sells the nicer electric ones. Does that analogy help you understand?


"For every $1100 a PC manufacturer sells equipmment for they get $1000. For Apple they get an extra $180."

And I'm saying that this is simply not true.


"Whether the Apple stuff is better or not for the price (which I don't agree with anyway) is not the point."

Agreed. The Mac *IS* better... but does so for less or the same money.


"The point is that their margin is bigger and so you're paying more for your equipment."

Apple's margin is bigger because they don't allow you to buy less and spend less like you can with a PC.

Higher spec'd PCs have higher margins. Apple simply doesn't sell low spec'd PCs... THAT's how they achieve higher margins. Its not because their computers are more expensive than a comperably equipped PC.

"Higher spec'd PCs have higher margins. Apple simply doesn't sell low spec'd PCs... THAT's how they achieve higher margins. Its not because their computers are more expensive than a comperably equipped PC."

Please don't tell me that the 700Eur Minis are high specs PCs. And yet in Europe 700Eur are a lot of money, they buy you quite a good Desktop.

"Please don't tell me that the 700Eur Minis are high specs PCs."

For a the lowest class system Apple sells, its way better than Dell's (for example) lowest class system.

You may be able to buy a PC with better components in the areas that you specifically are looking for, but if you were to equip a PC with the exact same components in hardware, software and OS the PC would still be more (at best the same) as the Mini.

"You may be able to buy a PC with better components in the areas that you specifically are looking for, but if you were to equip a PC with the exact same components in hardware, software and OS the PC would still be more (at best the same) as the Mini."

I am totally unconvinced.
For staters in the US you pay $700, but here in Europe we pay 700Eur=$840

What can you buy with 700Eur?
Here is a quick example, but I could find tons more, and possibly even better value:

http://hpshop.eprice.it/Category.pasp?txtCategory=C1195%5F100~*...

The problem with comparisons like this is that you're essentially asking the Mac to compete on configurability. We've already established that the Mac is less configurable. To see which computer is actually less expensive, you would need to custom build a PC to meet the exact specifications of the Mac... since it can't be done the other way around. When that happens, the Mac is the same price or less expensive thanthe PC.

It's a hard comparison to make. But I do think you're right that Mac's price per quality/features are quite fair. The trouble is that many don't value quality at all.

It's a hard comparison to make. But I do think you're right that Mac's price per quality/features are quite fair. The trouble is that many don't value quality at all.

Yeah, there are lots of arguments that the Mac is a better value. Higher resale value, longer useful life. Not everyone will agree, but a strong argument can be made. But lower upfront costs than an equivalent PC? Not even Apple is silly enough to make this argument.

"But lower upfront costs than an equivalent PC? Not even Apple is silly enough to make this argument."

Perhaps they should. It's a genuine selling point. Perhaps the reason why they don't is that people still see the ability to buy less and spend less a greater asset than buying able to buy more and spend less... at the expensive of initial configurability.

"It's a hard comparison to make."

I don't see why. You can equip a PC with nearly the identical components as that which come standard in any Mac.


"But I do think you're right that Mac's price per quality/features are quite fair. The trouble is that many don't value quality at all."

You, like so many others on this board think that the Mac is able to justify its supposedly higher price by having better quality. That's not waht I'm saying. Yes, the Mac typically *IS* better quality, but it also costs the same (sometimes less) than a comperably equipped PC.

On-topic, I'll briefly say that I'm not surprised that late 2006 is the watchword for Vista. Microsoft really would have been better off introducing their new paradigm gradually with a release schedule similar to that of the OS predominantly featured in the comments so far, Mac OS X.

In a way that is what they're doing - they've already spun off many of the interesting Longhorn features as "WinFX technologies." Avalon, Indigo, WinFS...