OSNews

OsX, in terms of home desktop, has a great appeal. So I am not surprised by this testimonial. However, what is surprising is that Apple has not ported OsX to x86, I think if they do they will clean house! That and focusing in iPods would make Apple a more mainstream company. THis could benefit both Apple and the consumers, getting a wider market that is. So far the constrain in Apple is the expensive Mac Hardware, if they break free of those shakles watch out, cuz they would be unstopable.

Go Apple!

Agree, the only reason I don't own one is the price.

That sounds good except one of Apple's strongest claims to fame is stuff just works....out of the box. If they port OSX to x86 they would immediately find all kinds of hardware that needs special drivers etc etc that won't work out of the box.

And Apple is a hardware company. They make money selling computers, not Mac OS X.

Porting to x86 would also lower the barrier to entry, which Apple do not want to do. Apple is a brand for people willing to pay the little extra for a complete experience that "just works".

I used to think the exact same thing...until I did some research and found that Apple computers and x86 computers are about the same price. Given, you can get an eMachine or walmart special for $400 these days, but when you compare performance, peripherals that are included and software that is included on a Mac to something equivelant on a PC the price evens out. Check it out for yourself. You'll see what I mean.

The reason OSX works so well, and there are so few hardware/software conflicts is because Apple controls both Hardware and Software. This simply would not be possible if the OS were ported to x86! If OSX were ported to x86 I'm guessing that there would be as many problems getting it to run (on the x86) as there are with Windows (all flavors).

It simply wouldn't be best for Apple to do this!

Apple needs to seriously consider porting OSX to x86 architecture. I for one, and most everyone I've talked to, has little interest in the G5. To be fair it is a nice chip, but I happen to prefer the AMD 64 bit series.

I think most people agree that a computer is next to useless without any applications... but if OSX were to be ported to x86 then it would have no applications... everything would have to be recompiled to run on the other version, it would be catastrophic.... a comparison would be if Longhorn had absolutely no backwards compatibility with previous windows versions... what's the point?
And in regards to hardware... there is a reason why the apple laptops are so popular... This "cellphone manufacturer" spent most of its time worrying how to design chips more powerful without increasing their powerconsumption.. the result is that the difference in power consumption of the processor between x86 and G§ chips is upto 10:1! That allows Apple to design their latops to no require so much power (batteries aren't light), and smaller (cooling systems are bulky).

Agree, the only reason I don't own one is the price.

are you basing this on fact? or just what everyone else says?

You are correct! Heck I'd venture to guess that at this point there is MORE software for Mac than there is for Windows...considering you can run both OSX and Linux apps on a Mac. Probably not a true statement, but I'd bet it's close. Plus (aside from games) having so many apps available from both platforms almost guarantees a good (if not better) replacement for whatever app it is you use on Windows. This of course applies to the Home user; things are probably different when speaking from a business/large corp point of view.

I was a DOS and Windows "guru" for years. I also used to sneer at Mac's, and would never even consider owning one. The only experience I had with one was the Mac I had to support at an old job.

My wife and I decided it was time for new computers, back in November of 2002. I was heavily into Linux and FreeBSD by then, and wanted the computers to be powered by something other than Windows. I had been reading quite a bit about OSX, and playing with the store demo units at the local CompUSA, so we decided to go for the 17" LCD iMac (800 MHz G4). We purchased them in the middle of November 2002, and they have been running great ever since.

We upgraded to Panther when it came out, and the only problem encountered was one kernel panic I experienced. Everything has worked flawlessly since then. We're talking over two years with the same computers and that is the only problem encountered. These computers run 24x7, the same as my Linux and FreeBSD machines. They are extremely quiet and run very cool. They may not be the fastest kids on the block, but with 768 MB of RAM in each one, they are more than fast enough for anything the two of us throw at them. Since we upgrade the os to Panther, I haven't been disappointed. Then again, neither my wife nor I are big gamers.

Would I recommend a Mac to a friend or relative? You betcha!

I belive that Apple is waiting for the operating system market to become a commodity market like hardware has. With free options rapidly developing from many sides, it is just a matter of time before the OS as a profit center is deminished. When this happens, Apple with have a clear upper hand over the compitition. Additionaly, Apple has little technical initative to port its flavor of Unix to the X86 with the new advances in the PowerPC field.

Apple should pour some money into making sure the world knows this simple equation: the cost of a Mac is the same as the cost of an equivalent pc, Windows XP, plus assorted apps. Whats more, by Microsoft's own marketting line, Mac software and hardware are fully integrated and made by the same company which is a big plus, right Microsoft?. On top of this, the Mac is a far safer platform from the kernel on up to the web browser. So why is Mac not on everyone's desktop? Marketting. If marketting is taken into account, the Wintel solution magically looks better.

sq

For all those whining about price, I just went to Dell and Apple to verify and sure enough you can get a 17" iMac for about $300 more than the cheapest Dell desktop when you configure that desktop to be as close as possible to the iMac.

Note I said "as close as possible"...the Dell still had a crappier video card and a slower hard drive; and the iMac takes up less space since it's an all in one.

So is it more, sure it's a little more, but you get what you pay for :-) The main point here is that it's not THAT much more (less than what most ppl probably think).

Jimi is correct Apple engineers, and markets the idea of "it just works." If they where to port to x86 they would have to do it on some form of proprietary hardware design, so they could control the hardware configuration. This would not meet the desires of most who are calling for OSX on x86.

In the bigger picture I think Apple is gambling that over time it will become less important to be x86 compatible. There are several issues I think they are looking at

1. Intel has stumbled with the the Itanium processor.

2. The success of the AMD 64 bit chip indicates that users are willing to look at alternate sources to Intel

3. IBM appears to have a chip family that covers the entire range of needs better than Intel. That is one basic architecture that handles embedded systems, personal computers, and high very end servers.

4. IBM has done an excellent job of positioning the PowerPC chip in the gaming market place.

Combine this with the fact that Apples units sales are climbing, I just don't see them marketing an x86. In fact it might be more likely that Microsoft will offer Windows on the PowerPC architecture.

Don

At Mac users, its ok though. I do like Mac OS X and yes, that its based on FreeBSD is definately a step forward. Burt just some Mac users and some of the machine designs just deserve to be laughed at.

If you think Apple would port OS X to x86 without putting in code requiring a proprietary boot chip found only on APPLE mobos, you're dreaming. Apple is a hardware company.

If you think they'd port it to support any old off brand cd-burner, soundcard, or video card you could slap in, once again, you're dreaming. This would completely defeat the hardware-software integration Apple is known for.

If you piss and moan repeatedly about the price of the hardware (despite the fact that the TCO has been demonstrated time and again to be comperable to a similarly equipped PC), what you're saying is, "I'm too good to buy used" 2000's Macs run OS X like a champ.

My backup desktop is a 1999 iMac350. Bought for $250 from a reputable eBay dealer back in '03. Invested another $50 for a 256 stick of ram for a total of 320mb. It's faster and more responsive under OS X than YDL.

My main desktop is a 2002 DP 867 bought as a refurb. I'm close to maxxing out the ram. Still has the original nVidia card in it. Other than some hellacious P-shoppery designed to stress the system, I've never bogged it down. It captures full frame DV without dropped frames -- even if I'm surfing the web. My desire for a dual g5 is a want not a need.

Both of them blow the doors off of the 2003 3ghz/1gb ram "Goatway" I'm using here at work. Oh, the Gateway cost about $200 less than an eMac, but boy does it show. Crappy integrated sound. Crappy integrated video with no dedicated video ram. Oh, and ANALOG VIDEO ONLY. An OS (XP Pro) that gets bogged on a regular basis. Mouse lag. Menus that take 3-5 seconds to open. In fact the sytem can get so bogged, that the screen won't redraw and programs won't close until 30 seconds after they've been told to shut up and go away.

In Q1 CherryOS will allow us to enjoy the spiffyness of OSX on our windows machines at 80% of the native speed!

lmao... sorry... I couldn't resist... that demo was supposed to come out in november the quietly slipped to Q1 2005...

I want a mac... I might buy one someday but I have to save my cash to do so

When I first got into computers...Mac fans were always ripping on Windows and holding up thier OS as the perfect thing. Then along comes OS X and these same people now tout this totally different OS as being perfect. Which is it? IMHO it is not Apple technology or Apple marketing that is holding the Mac back, it is the Mac fans who turn people off. Thus destining the Mac to less than 3 percent market share. And don't bring up "oh, but they are profitable" because they are making their money on the ipod and are marketing the Mac as as ipod accessory.

If you think Apple would port OS X to x86 without putting in code requiring a proprietary boot chip found only on APPLE mobos

you mean the one with Open Firmware in it? it's probably called Open Firmware because its proprietary (sorry for the sarcasm). AFAIK, non-apple PPC boards can run OS X (PegasOS comes to mind, but they do not advertise that functionality anymore).

instead of people whining for OS X on x86, people should be yelling for Windows on PowerPC instead of x86. both the p4 and amd chips have translators to RISC processors for the x86's burdened CISC instruction set, so why not skip the middle man and just move to RISC chips already. if anything x86 is the legacy that needs to be dropped.

nevertheless, i bought a 12" ibook this past weekend.

ok let's take a look at it.

Here is what you get for $2,099.00 CANADIAN

1.8GHz PowerPC G5
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
80GB Serial ATA
8x SuperDrive
Three PCI Slots
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 64MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem

Now let's see what comparison I can make.

AMD64 2800+ (actually 1.8Ghz) --- 179$ CAD
decent abit mobo (kv8pro) ---129$ CAD
256MB DDR400 --- 55$ CAD
80GB SATA 7200 maxtor --- 89$ CAD
Pioneer 16x DVD-+RW --- 109$ CAD
MSI GF 5200 64MB --- 59$ CAD
56K modem --- 19$ CAD
good kb/mouse -- about 100$ CAD
decent case --- about 100$ CAD

Under 900$ canadian, not bad. Did I miss something?

the ibook was $999 with 1.2ghz g4, 256mb ram, 12" lcd, 30gb 4200rpm hard drive, and 802.11b/g wireless.

this is on sale this week at best buy:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?CategoryID=cat01174&id=...

compaq laptop $699
athlon mobile xp 3000+
dvd/cd-rw combo drive
512mb ddr ram
60gb hd
802.11g wireless
15" lcd

sale in flyer:

http://bestbuy.dailyshopper.com/index.aspx?pagename=circularsmall&a...

$300 more, but i still got another mac, for whatever that is worth.

I build my own PC's, all have been built for $250-$400. All are still being used. I have a 100mhz box webserving (OpenBSD / Apache). I have a 700mhz Duron Fileserving of a Software IDE Raid. I have one box running windows for gaming. I use all CRT monitors that were bought for $150 or less. I have monitors I still use that are 10+ years old. I get mileage out of all of that stuff because it has options. And what used to be a desktop machine can turn into a webserver, fileserver, or cvs repo hoster.

And my Apple friends say the TCO is the same and I should look at them. It may be the same as dell, but it's not the same as me. A powerpc box with an integrated montitor? I never bought a pc one that way, why would I buy a mac that way. On top of TCO, I just like the option of upgrading later, or going headless.
-b

"And don't bring up "oh, but they are profitable" because they are making their money on the ipod and are marketing the Mac as as ipod accessory."

Huh? Apple's profits come from their Computers more than the iPod.

Anyway, as a person who seems to have their Mac-lust waning (I'm more interested in Linux now than OSX) there are just some things I can't avoid to say my opinion of.

1) Office 2004 Better on Mac than 2003 on windows? I don't think so, I always thought Office was very kludgy on Mac. Its slower, UI isn't as good IMO, and just doesn't feel as snappy as on XP

2) PC's being "obsolete" so fast. Come on, anything you do on that G3 can be done on a P3 - including running the latest Windows. Win XP runs just as well as past Windows do on the same hardware, just turn off the new eye candy and bam its got the speed of 2k and 98.

3) Yeah... PC hardware is usually pretty ugly, but Falcon-NW, Voodoo, hell even IBM ThinkPads look as good as PowerBooks IMO

4) Running Linux apps in X11 really sucks. It is a train wreck mixing the two types of UIs... and its slow.

5) Linux on PowerPC is not too hot right now.... especially in PowerBooks. No Wireless or Display or Sleep drivers!

6) Getting Windows to run well is pretty damn easy. Installing drivers is not hard at all, and if you can't make Windows stable and responsive relatively easy you are not a power user. There are things it could do better by default, but after a format it never takes much time to get it running optimally. Benchmarking? Please, you benchmark when you get new hardware.

7) PC Snobs? I don't think its right for a Mac user to say that or vice versa.

8) "Difference" ? Come on. There really isn't much difference anymore. iApps and Expose, maybe but just about anything done on a Mac can be done on a PC and vice versa with the exception of gaming as well :p

That said, I love Macs. OSX is very nice. I think its the best OS for a new user, and every time someone asks me what kind of computer to get I tell them to get a Mac. Easier to manage for the rookie and less for me to bother fixing. Thats not to say I haven't had to fix a ton of OSX Problems for my neighbor or friends with Macs. But the hardware is quality, well built, responsive as long as you have enough RAM (I Think OSX is pretty bloated in this regard).

It would be a sad day to see Apple go, I'd love for them to get more market share and success than they have now, but I'd love a Linux iTunes, and drivers so that Linux on a PowerBook doesn't suck so much, but I can't really expect that much either :p

My story is essentially the same as the author of this article. PC guy for my entire life, building, testing, fixing them, etc. I saved up a bunch of money for a Dell laptop, and was apalled at the build quality, fan noise, battery life, and heat. I sold it, and for another hundred bucks or so, I got a 12" Powerbook, my first Mac. Especially with IBM out of the biz, I can't imagine ever buying another brand laptop.

Im happy to see this has brought up some good discussions. By removing Macs hardware business your apps will not run like they do on their hardware platform. Steve Jobs enjoys the fact the Mac is almost error free and easy to use. Price wise yes and no. A powerMac 2GHZ duel costs about $200 more than a simular PC gaming system, but that Mac system will be useful for longer periods of time. What I dont like is Mac skimping on RAM and old generation video cards. I am impressed with the G5 and feel its their best chip yet. IBM will be releasing the duel core chips possiably the same time as Intel and AMD. I would suggest Mac for people who dont game much and do serious work in video editing and photography. I also believe that OS X is the best OS Ive ever seen so date as far as how simple it is and it's power. Now that Mac is making excellent hardware I think they should continue as they always have been. If Apple would ever release Mac OS X for PC, Windows would be in bad shape. That might be possiable anyway, check out Cherry OS. Has anyone tried that yet?

"Office 2004 Better on Mac than 2003 on windows? I don't think so, I always thought Office was very kludgy on Mac. Its slower, UI isn't as good IMO, and just doesn't feel as snappy as on XP"

I have run MS Office on both a Mac and a PC, and I can't say I've seen any huge speed differences.

"Running Linux apps in X11 really sucks. It is a train wreck mixing the two types of UIs... and its slow."

Funny, I've run XFig, XCircuit, XDvi, Gv, and the X11 version of Emacs on my eMac. No speed problems here.

it is called Open Firmware because the spec is open. Sun uses it as do all non x86 based systems.

Intel is replicating it with their bios replacement because open firmware is light years ahead of the kludge that is bios.

I think intel should have gone with open firmware, but then intel never goes with an industry standard.

I think the comparison misses the important thing; software like Panther and bundled ILife applications.

I used to hate the old 'classic' mac os. I just didn't get mac users passion. But then I saw panther and it totally blew anything I'd ever seen out of the water.

As with previous comments a mac is more an appliance than a computer. On windows, I still have to tweak and optimise which actually wastes a fair bit of my time. I found XP task switching to be slow and multitasking to be disappointing and no where as stable as people claim. In mac, the hardware is beaufifully designed and the user experience is between the software and what you can do (creatively) with that tool. For me as a previous PC user it's totally opened up my use of computers in all sorts of directions.

As for porting OSX to x86 architecture I think it's a no-go unless apple was seriously in trouble. Apple has built it's brand and business model around PPC chips. The x86 market is so competitive that it's really hard to make money these days. Apple at least, by being a 'prestige' brand can make some cash in a tough market. OS X on PC would mean the end of apple as a manufacturer (could not compete against Dell for instance) to being a Software company that makes ipods. It would also be an end to Apple's industrial design in computing- something that raises the game of PC manufacturers too and would be bad for users of computers everywhere.

"...it is the Mac fans who turn people off"

I agree. Mac enthusiasts are their own worst enemy sometimes. They may mean to come across as merely passionate about their computers, but instead they end up projecting a patronising, elitist attitude.

But the main thing I dislike about the Mac community is the unyielding attachment they seem to have towards Apple the company. Can you like (even love) a company's product without having to feel you owe them your loyalty? I don't think you'll find a more fawning, sycophantic user base than the Mac community. Apple aren't some saintly organisation who can do no wrong.

As much as I'm impressed by Apple's products, I don't love Apple the company. And I don't delude myself that Apple are some sore of benevolent entity either. Too many Mac fans do, unfortunately.

Completly agree.

I like Apple products. However, one I point out the price issues. Which like it or not it is an issue to many people. I get the snob attitude that Macs *have* to be expensive to keep the burds from buying, etc.

When I point to x86 port, I get the we have all we need in the PPC side, when in fact, you can have 10K apps, but the users are by far in the x86 side. A business needs users.

I figure if the mac fans like their Apple's so much, why not promote Apple expansion. Maybe, it is not so much the product that they like, but the fact that only a small minority uses it. This narrow mindeness is incompatible with bussiness. Mark my words as soon as Jobs, steps down, someone will make Apple mainstream following the lead of the iPods.

You don't hear much mac fans praising the iPod lately, perhaps becuase they are use by "others".

Anyway, interesting post.

They could always take a similar approach to x86 that Sun took. Apple could say, "Hey, our PPC version is easier to use, and fully supported. But if you want to play around with it on X86, here you go." Just start off with a limited Hardware Compatibility List and start building drivers and porting applications from there as demand (hopefully) increases.

BUT, Apple knows that your average person hates computers in general and really doesn't give a crap about learning anything new. Apple will never be able to take over the world now because most people just want to buy a Dell and surf the Internet. Apple's only hope for surviving in the computer industry is to hold on to their eccentric ways and keep their brainwashed fanboys happy enough to come back for more.

I have a hard enough time telling people to consider AMD or if they insist on buying a Dell, don't get the cheapest Celeron piece of crap they can find. Most people that actually like computers are pretty set in their ways, with the obvious exception of the author of the article. Certaintly not enough people are willing to switch to help Apple grow to any significant marketshare. The rest of the world just doesn't care.

I came really close to buying a G5 last year but just couldn't find a compelling reason to do it aside from the joy of tinkering with a new toy. I've already got Sun workstations for real work and Opteron systems for games & windows programs, so what could an Apple computer give me that those two platforms don't give me? I'm not saying I'll never buy an Apple, but I can't see myself giving up Solaris.

talk about a cop-out. there are a lot more windows fanatics than mac fanatics and I have to tell you I really could care less about either.

I make my purchasing decisions based on what my needs and wants are, not based on what some wack job thinks.

I guess you all dislike sports because of the fanatics, and you dislike cars because of the fanatics, and you dislike <insert anything you like> because of the fanatics.

every product and event has their loud obnoxious crazy fanatics.. the mac is no different, so unless you let other people influence how you live your life, I think you need to find some other argument... if did not work for the viability of Linux and it does not and will not work for the viability of the mac.

Apple will -
- N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R - N E V E R
- port Mac OS X to x86.

Why ?

No software producer would bother to produce and maintain two versions of the SAME application to the SAME platform. They would all drop the PPC version pr. auto.

It's really elementary, my dear Watson

yeah.. and the hassle to maintain them :-)

(I own a PC, and I will always own a PC... I just think they are more a hassle to run than a mac)

No software producer would bother to produce and maintain two versions of the SAME application to the SAME platform. They would all drop the PPC version pr. auto.

You mean like Oracle for x86(windows) and x86(gnu/linux)? Or Mozilla? Or SAP? Or Flash? Or StarOffice?

Yeah, that's crazy.

a lower end headless computer that costs around 800 bucks. something in between emac and imac. headless lets them shave some money off the price and put more power into it. most people already have a monitor. just switch out your windows box for one of these. this would make buying an apple a lot more appealing to many people who want to get a decent mac and not pay a lot (Powermac prices). the emac and imac all in one solution does not appeal to a lot of people.

Yes, I'm jealous of my brother who has a Powerbook. The machine is undeniably sleek and beautiful. However, my refurb Thinkpad running Debian + Gnome 2.8 works fine and I get all my OS and application updates for free. Plus his is far more likely to be stolen.

sorry, that was suppossed to say x86(windows) , x86(Linux), Sparc(Linux)

On windows, I still have to tweak and optimise which actually wastes a fair bit of my time. I found XP task switching to be slow and multitasking to be disappointing and no where as stable as people claim.

Somebody answer me this - do we have any Windows users on the board that can make this claim?
"Ya know, I used to run Windows, and it ran smoother than a baby's ass, and stable too. I had no problems with it at all. But then I got a Mac, and [i]damn[i] what a difference! I thought Windows was fine and never had a problem with it, but geez .. the Mac just totally blew it out of the water!!!"

In other words, have there been people with good PC experiences switch to a Mac and discover it's even better, or is the Mac just a PC with training wheels?

the emac and imac all in one solution does not appeal to a lot of people.

Amen. I've been saying it in several Apple threads here. And it's what is stopping me from buying an apple.

-b

Agree 100%.

Not only that for in terms of the emac, it is so underpower that the *eMac* was featured as *one of the top 10 WORST PRODUCT of 2004*:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1735287,00.asp

Apple solutions to performance was to through better HardWare, but this didn't solve the problem becuase it is under-utilized hardware. G5 are 64bit CPU running a 32bit OS.

Apple at this point can:

a) Make OsX turly 64bit

b) Optimize OsX for 32bit and focus on OS performance on G4 to be competitive

c) port OsX to x86 (unlikely)

or better yet

d) pull out of the desktop altogether and concentrate on iPods the real star in the Apple line of products.

Apple needs to ignore the zealots and go main stream.

Go Apple go!!!

"In other words, have there been people with good PC experiences switch to a Mac and discover it's even better, or is the Mac just a PC with training wheels?"

You got it wrong. A PC is like a Model T Ford where you have to hand crank it. A Mac is more sophisticated but keeps the machincals hidden. In other words. You word ON a PC. You work WITH a Mac.

I can't believe I'm defending Macs, but you're just so wrong it's scary...
"Apple has a world of software chioces, if you consider 1 app to be a choice. You can buy an apple at any place and it's all the same price: retail price, no discounts. You can have 3 buttons on your mouse, but only 1 works."
Well it's kinda funny that Mum wanted a mouse for her iBook, and of course the one I gave her had a bunch of buttons, all of which seemed to work pretty well as soon as it was plugged in.
It is ridiculous that Apple stick with the 1-button only setup, but that doesn't mean more don't work.

Ya know, I used to run Windows, and it ran smoother than a baby's ass, and stable too"

Well, I ain't no Mac user, but I've heard only a handful of people make the above claim.

The jive about Macs and 1-button mice is the first indicator that a poster knows very little about Mac OSX. My 5-button MS Optical Intellimouse works just the same on my Panther and XP systems.

i've already got a decent pc and i can't rationalize buying another computer, not to mention having to buy a lot of software over again, and i'm not sure what kind of freeware market exists for the mac. i love my FileZilla and Virc, and Crimson Editor and XnView... anyone want to lend me their powerbook for a month?

Macs are NOT expensive!

Do your math. Just touch the plastic on your PC and a Mac. Even the plastic is much better, formed.... it's not just faceplate deep, like your PCs.

And in the long run, like couple of years, how many times do you have to reinstall Windows, change parts, spend time fixing....

Yes, you might build a working PC for like $400-$500 but what about the software? Are you putting in illegal copies of Windows and other stuff?

And why do these PC centric people, when they complain about how "expensive" Macs are, they always mention only the Top of the line, most expensive Macs?

I own both PCs and Macs. My trusty 500mhz G4 laptop is faster than 1.7ghz Dell laptop I have, and I don't have to spend an hour scanning for bad stuff every night.

I hate prebuilt computers, they're crap. Dell, HP, etc - they all suck. I can buy a better motherboard, case, etc and have a way better system than they sell for less than half the price. I can even use many of my existing parts if I want, and use my choice of many OS variants/brands that can co-exist and boot selectively on a single hardware box.

Apple has an anti-autonomy, anti-tinker dogma that is diametrically opposed to all rugged individualist types. The last thing I want is a hermetically sealed box that runs one OS and the warranty is voided if I unscrew the cover.

"And why do these PC centric people, when they complain about how "expensive" Macs are, they always mention only the Top of the line, most expensive Macs?"

Well, although I do not qualify as a PC centered person, I use MIPS and PPC myself. I must point out that previous post have made reference to the lower end of Macs, namel;y the eMacs.

IN fact, it was pointed out that their performance is so weak that the eMac was featured in the WORST PRODUCT of 2004:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1735287,00.asp

Discussion then turn into free advice to Apple as to what kind of machine will allow *some* PC users to make the jump to Apple. If you like Apple doesn't it make sense to broaden their userbase?

We need to put asides the us vs them mentality and pursue a wider market and yes that includes PC users without a religious conversion into Steve's fan club.

For most people, computers are not a cult but simply a tool.

Cheers.

I guess you guys will never buy a laptop either, huh?

Since you can't replace the parts, or upgrade it, or have to install a new processor because your pentium 4 just burned up when the fans siezed due to excess heat.

Don't make stupid statments, Saying I won't buy an all in one unit. Then Don't, Apple produces Power Macs as well, and you can get at the parts inside if you want.

Apple has a really simple line. They have a few low end selections and a few high end. Unlike Dell who has a dozens of different models, and the differences are minor when you look at them but can add or subtract performace greatly.

"...it is the Mac fans who turn people off"



Give me a break, I have heard people say the same thing about Windoze and Microsoft.

Acting like Microsoft is the one and only and there quick to make fun of you just because you use a Mac.

Go back and read the posts about Mac prices. These are _NOT_ coming from Dell Users. Many of us build are own PCs. If we were DELL/WinXP non-tech users, would we be posting here?

I guess you guys will never buy a laptop either, huh?

If all in one solutions like laptops are so great, why don't you own all laptops? Afraid the screen will break and need an expensive repair? Not sure if you'll always use it as a desktop?

I have a laptop. 1. And it's the least flexible thing I have (upgradeable, etc). But it's the price I pay for portability.

Why would I pay the same price for a desktop because Apple won't make a headless machine for less than $1400?

-b

I love Macs, I've had the oppurtunity to use them off and on over the years, but sadly I have never owned one because of the price.

But yeah, anyway, I love Apple's hardware, and OS X is really nice, but if I ever get lucky enough to afford one I believe that I'd go with the dual-boot OS X /Yellowdog Linux, with Mac on Linux (MOL).

/2 cents

All the crazy math comparing apple & dell is just silly. Dells are too expensive too. There's no reason to spend more than $200. What kind of Mac can I get for that? A keyboard _AND_ a mouse?

Not quite. And not while the iPods continue to be such a hit.
Jobs will have the iPods fund the Macs. Many of us believe that Apple such naturally concentrate on the iPods because they are such a great product.

Macs are not bad. They have a great UI and their functionality is excellent. What is negative is the cult niche market mentality preventing Apple from going mainstream.

OsX is not well optimized for G4 (see my previous posts) and G5 is an excellent 64bit CPU, just outstanfding, running a lame 32bit Os, in terms of performance becuase the eye candy is impressive. (see my other posts for a postive proposed solution).

I hope Apple dumbs the snobs and goes main stream, both Apple and computer users around the world stand to benefit from such a move.

its amazing how little even people who work in the industry understand about apple.

1) apple is a software company
this is a huge misconception. they dont make macs to sell osx, they make osx to sell macs. the price you pay for the os is more to absorb some of the R&D costs then anything. same is true for itunes, it isnt there to make money, its there to sell ipods. the only way osx would EVER be ported to x86 is if apple completely and totally changed the way that the company has ALWAS done business.

2) Wintel is superior technology
again, a massive misconception. x86 runs twice as fast and consumes wayyyyyyy more power to accomplish roughly the same performance as ppc. by the same note, windows doesnt alwas win because its good, windows alwas wins cause its cheap and good enough, and runs on x86. this is why we see a new strategy from ms every few months on how to deal with linux, because microsofts strategy has alwas been to attack with the low price point. this is how they won over apple, look at the comments here to see my point, especially at the high end, mac and pcs are very comparable in price (mac being a bit more expensive). dont take my word for it, go look yourself.

3) no software
the *only* people who are right when they say this is gamers, and even then, modern games exist for mac, but it isnt a "gaming platform" like windows. there are many areas though where mac is a choice, and windows isnt even an option. look at high performance computing, or for the more hardcore scientific apps. this is the world where unix reigns supreme. mac is finding more and more of a home in the scientific community, and even with the alpha-geeks in the *nix world (you see more and more of the "open-source all-stars" showing up at conventions with powerbooks)

4) not productive/just eyecandy
apple has a long history of putting usability ahead of feature lists. apple literally wrote the book on HCI in the 80s when most "serious" software houses considered such things a waste of time (including microsoft). what the author said about the pc being a tool, and the mac being an appliance is dead on. microsoft has been stuck on the windows 3.1 usability paradigm, which is basically a graphical dos. the whole "work on one thing at a time" mentality may be familiar, but it is far from productive.

5) zealotry
"i dont use macs because of mac users". replace mac with windows, and it would still be a valid statement. replace mac with linux, and the same is definately valid. hell, replace mac with gentoo and it would still be valid. people love to form clics and clubs. its just human nature. if you havnt realised this, click on "os wars" in the forums on this site. i would say linux users are the worst for this, and mac and windows are about the same. the majority of people who own computers are completely clueless, there is no "one size fits all" or "best tool for every job" when it comes to computers. saying linux is ready for the average user is like saying using internet explorer is safe, or that apple is a viable gaming platform. people love to turn operating systems into a religion, why is beyond me.

6) apple is a good platform for newbs, but windows is for the l33t.
this one is totally redicules, but widely believed. just because osx doesnt require hours upon hours of blood, sweat, and tears to aquire a decent level of profinciency doesnt mean that it is any less powerful then anything else. im a certified linux geek, and we have to deal with a very similar misconception among gentoo zealots all the time. what you gain from basic, or poorly designed interfaces is knowledge, not power. i would say the average linux user knows far more about his computer then the average windows user, and the average windows user knows far more then the average mac user. people are lazy, and if they dont find computers interesting they have zero desire to learn one command more then they need to know to get their job done. apple knows this, and have alwas made their machines easy to administer. windows on the other hand, was designed to be administered by a tech department. just because windows has zillions more options out in the open then mac, doesnt mean mac doesnt have them. it just means that you dont know where to look.

for the record, my last mac was a classic II. i use windows at work, and linux at home. my favorite operating system would probably be solaris. i am not an apple zealot (although i once was), i just perfer to base my opinions on fact and experience, rather then marketing and rumors.

She doesn't actually use it, she had the guts removed and made it into a house for her dog.

Ok all...I've been reading this great site for sometime now and finally decided to post a comment.

I've been a long time Intel/Microsoft, until about a year ago. I am sick of both of them. I have my main Windows XP machine strictly for gaming. I bought a Power Mac G5 in July and haven't looked back. I use it for email, web surfing, research, digital hub, etc. It rocks with my digital video camera for making home movies, etc. OSX is the best. Strong, safe, fast, efficient and a complete pleasure to look at and work with.

I just read:
Macintosh…The Naked Truth: ISBN 0735712840
and would recommend it to all.

This is a great article that I can totally relate to.

I also bought a 4G 20GB iPod and an Apple AirPort Express. Wow I love them both.

My next gaming PC will be an AMD based box sometime next year.

Oh and I also have a Linux Fedora Core 3 box running as well. I also dumped IE for FireFox.

My Mac, Linux and Windows machines can all see each other on my home network and share files and resources.

In short, anything I can do on the PC I can do better on the Mac and more.

It's all about the total computing experience.

I am the leading Mac zealot, enthusiast and evangelist!

Javiso

I made a similar transitions in hardware and attitude in 1997 or so. The "classic" Mac OS caught my attention, warts and all, because it was a superior end user solution. Sure it lacked all of the proper buzzwords. It did not have preemptive multitasking or memory protection, it was not a multiuser user system, and it did not have a Unix core.

But what does all of that matter when the system is down and the only way you can fix it is by spending half the day backing up your data and doing a clean install? What does it matter when you want to understand how your computer works, but the complexity is getting in the way? Have you ever noticed that a user of the classic Mac OS could resolve a software conflict? Yet a Mac OS X user, much like a Windows user, either lives with the problem or hopes that reinstalling everything will make it go away.

17-inch widescreen LCD
1.6GHz PowerPC G5
512K L2 cache
533MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
80GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load Combo Drive

those are the specs for 1299 imac.

I look at that and think.....thats about 300 bucks too much.

I mean a 64mb 5200 FX??...128 cards are only like 70 bucks anymore. If this was the older Imac, I can could see it...but this NEW mac...no way.

Especially for an all in one desgin. Also I think 1499 for there PowerMac is a krappy too.

I bought an ibook and though I liked the OS, I though, man would this scream on my Desktop. Then I sold the ibook cause IMHO, it ran slow (850mhz I believe it was).

When you call Apple you don't get routed to some know-nothing cubicle drone in a far-off land. You get people that know the system inside and out.


I don't recognize this at all. As soon as you ask questions that are slightly below the GUI surface, you get the answer that they don't support anything in the OS that doesn't have a GUI. They do this even though they use programs like apache httpd, that have no GUI, as a selling point.


Further the quality of their laptops is very poor. In my experience an Apple laptop lasts about half the time of an IBM Thinkpad (Maybee they will be more equal now after the IBM China deal, Sigh). And when they break down the Apple
service takes for ever to fix it. Times over a week is not uncommon.

Just like the auther I like the design, and the OS but they really need to improve quality and support.

Apple needs to seriously consider porting OSX to x86 architecture. I for one, and most everyone I've talked to, has little interest in the G5. To be fair it is a nice chip, but I happen to prefer the AMD 64 bit series.



A x86 port will probably never happen. Apple would loose their full control of their user experience, and they won't accept that.

The second best thing you could do would be to switch to Gnome on some free Unix clone. Many of the ideas in Nautilus is borrowed from Apple, not a surprice since it was first developed by a former Apple emploees.

600 G5 were used to restore Star Wars to its original quality. I've read the story on Apple website yet I can't figure out why so many computers in the first place. Also, why are they doing it now ? Is it because the required software wasn't available ?
I think Lucas is too greedy for his own good, after all, even used car salesmen don't spend millions just to clean and resell their old stock.

One neat thing about OS X is that it will fully integrate into a Windows network. In fact, when I login to my Powerbook I use my Active Directory credentials to login. This authenticates me with the Windows network and I can access all shares and printers just like I can with a Windows client. I see no limitations for me on my Mac in a Windows corporate environment.

Windows folks view their computers as tools. Mac users self-identify with their computer. Many of the above posts talk about annoying fans on both sides of the issue. This is true, yet remains less than the whole truth. Name a mainstream windows magazine that rips on Macs. You won't find it. Macs get covered in the PC magazines, usually glowing reviews. While at the Mac magazines, every article rips Microsoft/Windows/Bill Gates. Sure their are fanatics on both sides, but the Windows fanatics are nutty by any standard. While the Mac fans are the mainstream base. Even Apple gets into it. Apple is a niche player, instead of attempting to identify themselves by what they are not (Microsoft) they should spend some time identifying themselves by what they are (a good consumer electronics company).
And while we are on the subject: It takes a pretty poor tech company to make Real look good. Both Apple and Microsoft have managed to do so lately. Microsoft in the EU and Apple by breaking harmony.

You are not what you use. You can use whatever brand of computer you like, but when you wake up tomorrow you will still be a friendless geek.

"So let's fast forward to 2000 when I saw the first iPod. This is the best little gadget that Apple has ever made. My CD's are safe from damage and I can carry tons of songs everywhere I go. Now that I have one, I don't know how I could've lived without it. I'm in a cover band and I can bring up any song we need to learn without lugging all my CD's. My softening up towards Apple had begun."

Yeah, because making a portable hard-disk based music player was Apple's idea! Oh wait, no it wasn't.

Making a pretty, small, easy-to-use one was Apple's idea, yes, and that's why they sold piles of the things. But hard disk based portable music players existed years before the iPod. I tend to think of Creative's first hard disk player as the original, but I'm sure I'm wrong. Go ahead and praise Apple for popularising and prettifying the concept, but don't praise them for inventing it.

Apple like a religion?

That may be partly due to many Mac users having to justify themselves every time their preference comes up. I've had PC tech support people tell me that I don't understand computers or must be afraid of a command line. I've had PC gamers tell me that the Mac is a toy (and then they proceed to use their machine mostly for games). I've had years of people looking at me as if I'd just said "I use a Mac to look for child pornography."

So maybe after twelve years of that, people like me become a bit sick of it and don't always react so well. I suggest that few people would though. Is it a religion? No way. Am I sick of continually having to defend what is really just a personal preference? Absolutely. Am I tired of having to educate people just a little? Definitely.

These days I can't be bothered. It's my preference.

OS X on x86?

The only way that'll happen is if Apple hardware sales fall to near zero. Currently hardware is the most profitable segment for Apple (moreso than the iPod, despite popular, unfounded belief), and only a fool would kill off their major source of revenue.

And what will people run on OS X on x86? They won't be able to run Windows apps, except through a WINE-like layer which has yet to be developed. Major vendors like Adobe may not care to support apps on the new platform, since they already produce apps on x86 - they may just ask users to install Windows. Binaries will need to be compiled especially for the new platform, and this may see the introduction of the super-fat binaries (we say fat binaries with the PPC introduction, and they included 680X0 code and PPC code in the same file).

Are there any real benefits of OS X on x86? All I can see is that a (relative) handful of people want to dual boot OS X on their PC, alongside Windows. I don't see that users will switch en masse - there just isn't a good reason (Windows provides for most users). The OS would be pirated all over the place, and Apple would likely see a low ROI.

Just guesses, but I think they're not unreasonable.

The eMac?

It's come under a lot of criticism lately, but very little scrutiny. It's not meant for games or for high-end users. It's meant for computer labs, for non-computer people and for lighter tasks. It fills that niche (in Apple's lineup) very well. Sure the GPU is crappy. So what, if it's being used to teach programming, use Office or send email. Who needs a good GPU for that? The drive is only 40GB? Well, the OS takes 2-3GB, Office uses maybe 0.5GB, a suite of many apps may use another 5GB (being generous), so what's going on with the other 30GB?

The fact is, the target market of the eMac is not the sort of people who post in online forums. It's a good machine at a good price, and I disagree with that 'Worst 10' article on this and a few other points.

The iMac, however, is targeted at a higher demographic. The crappy GPU in that is almost unforgivable - it can't even play Doom3 (not that it's a worthwhile game, but it's a point of distinction). It needs a Radeon9600 class GPU or better. Otherwise, it's a great machine with a great processor.

As for Macs being toys for 'chicks'... It's hard to put into words just how poor that point really is. Given the underpinnings of the OS lie in OpenBSD (via NeXTStep), it's not far from saying that Linux is for 'chicks' as well. And where does idea come from that only women like aesthetics and are somehow more foolish than men? Sexism, elitism and fallacy, all in a nice little sentence.

Lastly there's the price argument. Comparing a Mac to a homebuilt PC is a pointless comparison, because you're comparing an entire company's infrastructure, support and quality to you and your phillips head screwdriver. It's only sensible to compare Apple prices against PC vendors like Dell. I believe Macs *are* more expensive, but then I don't mind paying that for the OS, the UI, the compatiblity with all my current apps and the development environment (which is free). The cost to switch to a PC is far more than the price of a high-end G5 tower in my case, as it involves re-buying just about everything and then learing the Windows APIs and re-developing all my code. I'll stick with my iBook.

At the end it comes down largely to personal preference. Use what you like, don't be afraid to try new things and try to be objective.

"the result is that the difference in power consumption of the processor between x86 and G§ chips is upto 10:1!"

Neat little 'up to' there. Design power consumption of Athlon XP-M chips is 35W or so, and I think Pentium-M is even less. I'd be amazed if G4 - let alone G5 - manages to consume only 3.5W . The only way you can possibly get that figure is to compare a slow G4 in power-save mode to the highest-end Xeon or P4EE, which can go well over 100W design power consumption. But those were never designed for laptop use, and the only laptops that include them are really 'luggables' designed as high-end workstation replacements to be lugged from power socket to power socket.

Apple is a hardware company. It makes software to sell the machines.

I work in central IT services for a large University, and we probably have more mac laptops that ia32.

Unix/Linux/BSD people like it, because it's pretty Unix!

Windows people fall for it. It's nice looking and just works.

The design it great, partiurlaly laptops.

I'm not sure what kind of techies the author knows, but the ones I know certainly ain't M$ fans, but have plenty of time for our friends at apple.

I read some of the comments on here. Yes, we all know techs would choose a PC platform running FreeBSD, BeOS, or Linux. What about the regular people out there? Think im gonna give a Linux box to my mother to use? Think their going to have a clue when she has to install a program in the terminal? Mac is for the people that want to turn on a computer and just use it. Basic learning only is required. Techs use Macs too, but for certain needs. If I met someone that didnt know much about computers I'd be showing them a Mac instead of a PC. I'm sorry if I insulted some tech that use Macs, I guess im just surrounded by gamers who see no point of having a Mac just to play Myst. I also heard their is no Half-Life 2 for Mac coming out. I'm ok with that, cuz I own a PC, but I cant help but feel bad for the Mac people. I assume using Direct X makes a huge different why not many games make the platform. Why would Microsoft give Apple a gaming edge? Guess they need to beg for more OPenGL games.

For everyone who thinks macs are expensive : say you earn $10 a hour. A mac is $300 more expensive than a pc, you own the mac 3 years (really short for a mac). In this case it needs to save you 10 hours of work a year or 12 minutes a week.

The price of a mac is not important, it's the TCO that matters, just like microsoft points out all the time