OSNews

It does appear to be going well for them.

I must point out though, the G5's certainly were not slow compared to its x86 competition. The Quad G5's still in fact, scream and IIRC, beat the Core's in most benchmarks.

It would be a shame if a quad-G5 couldn't beat a dual-Pentium-M (er, "Core", which doesn't coime in any quad configuration, yet) in all benches.

The G5 has been slow compared to its x86 competition for ages (basically 3-4 months after release, except for apps specifically tweaked for it). IBM apparently never cared to fix it (certainly some extra registers here and there and more cache could do the job!); hence, the move to Intel.

Not all benchmarks. Namely those tasks that don't scale to four processors. Further "adding more registers" and increasing cache sizes would do little for improving the performance of the G5.

Uh, they have replaced all models but the tower and the server.... yet you make it sound like they haven't done much. Very strange.

Anyways, it was always known the Powermacs would be last, since they needed upgrade the least. Furthermore, apple is waiting for the 64 bit intel core chips to come out. They released the 32bit models because they had to get something out the door, and 64bit isn't needed in a laptop since designing one for over 4 gigs of memory would be a bit crazy. Furthermore, current intel 64bit chips are too hot.

Furthermore, current intel 64bit chips are too hot.

From what I've heard, the core duo 32 bit chips are too hot as well.

and 64bit isn't needed in a laptop since designing one for over 4 gigs of memory would be a bit crazy.

Ok, maybe I'm a bit crazy, but I would love a laptop with over 4 gigs of memory in it. And I'm sure I could manage to make use of that 4 gigs.

Maybe I should be more clear about what I mean.....
nevermind....
Thanks for the info....^_^

Are we forgetting that Apple made The Switch primarily because of Intel's roadmap for mobile and ultra-mobile form-factors?

The PPC970 architecture looks great on the workstation and server. Not that Apple is staking their future on these markets, but if I were them, I would stick with the G5 as long as the agreement with Intel allows.

All superscalar processor designs take literally years to develop. First there's a series of brick walls to run into: it works great on the HDL simulator, but the layout is challenging. The layout fits, but the routing is a mess. The 120+ different kinds of transistors and where each belongs. Then they fret and stress over the lithography masks, the laser alignment, and the retooling of the fab line. After all this is done, they find that they're getting 20% functional parts off the first production run and the power envelope is a bit higher than predicted... "binary" is the least of the obstacles in the way of Intel getting "this sh*t over with."

Uh, I'll take back the comment on sticking with the G5. I forgot to consider that the G5 is not going to ramp up and Woodcrest will. Otherwise, though, PPC970 is a solid server/workstation architecture.

Does anyone know how to re-enable comment editing when it mysteriously disappears?

Any way to make it mysteriously appear? I've often wondered where folks are going to edit comments...

"binary" is the least of the obstacles in the way of Intel getting "this sh*t over with."

One thing I will never do is make excuses for billion-dollar corporations....not that you did of course.....

Thanks for the info...^_^

Allow to clarify what I meant by:

"Lets get this sh*t over with..."

I believe Apple made a mistake in choosing Intel....
I understand why, the bottom line is making money.....
Everytime I see a Intel based desktop....I think of Windows....and I saw this "Windows on a Mac movement" right after I heard about Apple/Intel...
now they have done it with boot-camp....

So, I am not exactly thrilled about Apple/Intel, and if they are going to make the switch....I think, and it is my opinion, they should get this sh*t over with...

completely....

*this is all OPINION so need to flame me or whatever..."

Edited 2006-07-01 02:09

I am personally waiting for the Core 2 Duo with 64bit support. I will immediately get a new Mac laptop with it in it. My G4 Powerbook is now 3.5 years old...

I was burned, like many others, by a hardware issue with the MacBook Pro (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=389962)
I get a kernel panic when (or after some arbitrary period of) using Airport connection. Most people on the said discussion confirm that it's a problem with the main board. Well, I gave mine for repair and that's what they changed. It took them 4 weeks and the only thing they achieved was to make the problem much less frequent. But it's still there. I gave it for a second repair and now I'm in the 3 week of waiting. So I used it for 2 weeks and had it for repair for 7 weeks (so far). Apple support sucks big time. At least in Switzerland. And that's a pity because the MBP is a brilliant machine...

that's why it's a good idea to wait 9 weeks before buying any new mac product. It's long, but more you wait, better it is when you get it.

"Now it's just a PC running 'Unix for Dummies' "

and its Rock solid....

so is sandstone...

....touche.....

and its Rock solid....

OS X is like a cold sweater on a warm day.

...maybe it's that 'dummies'-part but I'd like it to be more Unix-esque, e.g. in respect to the ease of compiling and installing X11-based things like Gnome and whatever utilities and applications thhis brings about, as well as true virtual desktops would be nice...

...Possibly even the ability to run Gnome/KDE on its own virtual screen instead of a full screen session within the Mac OS X UI...

Also better support for partitioning of the harddrive during installation would be welcome. I'd really like to be able to partition my harddrive, tell the installer where to locate different things and then allow me to hide the different partitions from the Finder Desktop, giving me a much cleaner experience than possible today (unless you choose to rename e.g. a /usr partition to /.usr and thereby making it disappear from your Finder vies) ...

"Now it's just a PC running 'Unix for Dummies' "

It seems you have no clue of what you are talking about.

Yup, there isn't much Unix over OS X.

Actually Mac OSX is just the NeXTStep microkernel, which itself takes after UNIX. So, NO Duffman, YOU don't know what your talking about.

"So, NO Duffman, YOU don't know what your talking about."

Ok so tell me what's wrong in my post, I am curious.

"Unix for Dummies" was indeed unfair.

However, the remark that the only distinctive thing about the hardware was the RISC processor, and that now this has gone, we have just another PC, that was surely correct?

Its not particularly a bad or good thing, but it is a fact, and there is no reason to think people noticing it are either fat, lazy or poor.

Just....observant?

However, the remark that the only distinctive thing about the hardware was the RISC processor, and that now this has gone, we have just another PC, that was surely correct?

Macs were PC's before the change over, the only thing that differentiated itself from the IBM-Compatible world was the fact that it used a PowerPC processor, apart from that, everything else was generic, run of the mill technology.

What makes a Mac different is this; the holistic integrated approach which Apple brings; they design how the hardware fits together, they design and write the operating system, so they not only have the hardware, but software equation under the one roof.

Thats why they've always been able to provide a better user experience than their competition, the same reason why OpenVMS was so damn reliable on VAX hardware, like Apple, Digital controlled the hardware and software; the operating system developers worked in tandem with the hardware people to ensure that both could leverage the advantages of each others technological approaches to solving problems.

When you purchase a Dell; does Dell design their motherboards? nope, they get a generic kit from Intel. Do they control the operating system? can they tweak the operating system so that stability and reliability issues can be sorted before shipment? nope.

That is where the 'horizontal' market falls to pieces; the seperation of hardware and software has resulted in the disconnection between two VERY important set of engineers (operating system and hardware), resulting in the mess we have today.

See, this is what many of us think is either meaningless or a myth. The meaningless part is all about the 'holistic'. The myth part is about the hardware/software integration.

We have seen pictures of the MacIntel boards, and they are not designed by Apple, but by Intel. We do not see that Apple designs how the hardware fits together, in any way different from the way that Dell or Acer or AOpen does. It cannot. It does not have any more control over graphics cards, disk drives, memory, pci slots, opticals, usb ports...

They did definitely provide a better user experience than the competition from about 1985 through 1998. After that it was evens, until the arrival of 2000 and XP, at which point they fell behind. But this better experience had nothing to do with the hardware. It had to do with the OS. Edit: In fact, as a user of the macs of those days, I would say it was a better experience in spite of the hardware. Remember the 4400? The various Performas? The infamous Cube? The various disastrous laptops?

The original Mac Classic OS was, for a long time, dramatically better than anything the competition had to offer in terms of administration and file and application management. OSX still is better in terms of security.

But when you conclude by talking about the mess we have today, most people with a broad experience of desktop computing will be very puzzled. There is a dreadful security mess. But there really is not a problem with hardware recognition and use. There really isn't. At least, no more of a problem than with OSX. Nor is there a problem with stability in XP. Or the major Linux distributions.

Its very hard to understand why the current generation of Mac users focusses on, and spreads so much erroneous FUD about, the one aspect of the current desktop environment which works best: its ability to support lots and lots of competitive suppliers of hardware. The reason why Dell does not tweak the OS is that the OS does not need tweaking.

Any OS which needs tweaking to run standard hardware has a colossal design flaw, and will become unmaintainable. Hardware changes all the time, and should. Apple's hardware like everyone else's, because its the same stuff.

There's nothing wrong with wanting and using a Mac. What is wrong is making up nonsensical 'reasons' why the rest of the industry is in some non-existent mess which only Apple is not in.

Edited 2006-06-30 11:33

i see your point and i do agree with you on some points. for instance...Yes, for the most part win2000 surpassed OS 9 and early OSX in over all technial supremacy....fine! however.... you are a bit out of touch! you mention "erroneous FUD" that you say the current gen of mac users spread. and i have heard this from a few people! actually... i have heard FAR FAR FAR more of this.... than the actual FUD that "mac users spread".

i mean.... just look at the numbers: the world is 95% windows 4% Macintosh 1% others. so as far as i am concerned... and i thnk most ration people will agree. it is NOT possible for there to be more FUD comming form this 4% minority group. and if FACT... the real FUD is comming from the 95% group!

so.... my point is.... STOP generalizing! just because you hear one or two mac Zealots blast Windows, that does not mean, that all who carry powerbooks are some sort of brainwashed cult trying to convert you to our religion!

we as mac users ARE however fed up with the BS we have to deal with from a LARGE % of the 95% majority!

WE use OSX.... you dont! we have our reasons!... and so do you!

so what!

your opinion about Windows and the mac...and the computer world in general... is not ging to stop us from buying a macintosh for our next personal computer!

and WE dont care what YOU use!!!!

".Yes, for the most part win2000 surpassed OS 9 and early OSX in over all technial supremacy"

There was a time I was using Win2000 at work and OS 9 at home. Based on extensive familiarity with both platforms, I can't for the life of me figure why so many people would choose (at home I mean) to put up with Windows. And this was OS9 I was using at home; good in its day, but a POS compared to OS X.

"When you purchase a Dell; does Dell design their motherboards? nope, they get a generic kit from Intel. Do they control the operating system? can they tweak the operating system so that stability and reliability issues can be sorted before shipment? nope.

That is where the 'horizontal' market falls to pieces; the seperation of hardware and software has resulted in the disconnection between two VERY important set of engineers (operating system and hardware), resulting in the mess we have today."

Nonsense, Dell has the volume to get customed designed hardware done to its requirements. Indeed, given how much hardware Dell moves, it is able to specify to the very fine detail what it wants from its motherboard manufacturers.

Given its volume, prices are cheaper.

Given its volume, the drivers are better tested by a whole lot of people resulting in more reliable drivers, particularly when they are open source.

Given its volume and the fact that it has always conformed to the x86 platform, it is easier to subsitute a Dell part with something else, should you need to do this for any reason such as price, or getting up and running quickly because a power suply just failed.

Apple is the company that uses proprietary connectors for everything with proprietary form factors and the only reason they do so is so that they can be the only hardware supplier for replacement hardware making sure that you will pay through the nose for the privilege.

I am tired of hearing the often-repeated propaganda about perfect coupling of hardware and software. It's nonsense!

Hardware that has documented specifications can have good drivers, irrespective of who makes the drivers. In fact, most of Apple's current kit is the generic Intel kit that you dislike so much and it is intel itself that provides reference drivers for all of it.

Welcome to the real world, a place where Apple itself has already landed.

Don't worry. In a few years time, you will be telling us how good the generic hardware that Intel provides apple is and how incredible the user experience is, despite the fact that this hardware will be equally available to users of other operating systems.

And I am tired of hearing this king of arguments.

If mac users said that there is a better integration with Mac os x, it is because Apple is making his OS according to their hardware, specific or not.

Does Windows suport EFI ? NO
Mac OS X supports it from the beginning because Apple is tuning his OS according to their hardware.

THAT is a better integration and you can find a lot of other examples.

Explain why Apple receives top marks in regards to customer satisfaction? some sort of voodoo curse, or simply the reality that rather than providing an operating system that has to be tested on trillions of combinations; they can design the hardware, test the operating system on it, make changes to the operating system - something that Dell cannot do, and ship the hardware once it is ready.

Explain why there are so many satisfied MacOS X users out there, after moving from Windows XP/2000/9x? some sort of mythical RDF or the simple fact that rather than having to play 'wheres driver' (a variation of where's Wally), and whether the driver actually works, they know when they shove in their MacOS X cd, all their hardware will work, out of the box, without any problems.

Oh, and don't get me started on the CRAP quality of drivers which ATI and Nvidia provide; the bugginess, the clunkyness of their setup interfaces, the instability and quicky behaviour - compare that to the ATI and Nvidia drivers which Apple write in MacOS X; haven't experienced a single problem yet.

Edited 2006-07-01 04:52

What makes a Mac different is this; the holistic integrated approach which Apple brings; they design how the hardware fits together, they design and write the operating system, so they not only have the hardware, but software equation under the one roof.

Which is why I'm amazed when Apple kit (Airport) causes kernel panics on Apple operating systems (MacOSX), running on Mac hardware.

Apple pays overseas manufacturers to build standard PC kit; there is really nothing special about what they're doing.

Unless you count the ability to run a laptop so hot that the battery swells and splits the case, as special.

Which is why I'm amazed when Apple kit (Airport) causes kernel panics on Apple operating systems (MacOSX), running on Mac hardware.

Wouldn't one ask, if the majority of people are experiencing no problems, and you are, maybe you should test your memory, and maybe work out that it could be a software configuration issue or a fault memory module. 9/10, when a computer kernel panics or BSOD's, its because of either a faulty memory module, or an extremely badly written driver.

Apple designs the motherboard, chooses the chipsets required, then sends the designs off to the manufacturer - what is wrong with that? Dell doesn't even design a damn thing! they have no R&D, and Michael Dell, the last time he was interviewed, was actually PROUD of having none - the fact that it was a vacuum in the IT space in regards to innnovation and R&D.

"When you purchase a Dell; does Dell design their motherboards? nope, they get a generic kit from Intel. Do they control the operating system? can they tweak the operating system so that stability and reliability issues can be sorted before shipment? nope.

That is where the 'horizontal' market falls to pieces; the seperation of hardware and software has resulted in the disconnection between two VERY important set of engineers (operating system and hardware), resulting in the mess we have today."

I couldnt have said it better myself.....

"However, the remark that the only distinctive thing about the hardware was the RISC processor, and that now this has gone, we have just another PC, that was surely correct?"

for most mac users.... OSX (or OS 7-9) was far more important than the risc thing any way.

and if IBM and Moto's RISC program scalled like intels CISC/RISCs hybrid program.... than this switch may have not happend! thats somthing we will never know!

but it does not matter.... because, what really counts, is that Apple is kicking ass with OSX, Kicking ass with their new hardware... and their furure is brighter now than than any time since 84.

and forget about market share... its not the issue that the trolls and pundants make it out to be! especially when apple has been SO profitable for the last half decade!

the VAST majority of apple customers and OSX users....concure... OSX is a great OS, and the iPod is cool, and we do mind spending a bit more for apples industrial design, and attention to detail!

the trust is.... we WANT to use apples stuff.... we dont have too! and that may frriends is the essance of CHOICE!

and if you dont get it..... you don't get it.... and we dont care!

bye

Funny, MacOS X has how the largest installed UNIX-like operating system out there on end user desktops.

Funny how Windows has now the largest installed operating system out there on end user desktops.
Does that make it better?

No, its more, "I can't afford a Mac, so instead of getting off my fat lazy ass and working to purchase one, I'll abuse those who do have Macs, and enjoy using MacOS X".

Why do you assume that everyone that considers a Mac to be overpiced is envious and wants one? I don't own a Mac, I do consider them overpriced. I could easily afford a few of them. I have better things to spend my money on than a PC with a fancy case running "Unix for Dummies"....

Edited 2006-06-30 10:39

what if people actually thought of everything in this way... Would anyone buy anything that's pricier than another, solely based on the 'quality' or 'design'?

-Why do people buy expensive Caarles and Ray Eames chairs instead of cheaper knock offs or otherwise 'same-same-but-different' proucts? -simply because the experience is another, and there's nothing wrong with this assumption... Just not everyone share it...

Quality comes in many disguises and not everyone is susceptible to to eaah and everyone of them...

-----------Funny, MacOS X has how the largest installed UNIX-like operating system out there on end user desktops.-------------

That's not true, not even close. Linux has more users worldwide than the totality of mac users, not just mac OS10.x users.

According to Apple, the total of mac users is 25 mil.(around 2 to 2.5%) Linux has a little more than that based off quite a few estimates.

Also, (though I forget where I saw it) Apple has projected it's OS 10.x userbase somewhere around 18 million. Clearly linux beats that.

I don't think it is fair to lump togther LINUX distros from DIFFERENT vendors.

Also, all numbers of this sort contain a lot of guessing and error. LINUX DOWNLOADS is not the same as LINUX installs. Macs sold RETAIL is not the same as total Macs sold for a given period.

-----------I don't think it is fair to lump togther LINUX distros from DIFFERENT vendors.-------------

I don't see why not. They're all virtually compatible.

The different windows versions get lumped together. XP only has around half the market, yet look nearly anywhere you like, you'll see windows with a 90% number.

------------Also, all numbers of this sort contain a lot of guessing and error.-------------

Agreed, but so does Apple's numbers. They don't really know how many imacs have been dumped somewhere, how many have been upgraded from OS 9x to os 10x. They don't know how many have been moved from MacOS to something else.(linux, BSD, etc)

-----------LINUX DOWNLOADS is not the same as LINUX installs.-----------

From what I understand, projections to find out worldwide usage(at least as done by groups like IDC and Gartner) don't rely alot on downloads but rather on machines which have been sold abroad.

"I don't see why not. They're all virtually compatible.

The different windows versions get lumped together. XP only has around half the market, yet look nearly anywhere you like, you'll see windows with a 90% number. "

LINUX distros are NOT as compatible as you make them out to be.

"------------Also, all numbers of this sort contain a lot of guessing and error.-------------

Agreed, but so does Apple's numbers"

Agreed again. ALL the numbers are squishy.

I don't think it is fair to lump togther LINUX distros from DIFFERENT vendors.

Yes it is. Linux is Linux is Linux.

Also, all numbers of this sort contain a lot of guessing and error. LINUX DOWNLOADS is not the same as LINUX installs. Macs sold RETAIL is not the same as total Macs sold for a given period.

I think you've misunderstood the figures. The browser stats measure which platforms are used to surf the net; it's not perfect, but there isn't really a better way to gauge the size of the user base.

"White said he has some hope that, despite the competition, Mac users will prove less tightfisted than Linux users. Many of these have been reluctant to pay for the CrossOver product, when the technology is also available free in the open-source world. 'Parting with money is just not part of the Linux way,' White said. Plus, there are a lot of Mac users out there. 'There are far more Mac users than there are Linux, at least in North America on the desktop,' White said."

This is a quote from an article from C|Net regarding WINE and Codeweavers...

There are a lot mor Mac users that are willing to pay for software then Linux users who are willing to PAY/Donate for software.

How's a developer to survive?

IMHO

Jb

And I largely agree with that.

A) from what I've seen the mac market in the US is around 4%(vs their 2x size worldwide) and the linux size is somewhere around 1% us.

B) Most current linux users don't want to part with money, because alot of them don't have it. That, and there's alot of them that hate business as a rule of thumb. Even when it comes to native ports to linux games, they'd scream for sourcecode. Alot of this is changing though. Linux is losing it's evangelism because the platform has become so easy to use, and alot more people of pragmatism are using it.

I wasn't making my argument about software porting. I was just disagreeing with the poster's assertion that Mac OS 10.x has the largest unix based desktop usage.

That's a false statement.

"Also, (though I forget where I saw it) Apple has projected it's OS 10.x userbase somewhere around 18 million. Clearly linux beats that."

I don't think that Linux is beating the 18 Millions of the DESKTOP Unix users who don't even have a clue about OS.

As you can compare Windows and Mac OS X end users, you can't compare them with the Linux user's base (who are geeks).

-----------I don't think that Linux is beating the 18 Millions of the DESKTOP Unix users who don't even have a clue about OS.------------

Define "beating". What are you talking about?

-----------As you can compare Windows and Mac OS X end users, you can't compare them with the Linux user's base (who are geeks).------------

Sure you can. For the most part, Mac users are computer geeks as well. Go talk to your average Mac user, and by/large they love their product. They know alot about it. Maybe they're not as geeky as linux users are, but to say that they're not geeks is somewhat misrepresentative.

And let's not forget windows geeks. You ever go to Paul Thurrott's website? He's not an anomaly. There's alot of wingeeks out there too.

All I was doing was talking about the size. The amount of users. That's it. And in context with sheer numbers, linux is the #2 world wide. Not the Mac.

+1 for you. Guess someone in the Mac Cult has been modding you down.

Hi. Are you lost? You might have more fun over here:
http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/

"Funny, MacOS X has how the largest installed UNIX-like operating system out there on end user desktops."

I realize that you got lost in the excitement of your OSX worship, but Linux actually has more end user desktops than OSX does. In fact, last I saw, it was a fairly large gap between the two.

I have heard that Linux is mostly used as a server OS, and now Windows is gaining in this market.

Maybe people start using their old servers as desktops?

Funny, MacOS X has how the largest installed UNIX-like operating system out there on end user desktops.

Mmm ... I'm not sure if that's strictly true.

According to the w3c browsers stats, Linux has a larger desktop share than MacOSX

Linux - 4.4%
Mac - 3.6%

"According to the w3c browsers stats, Linux has a larger desktop share than MacOSX

Linux - 4.4%
Mac - 3.6%"

I like browser numbers better than retail numbers, but there is still much room for error. Many Mac/LINUX users are obliged to use Windows machines at work, inflating Windows numbers.

I think better numbers could be obtained if we could look at hits to a "neutral" site (not Apple.com or Microsoft.com) at night, when most people would be surfing fron home.

Any thoughts on this?

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
w3c browser stats are not representative of the market. You would get an F if you were to present evidence like that for a paper. If you want somewhat reliable market stats, you'd have to know how many linux installs and how many mac installs phoned home for software updates for the first time.

"If you want somewhat reliable market stats, you'd have to know how many linux installs and how many mac installs phoned home for software updates for the first time."


That doesn't work either; software updating can be turned off easily.

I think the numebr of Macs SOLD per year is an easy number to get at (APPL annual reports), though it is not necessarily representative of installed base if upgrade cycles vary by platform. Figuring out PC's sold, let alone LINUX installs is way more problematic, no matter how you cut it.

Dummies like:

James Gosling, Kirk McKusick, the people at Genentech, Bill Joy (who even prefers it over Linux) you name them.

James Gosling, Kirk McKusick, the people at Genentech, Bill Joy (who even prefers it over Linux) you name them.

True, trying to find a Windows/Linux or Solaris x86/SPARC user in SUN's Java division is like trying to find a tolerant evangelical who supports gay marriage.

"James Gosling, Kirk McKusick, the people at Genentech, Bill Joy (who even prefers it over Linux) you name them."

You forget Tim Burner-Lee. ;-D

Well, feel proud, you're but a fraction of the Mac's userbase. Most of them simply could not care whether it is running a RISC or Intel processor, as long as they get an easy to use computer running their favourite OS. I just put my order in for a new Intel Mini myself.

Now it's just a PC running 'Unix for Dummies'

Normally I would consider that flame-bait, but today I thought it was just plain funny!

[quote]the only thing Apple had going for it was a RISC based processor.[/quote]

Intel processors are RISC/CISC hibrids so no point there.

Yes, I agree. It works out of the box, so it's obviously for dummies. If it were a Real Computer one would have to f--k around with it for at least two hours to get it to run like a Real Computer should.

Personally I detest computers that I don't have to download all kinds of drivers for or that don't at least require a kernel recompile. In short, a Real Computer's primary function is to make me feel Real Smart.

the only thing Apple had going for it, as far as I was concerned, was a RISC based processor

You must have been living inside a hole for the past 10 years! The RISC/CISC division broke down since the release of AMD's K5 (and possibly even before that)!

Also, the G4 and G5 processors are not pure RISC processors with the addition of Altivec.

Mac OS X is a lot more dynamic than Windows. Look at the changes that we've seen since it came out!

Well, they did add Konf .. sorry .. I mean .. Dashboard.

S'funny but I vaguely remember that MS had a command line OS before Apple added it to OSX.

...and Apple had A/UX as well, which to some extend resembles Mac OS X of today in being Unix with an apple's face, [designed to be] running on Apple hardware exclisively...

"The reason we have not seen desktop Intel Macs is that the PRO apps, primarily Adobe, are not ready."

The sooner Apple "obsoletes" ADBE with a Photoshop killer, the better. ADBE is an unreliable partner.

"The sooner Apple "obsoletes" ADBE with a Photoshop killer, the better. ADBE is an unreliable partner."

Classic, really classic.

What the folks are buying is Photoshop. If Apple makes a competitor, they will not move. They have all their plugins, they know how to work it. Were Apple to ban Photoshop from the Mac they would move en masse and overnight to Windows.

Its Photoshop that is selling from necessity. The Macs to run it on are selling out of habit. Given a choice there is no doubt which they will pick. Apple would do well not to do anything to alienate Adobe. Its a lot more powerful than Apple in this space.

I think the MacBook is fine right now. It did have a few issues, but they are gone now.

Well, if there are more Linux unsers than MacOSX users, then quite a few Linux users must be non-geek.

------------Well, if there are more Linux unsers than MacOSX users, then quite a few Linux users must be non-geek.-----------

Correct. I can't be the only linux geek out there migrating family members to a more stable platform.

It's nice to get a handful of tech calls a year, vs a handful every couple of weeks.

I might've migrated to the mac platform a long time ago had they released MacOS to the masses, but as far as buying an actual mac I don't like Apple's loan program. No matter how much time passes, that computer you bought is still ultimately apple's and not yours.

Apple is the only unix supplier who has managed, to get Unix working fluidly for non-tech people, that's why your remark is totally misplaced.

Are you sure about that? There are a good number of Linux distros out there that are plenty friendly to non-tech people. BSD distros as well.

The "technical" issues really come from hardware support problems. If a system were built from the ground up with Linux/BSD compatibility in mind, technical issues encountered would be limited.

After market installations of Linux and BSD can also be painless should your hardware be supported. These installations are often not any more difficult for a user than installing and configuring OSX.

Of course the issue does come down to hardware support. I have machines that have had very limited problems installing distros such as Suse, Ubuntu, PC-BSD and numerous other desktop enviroments.

I have also had problems on other machines who's hardware simply has no support yet in the Linux/BSD world (or Mac for that matter).

So hardware issues aside, is OSX easier to use for non-tech people? Not in my opinion. It really depends on the person and how they prefer to work though. Most often it's whatever OS somebody showed them how to use first.

Apple the only Unix supplier to get Unix to work "fluidly" for non-tech people? I don't think so.

More so, those who complain that a Mac with an Intel Processor is no longer a Mac, fail to notice that the original Mac OS was scrapped and replaced with an entirely different beast in a totally different league.

Hardware will always change, but an operating system generally only improves over time. If there's anything that doesn't make a 2006 mac like a 1984 mac, it's the OS - not the hardware

Not to quote the original post, it would be too long, but by way of reply, the animals looked in through the kitchen window, and they saw to their astonishment that the pigs had become men.

It will always be a mac as long as it is made by Apple. The cult is of Apple, not the Mac. In the same way, it was always the true voice of the proletariat, whether it was in favour of the purges of the thirties, of allying with the Nazis, of fighting the Great Patriotic War against them, or of invading, sorry fraternally aiding, the Czechs and Hugarians.

If it were a Dell running Windows and it were sold by Apple, it would still be a Mac.

This is what cults are all about. This is why I will probably never buy another Mac.

Oh boy, I guess that Mac really hurt your feelings.
Sounds like it broke your heart actually, you poor thing.

I don't like cults. Political, religious, or in consumer goods. Or in consumer goods marketing. How do you know you are in the presence of one? By the way the followers behave.

It has nothing to do with the hardware or software, and its not personal.