Slashdot Mirror
Cringely: OS X on Intel
sti writes: "Cringely's column this week argues that Apple should port OS X to the Intel platform. He makes an interesting case for it. I would definitely favour this. I've always had this warm spot in my heart for Apple but rarely had the money to pay for their overpriced hardware."
That's hardly a good comparison because I would tinker with any computer which was unfortunate enough to be located in my house.
OS X on Intel just wouldn't have the same experience. When you buy an Apple machine you know that the OS is well tuned to run on that hardware. You don't have to worry about an odd mix of hardware or bios problems that are responsible for a number of woes on x86.
I think the only way for OS X to be viable on x86 is with different pricing. Say something like $50 for no support, but $150 with support. That way way nerds like us can play around with a leet OS cheaply, while those who need support would make up for lost hardware profits.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
First of all, I'm so tired of the "Overpriced Hardware" statement, but that's a different post. As for porting OS X to intel. let me explain this one more time:
The hardware is half the magic!!
The reason OS X and all the Mac OS's before it work so well, is that there is a finite, documented set of hardware that it has to work with. Unlike Linux and Windows OS developers, Mac OS developers don't have to worry about every pre 1990 ISA soundblaster compatable card, periphial, and motherboard.
Yes, OS X is great, so go support the company who put it together, by buying one of thier computers. You won't be disapointed.
Any port like that would be a major one.
They are going to have to support a vast number of devices and hardware that just don't happen on the mac.
Plus the fun of trying to provide a dual boot situation - given the average user as well as the tendancy for MS installers to trounce over anything in their way. Just doing a non destructive repartitioning would be interesting.
And as for reading the filesystem that are already there (people will want their data, right?) - well at the least it would compromise security (The new OS would probably not respect account privledges as you would be root) and at the worst would stand a real chance of corrupting the existing system.
Overall, as a clean install, it might be a goer (I'd be interested), but how many people are in that market?
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Cringley himself answers his own stupid question... Who would buy such a beast? Mac users buy Mac hardware, so why bother? That's exactly right Cringley, so the product would be a waste of time. Either the Mac users would save some pennies on Intel hardware and Apple loses, or they wouldn't
and it would be a waste of time. Most users are simply not going to bother loading another OS with Windows, that's why BeOS failed. Linux is making some headway because (a) it's free as in beer and (b) it's free as in liberty. We don't need another stinkin proprietry OS, one is enough and users know it.
With a BSD base to work on, the porting process should really be a piece of piss.
But would apple really want to do this?
The strength of apple has allways been tight integration of hardware/OS. But with such diversity in the x86 world, it throws open a whole load of problems that apple have never had to deal with - support for various chips/chipsets, interdependency problems, conflicts, support for non-standard hardware, support for the latest, greatest graphics cards etc.
Quite a number of the things which apple get right but MS dont is purely because apple have allways gone their own on the hardware side. If they ported to x86, they would be in direct competition with MS, with all the drawbacks of the architecture.
What, no Linux kernel, well let's dig out another dood who wants OS X ported to Intel and will never get what a SYSTEM is about. OS X is OS matching hardware and usability.
As soon as you stop building crap with IRQs and BIOS instead of OpenFirmware etc. they might think about it.
Until then (and likely thereafter) You will get what You pay for.
By the way, when will Porsche build front wheel driven cars, so I can pick out the engine and put it into a SMART?
If You dont want it, dont buy it, if you want it cheaper, just go ahead and make one on your own or start off with a free project and make it usable. But these silly articles about OS X in Intel dont help anybody unless Apple says something (new) about this subject.
This site talks about a project at Apple some ten years ago to port Mac OS to Intel hardware.
The article also talks about the work done by ARDI, the firm mentioned in the InfoWorld story.
Apple assembled a small team and got Mac OS runnning pretty quickly, but it seemed the firm didn't have the willpower to push it to market.
It probably would be different this time around with the forceful Steve Jobs at the helm.
A message from our sponsor
So, Macintosh finally creates a new GUI OS that appeals to not only the general sheep-herd user base but also to the Linux geeks, thus making many people reconsider their usage of PCs and possibly port over to the ever-struggling Mac Hardware, and now they're gonna make it so that it's not exclusive to Mac hardware?
Wouldn't be a smart move unless Apple decided it wanted to move out of the Home Desktop business and simply make their machines for professional use... which they're bordering close to, but this would render all the iFruit campaigns obsolete, and this kind of intrudes of Apple's whole originating philosophy of doing something different than what all the other business-class computer companies (IBM, HP, Xerox, etc.) were doing...
Karma: Non-Heinous
Apple has always been a hardware company. They are more like Sony than Microsoft -- the sleek industrial design is what distinguishes their computers. Jobs tried licensing their OS previously, and much as Cringely says that releasing OS X for Intel wouldn't be like the Mac Clones debacle, it is. Apple revenues would plummet -- they make their money on the hardware side, not the software side.
If anything, I'd rather see Apple release OS X as a GUI that rides on top of Linux, and help the Linux world fight the good fight. New OSes just divide so that others can conquer, and users know this -- that's why new ones like BeOS don't sell.
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
Microsoft would fight this hard. Unless the anti-trust case suddenly developes teeth (yeah, right) it's much safer staying in its niche.
Remember, MS controls the hardware manufacturers and the applications. They could easily drop support for MS-Office on MacOS and punish hardware manufacturers to keep MacOS out.
As it is, Apple is doing Ok. As long as they can keep coming up with neat stuff like the new iMac, they can hold on to their core users and maybe even expand into neat consumerish devices.
If they want to go back to being mainstream, however, then they need something even more radical than MacOS on Intel. At the very least they need to cut their dependance on MS. Perhaps if they joined the OpenOffice initiative that would be a step in the right direction.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
No, the biggest problem will be getting all of the application manufacturers to release two versions of the software. And before everyone talks about the 68K->PowerPC as a refutal, don't forget that that was only transitional. Try and find 68K binaries now. You get lucky somtimes, but not normally.
Now, the problem is simple. If you release on two platforms, you have to support two platforms. That is, two compilers, and their associated bugs. That is, two different endian systems. That is twice the headache in any project managers book.
Unforuntaely, this (Macintosh being overpriced) is not FUD. And I'm a Mac user.
The reason Mac hardware is considered overpriced is because the only thing we can compare them to is the prebuilt kits from Compaq, HP, etc..
There's no DIY aspect to Macs. It's like buying a dishwasher. Which is exactly what Jobs wants in the first place.
But, when you compare all of the Macintosh industry, to all of the x86 industry, the Macs do fall behind in the price department.
This is a visceral implementation of the Cheap, Easy, and Fast problem. Apple chose Fast and Easy. And implemented that well.
Rather than nay-saying anyone who has anything against the pricing of Macs as FUD-broadcasters, I think it is more important to point out how FSCKING SIMPLE AND COOL MacOS is compared to just about anything else in the non-free OS market.
Cringely points out possible benefits to Apple if they enter the OS market on Intel (and has several good points). But what about the certain negatives? Apple now is a mild threat to MS's power. But if they 'infringed' on turf that was MS's, they would certainly be targeted by the giant. Is it really in Apple's best interests to rouse that big of bully? I don't think so.
Cringely mentions Netscape in his article (how by competition, MS made IE better). Look what happened in that case. Would Apple want to risk the same fate? To sacrifice themselves so that Windoz might be a little nicer to use.
Come on.
The thrust of Cringely's argument, which he devotes most of his article to, is this: Apple should port OS X to Intel because "it is exactly the competitor Microsoft needs." But what really matters to Apple is: Will porting OS X to Intel make Apple more or less profitable?
Cringely resolves this complex matter in the space of a paragraph length assertion "The upside for Apple is enormous. Suddenly, their software budget is leveraged across a much larger number of units, making the company more profitable and able to spend even more on making the software better."
Really, Cringely? I think we need more than a handwaving assertion to back this up. e.g. What effect will porting OS X to Intel have on Apple Hardware sales? What will MS's response will be - will it withdraw its Office and IE products for OS X? etc.
It's an option-- go to your preferences page and check the box (under "I, Cringely", maybe 20% of the way into the links). Then you won't have to wait for some karma-whore to get his weekly column submitted to be reminded to check his PBS column.
For what it's worth (to be just a little bit on topic), I've been using Win2K and Linux at home and OS X on a G3 Mac at work. The 10.1 update to OS X along with the Omniweb browser has made that my favorite platform, bar none, to surf the web. For games, it sucks.
It has been fairly stable--I get a hard crash (locked up) about once a month now. The machine is also running Apache, ftpd, and telnetd, and for all intents and purposes I treat it just like my Linux box except that the browser is nicer...
Honestly, I would rather not have OS X on Intel hardware--it is dog slow even on this 400 MHz G3 after all the updates/patches have been applied. What I would like is just a browser as nice as Omniweb.
But would it be the best approach for Apple? Probably not. It's not fun going head to head against a juggernaut. Those who tried in the past got one helluva headache as a result.
What kind of argument is this to try to convince Apple? "Give Microsoft a decent competition to bring them back into focus and back in touch with the market."
Apple are just fine in their niche of selling overpriced hardware using better software. Why would they leave this cosy little corner?
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Could this happen? You betcha. The PPC line is stretched to the limit with nothing new in sight. Motorola wants no part of desktop processors. AMD and Intel are racing to the moon in speed and performance, while holding down price. Already the Apple PPC system is in the dust vis-a-vis price/performance. By this time next year it will be all over. The price/performance gap will be too wide to ignore any more. PPC can not compete with the big bucks in the long run. That is when Apple will make the leap.
bzzzt. X runs just fine under OSX. Check out the XonX project .
. It is under darwin but that is a seperate distro and not is the bundled OSX that comes default with all macs
What? Darwin is the same, with or without OSX "on top".
The only Unix things I can run in OSX is stuff like sed, awk, etc.
Dude, what have you been smoking? You've never even *seen* OSX, have you?
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
Why the fuck does this retarded shit keep coming up from supposedly intelligent industry writers? Wow Apple could abandon all of their supporters and turn into a software company? I suppose I should pat Cringely on the back for that suggestion? The upside for Apple is a downhill slope. Mac users as it is are faced with smaller numbers of available software titles than Windows users. Some companies refuse to make Mac ports of their software *cough*Sierra*cough*. If Mac had an x86 port little would change because it is still MacOS and said company will refuse to support it. Then you've got the problem of current Mac developers telling Apple to go fuck themselves because they're not going to spend even more money their not making in order to make x86 ports of their Mac software. While ports between ISAs using the same API isn't too terribly difficult it still requires man hours to accomplish, time is money, hence it cuts into your bottom line. Then there is the messy issues of hardware support. Apple shipping MacOS on x86 systems means having to deal with thousands upon thousands of combinations of hardware. Are hardware vendors who already shun support for any OS besides Windows are going to spend much time supporting their hardware on MacOS? Ask IBM and Be what happens when you run on the same ISA as Windows but are the under dog.
This is the nth concurrent Cringely article posted on slashdot in as many weeks, would you people fucking knock it off? Timmah: cut it the fuck out. It is getting ridiculous that the best you can do is post YACA (yet another Cringely article), there has got to be more in the submission bin than just links to pbs.com. Hasn't someone posted a story from ZDNet or Wired you can link to instead?
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Love it or loathe it, Mac Hardware has consistently been the most interesting consumer products in computing. To wit:
Last time Apple licensed their OS and made beige boxes like everyone else they almost went out of business.
As far as anyone complaining that Apple hardware is too expensive, go on eBay and buy any slot-loading iMac, max out it's ram, and install OS X. It runs OS X great, and you can get these darn things for, oh about $300 dollars. If they're anything like my Macs, they will last 6 years without a blip.
My father is a blogger.
Apple has already ported Mac OS X to Intel. And I don't just mean the Darwin open source foundation. The entire operating system including Cocoa, Carbon, Quartz and Aqua runs and runs well on Intel CPUs. At one point there was also an Alpha port but that was discontinued well before Mac OS X went beta.
Apple won't release a general Intel port of OS X. It makes no sense for them to do so. Apple makes the vast majority of its revenue through hardware sales, somewhere around 90-95%. If they released Mac OS X for Intel their hardware sales would fall dramatically. Because the unit cost of an operating system is much less than the cost of a hardware box (say $100 compared with $2000) Apple's revenues would fall precipitously.
No company can gp to Wall Street and say: I'm going to chop my annual revenues down from $8 billion to $500 million. Can you imagine what would happen to the Apple stock price if they announced this? It simply can't be done.
So why do Apple keep the Intel port of OS X alive? After all it costs real money to keep all that software running cross-platform.
There are two reasons. First as a hedge against Motorola or IBM screwing Apple on the PowerPC processor. In the last few years the clock rate (and other key performance measures) of the PowerPC line has fallen a long way behind Intel. If IBM/Moto can't get competitive again, then Apple wants the option of putting Intel CPUs into Macs. This would not mean you could buy an off-the-shelf Gateway/Dell/whatever and run OS X on it. You can bet Apple would make sure it only ran on a "real" Mac to preserve their hardware revenues.
The second reason they keep the port up is because it helps them produce better code. Having to write code that runs on more than one CPU family is a good engineering discipline. The different architectures stress different parts of the code and you will often see bugs on one platform that are hidden on the other.
So Apple already have OS X on Intel, but don't expect to see it in the marketplace anytime soon.
Sailing over the event horizon
It's simple. Let's say apple release OSX on intel. Forget their hardware sales, forget support problems. This would be the future:
1) Office is no longer available on any apple lines, neither is Explorer.
2) Office XP++ doesn't write in any format office X can read.
3) Office was never available for OSX on intel.
4) Microsoft tells Dell, HP, etc that if they want to offer OSX then windows wil cost $$$$ more per copy.
which leaves apple going steadily bankrupt, and the masses with no options if they want user-friendly but don't want Bill....
I'd love it, I'd be first in line to buy it, but it ain't gonna happen
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
There a some misconceptions in your post :
- Infact I can probably run macos9 apps faster in linux then MacOSX : The Classic environment in Mac OS X is build on the same idea than mac-on-linux. The speed of Classic apps is the same as mac-on-linux's speed, ie. near 100%, provided you have enough memory.
- WIth Linux, I can run MS Word, Excell, IE, quake3, and even java : really, these apps are far better under OS X than under OS 9 : Microsoft did a good job porting its Office suite to OS X. Quake 3 works well too (never tried it, but often heard it) and Java is well integrated in OS X
- I don't believe X is even supported under OSX : XDarwin 4.2 works very well under OS X, in two screen modes : 'Rootless', where the Mac Apps and the X apps coexist on the screen and 'Full screen' (you have to switch between Mac OS X and X thanks to a key combination).
- OSX is slower according to all the benchmarks I have seen comparing it with linux : I think that OS X's window server/manager have still to be optimized and therefore are to blame for the slowness of OS X, so this comparison is not really accurate.
I'm not a Mac OS X zealot, I know it isn't perfect, but it's worth the look. Really, go and try it, you'll be surprised.
Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head (John Lennon, 1970)
Where is Cringley getting useful applications for OSx86? One of the things that has kept the mac platform alive is very stable & mature ports of MS Office. MS will *not* port office to a direct windows competitor.
Sure, it's BSD, so OSS apps can be compiled for it, but people don't want abiword or kword, they want MS Word. There's no way apple is going to bundle pre-compiled OSS software, and even if they did, it's not what people are looking for. If anything, without apps, this would be a niche desktop OS.
Unless Cringley expects a perfect win32 emulator to appear, or perhaps he supports a classic mode for windows [this is feasible, grab the netraverse guys and port win4lin to bsd in a rootless mode], this won't work.
Technical hurdles and business considerations aside, cast your memories back to 1997 when Jobs shocked the world by teaming up with Gates. Remember that $150 million in non-voting Apple stock purchased by Microsoft, and patent cross-licensing deal? Anyone? Here's the Apple Press Release in case you forgot. Apple was in bad shape, and Microsoft was up for monopolistic practices. Jobs agreed to make IE the default browser for the Mac, and Gates agreed to give Office better treatment on the Mac platform.
According to my vivid imagination, Jobs had a word in Gates' ear, saying words to the effect that Gates could crush Apple like a bug if he cared to, but then he'd have no real competitor to point at in defense of monopoly charges. Why not just let Apple have its little niche, whispers Jobs to Gates, and we'll agree not to get cocky and muscle in on your turf? The IE and Office deals merely consummated the marriage, as it were. Jobs is happy because Apple gets to survive, and Gates is happy because he has a harmless competitor that he can act all panikcy about.
This is pure speculation on my part, of course, but if there's much truth in it, you can expect Apple to be totally uninterested in the OSX for PC idea. I'm thinking that both Jobs and Gates would still prefer a no-compete situation.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Another Cringely story? I know you're busy and all, but can't we get a Cringely icon if all his stories get posted here?
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
They sell *systems*. You seem to have the impression that the operating system is free wth the hardware rather than integral with the price of the system.
There is no evidence that an Apple operating system purchased individually would be anything other than "overpriced".
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I expected more from Cringely, but even he uses a car analogies for Macs/PCs.
Yes it is true that Porsche buyers will always WANT to buy Porshes. But Mac users (not zealots mind you) HAVE to buy Macs.
If I could get a Mac in a beige box that was as fast (faster?) than a purrty Apple case and it was $1000 cheaper you can sure as hell bet that I would.
How many people do you know with Apple towers have ugly, but functional, beige monitors attached to them? Nearly every Mac user I know breaks the aesthetic with an ugly monitor.
I'm a professional. I need to get work done. Getting it done econimically is always nice. Sure I like Apple, I like the design. But I LOVE my money.
OS X on Intel would definitely hurt Apple. No non-zealot would ever value the architecture and design of Moto/Apple over the price and performance Intel/Generic PC maker. All things else. (the OS) being equal.
Well... You can bet they still wouldn't support Joe Randoms beige box. It would be a strictly Apple intel machine.
Think XBox here.
Rod Taylor
My audio application programmer doesn't have to know shit about pre 1990 ISA soundblaster compat i ble card. That's the task either of creative labs, either of my OS provider. Like it's not the task of the internet exploder team to support my modem, and in the opposite direction it's not the task of my telco to tell what email client to use.
Although it would be cool I think Apple has missed the boat.
Years ago 9 (1990-1992) Apple had the chance to move out of the hardware buisness, but they chose not to. Now they are locked into their hardware sales. To release an x86 version would kill their hardware business.
Their only real chance at the big OS market of M$ is to abandon their hardware buisness and focus on building OS sales to all types of hardware.
And to those that say that the mac is stable because of the consistant hardware, it has been my opinion that the mac os crashes just as often if not more that a PC.
-"The early bird catches the worm, but the late bird sleeps the most"
That way dual-booting might actually be a nice thing. On one side you have linux, on the other you have OSX, a beautiful and powerfull OS, not some Microsoft piece of crap. Plus we get nice hardware. Altivec anyone?
Pedro Côrte-Real.
What is Apple selling? I would argue that Apple sells, "We are the computer company that cares about you. We try to build the best products we possible can." There's a level of trust and loyalty that people give Apple that is unmatched in the industry, and rarely matched outside it. Apple has that reputation because the company listens to customers. Yes, they make unpopular decisions, and a lot of people hate Apple. But Apple customers don't generally feel that way. They generally feel that Apple is doing the best that it can. Can Microsoft say the same? No.
Of course, Microsoft hasn't been able to reverse engineer the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field either.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Sun had an Intel port of Solaris. Now, they're pulling support for it. New versions of Solaris will run only on Sun hardware.
Cringely should really examine those parallels more closely.
JJ
Macs typically cost more than a Windows PC, but only up-front. With Macs, you can employ a pay-once, use forever school of thought. Not the case the other way around.
Anybody who doubts me should consider the costs of:
- Seperate Microsoft CALs for everything under the sun.
- Down-time caused by virii, worms, and other compromise.
- Bandwidth costs associated with said worms. (Anybody still paying a Code Red debt? Anybody go out of business because of it?)
- Down-time due to hardware failure caused by use of cheap/shoddy/no-name components.
- Hour wasted re-installing OS 2-3 times annually (3-5 times annually in an office/heavy use scenario)
- Time wasted installing/finding/troubleshooting device drivers when installing hardware.
I'm not saying there won't ever be a hardware problem or support issue to arise on a Mac, because there will be, but I'm saying there are a number of hidden costs in Windows PCs.
When you factor in those hidden costs, and factor in the lowest bang for your buck prices at Apple in history, Macs become much more attractive for regular business users, not just web-designers, programmers, and graphic artists. Are you telling me that whatever Unix apps your company runs couldn't get ported to OS X or accessed as a web-application?
Data-processing workers or secretarys could even live with sub-$1000 iMac systems. Beef them up with OS X and 512 meg of RAM and you've got more than ample resources to run Office v.X and email, which is about 99% of my mom's job (and since most people know as much about computers as my mom, that's a good measureing stick.)
Who did what now?
1. Supporting MacOS on god-knows-what hardware configs is a nightmare that would cripple it's reputation. When WIN doesn't work, users don't call the box maker, they curse the OS maker. Something about WIN made all of you stop using it - some of that was lack of HW toleration - did you go buy a new box? Nope - you switched OSs.
2. Overpriced hardware is a myth bordering now on The Big Lie - go to Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP and match any level of the new G4 iMac - then count yer change.
3. Bob, it WOULD cannibalize hardware sales - Apple's largest edge is the OS/box integration, the Mac faithful would still buy the mac boxes, but your average new user would - and does - buy the rattiest box they can find - blind to the reality of the $599 specials. And good luck getting it to run reliably on some box that, as is typical, doesn't even know the names of the cards slapped in it.
Sticking to HW/SW is not so bad - Apple knows that typical system turnover is about three years - would they rather rachet up to making box money or start tomorrow with a herculean effort at supporting all the hardware in the world to make license money? Think you can open a storefront and sell licenses? Or would you rather have a store that can sell someone a solution and make box money?
Anyone know what portion of their business MS makes on licensing the OS alone? Remember, MS makes a lot of software - odds are Apple would not - this number needs to be known before convincing anyone that ramping up the software biz would be their saviour.
I have an iBook2 with OSX because since day one, I open it up, it does everything I ask of it as a plain old person, teacher, writer, webmaster, admin, tourist, scientist, etc. I have yet to crash OSX after 11 months, anything I plug into it fits and works. It is an order of magnitude above any previous HW/SW I've seen or owned. I could run windows on it tomorrow.
But I won't, and not because of religion. because of integration.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Actually, the way he most likely intended that wasn't as namecalling, but as a way to point out that one of the big differences between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple products have personality. There's just something about an Apple computer that makes you care about it a lot more from the moment you get it into your home.
In November, I got an Apple G3 iBook. I love that machine. It does what I want it to, it does it smoothly, and with OSX it does it in a way that looks kinda cool. However, OSX isn't the fastest speed demon out there on a G3 processor, and I definitely need more RAM. But I haven't really regretted my purchase yet.
On the other hand, I recently settled a nightmare of support with Best Buy in returning an IBM laptop. I hated that thing. It was a total waste of my money. In exchange for it, I brought home a Sony VAIO with a Pentium 4 1.6. I can't respect this machine as hard as I try. I've actually had dreams about returning it and getting something else. Not daydreams, full-on-REM-stage dreams. It was a downer when I got up that morning and realized it'd been over two weeks and I couldn't take it back anyhow.
And this is a Sony, probably the closest thing to a "designer" line in the PC market.
Apple machines have a soul, it's there. But it's next to impossible to find a PC with a Microsoft OS that has one. I've even got two 50Mhz Sparc machines that I keep running for no real reason here at home, but the perfectly good 1Ghz Athlon that the Sony supplanted is powered down, dejected. My machine for several years, if you count it from the oldest component. Yet I find it hard to bother messing with it anymore. My iBook on the other hand... Yeah. I like it a lot. Still.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
i should know better.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
i'd have to see the numbers on that.
they can make more selling a handful of apps that mostly only run on the boxes they already sold for way more money?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Which is why Apple will always be a marginal player, with marginal finances, selling to a fan club.
Absolutely true, but as Steve Jobs likes to point out exactly the same could be said of, say, BMW (who have a smaller market share of their industry than Apple do of theirs) and people tend not to use pejorative terms like "marginal". Apple is a succesful niche player producing high-quality, individualistic systems. There's nothing wrong with that and its a very good, sustainable business.
Sailing over the event horizon
25 years hey? That explains why you're using Mac. You lost too many brain cells.
Look at the iBook. Small, light, preforms decent. Try to find a brand name x86 for the same money with similar equiptment. Same for the iMac.
Yes, you can say that you can _build your own_ for less with x86. x86 to Apple is already comparing apples to oranges, so to further try to compare a home built to off the shelf brand name is not a fair comparison.
SO, what's the REAL problem with APPLE?
When you can get an iMac for $799, an iBook for $1199, and then have to pay $550 for MS Office X who wants to buy it? When you can get at least the basic MS Office bundled with almost all x86 brand name hardware for almost nothing!
Don't bother arguing the Open Source office suites to me, I know. That doesn't change the fact that public perception is in the believe that you NEED MS Office to make a computer useful.
Apple makes their profit selling hardware. GOOD hardware.
Porting OS-X to Intell will just decrease the amount of hardware they will sell. That's a no-brainer.
Let us humor poor, deluded Robert X. and imagine for a moment Apple on x86 hardware.
Can you hear it?
That giant sucking sound you hear is the sound of all the developers at Microsoft being pulled off their Apple assignments and reassigned to the XBox.
The vast majority of Mac users use:
Internet Explorer for browsing (Poof!)
Outlook for e-mail (Poof!)
MS Office for word processing, etc (Poof!)
It is also the sound of Microsoft technology being withheld/withdrawn from any ISV that supports the Mac on x86.
That wailing and gnashing of teeth you hear is the sound OEMs that have offered the Mac desktop make when BillG tells them the price of Windows has been tripled. It is also the sound sysadmins make when they discover the time trying to integrate Mac/x86 into the network has also tripled.
That hysterical laughter you hear is Microsoft top brass laughing at the pathetic stooges at DOJ. You can just hear how ludicrous the DOJ case would sound: "Your Honor, I know we said before that Microsoft was exerting monopoly power by developing competing software, but this time we will argue that by refusing to develope IE/Outlook/Office for the Mac, Microsoft is again exerting monopoly power." And the DOJ will get handled yet again.
That gurgling sound you hear is the sound of Apple's cash reserves going down the drain as former stockholders place their money in safer havens, like Enron or Pets.com.
Linux is the only candidate for an alternative desktop on x86 because every other possibility is supported by a company at least partly dependent on Microsoft. The Mac interface (Quartz/Aqua) will never come anywhere near an x86 machine, because Steve Jobs is a good deal smarter than Robert X. Cringeley!
People will either bite the bullet and buy the expensive OS, or just buy the Apple hardware. Either way Apple wins.
No, you're missing my point. That of course is true in terms of profit but the problem is revenues. Even if your profits are higher you still have a problem if you reduce your revenues to 10% of what they were. Stock prices are based on estimated future earnings. Rightly or wrongly these are usually factored with future revenues in mind. If I make a 50% profit on $1000 revenue that's a lot less attractive to shareholders than 1% profit on $1 billion revenue.
It may not make sense to apply this thinking to a company like Apple but people do. Wall Street always punishes a company for dropping its revenues. If Apple went ahead with a plan that removed 90% of its revenue stream the company's stock price would likely drop so low that the company would be acquired.
Sailing over the event horizon
Apple might actually be able to do this. Something I've wanted for a while is for Operating Systems to give up on the the legacy support thing. Win95 was partly a pain in the ass because it was trying to be a next gen OS and still run 10 year old apps and support 10 year old hardware. Apple could release for x86 architecture but with this caveat.
"OSX/x86 is designed for the latest hardware ISA is not and never will be supported. PS2 is not supported. Parrallel is not supported. Serial is not supported. USB 2.0/Firewire/PCI/AGP/32 bit/64bit procs are. This is a next gen OS for a next gen machine."
If few people buy it, so what. Apple makes it money making Apples.
-
As much as I like OSX and would enjoy using it on Intel base comodity hardware, I can see why Apple hasn't ported it and should not do so.
Apple is making a proffit on it's hardware and as such there is no value to the company to alter it's business model in such a drastic way until such time as they start losing money in their hardware business.
I say this because offering a port of their OS to comodity hardware would completely descimate their hardware business to to offer such a port would nessecerily include removing hardware from their business model completely. Companies line NeXT and Be, had in the past both abandoned their hardware businesses in favor of software as a last corporate gasp - a struggle to remain viable, so if Apple were to take this path, it would be viewed in the context of the past, as if the company were struggling, which for the moment they really are not.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
The question of whether an Apple computer is "overpriced" is completely speculative. Comparing hardware for hardware can be direct, but the overall 'value' of the system can be compared with things like usability, integration, and "wow factor" (along with just about anything anyone could 'value' in a computer).
However, just for empyrical purposes, I've outlined a Dell system that's similarily spec'ed out as the new iMac:
Dell Dimension 4400 VS iMac:
Both systems come with a 15 inch flat panel (admittedly, the iMac screen is of higher quality)
Both systems come with mid-range processor speeds for their respective platforms.
Both systems Come with a 40GB IDE hard drive and 128MB system memory (specs on hard drives unavailable, Dell system memory is DDR while iMac is PC133)
Both systems come with an Nvidia GeForce 2 (Though, the Dell version has 64MB of RAM while the iMac has 32).
Both systems come with a CDRW drive
Both systems come with 10/100 networking and 56k modems
Both systems come with keyboard/mice/sound/bundled software.
Dell: $920 (not counting $100 rebate)
iMac: $1300
So is Apple over-priced? That's up to you to decide.
You might also want to note that the Dell comes in a standard PC tower case while the iMac comes in an aesthetically pleasing housing (prettier, but less upgradable).
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
Bob needs to point to an example of at least one company (other than Microsoft) turning a decent profit licensing an operating system for commodity hardware.
Clue: That's hard to do unless you're in a very fortunate position where you're able to build a monopoly.
Microsoft was lucky or evil enough to get a license providing an OS for the x86 architecture at the beginning of its lifecycle before Microsoft even had acquired DOS. They were able to convince IBM that they should commoditize the architecture and used that to take the control away from IBM. Apple wouldn't be any where near as fortunate. They'd have an entrenched OS to compete against, and whether Bob knows it or not a lot of consumers buy based on price (read: cheapness) first and quality second. x86 machines would weaken Apple hardware sales (which is where Apple makes its money).
I don't know if Bob knows this or not, but his analogy is horrible. There is a company that buys parts from Porsche and makes their own cars around them. This company is called Ruf. Any Porsche-lover with the extra cash to spend would rather have a Ruf than a Porsche. Please note that I am not saying x86 is to PowerPC as Ruf is to Porsche. I'm just saying Bob's analogy sucks.
I hope Bob reads Slashdot because I'd love a response from him (and I didn't see his e-mail address on that article).
I have a website. It's about Macs.
There are a lot of comments saying 'Apple can't, because supporting all pieces of PC hardware is a huge task' .
Right. But after all, Darwin is based upon FreeBSD. And FreeBSD *does* support a lot of PC hardware. Given the marvellous OS Apple was able to do, merging new FreeBSD drivers shouldn't be an impossible task.
{{.sig}}
It always amazes me how forgetful geeks are of their geek "history". Even events that happened scarcely a decade ago fade into the background, much less thirty or more years ago.
It's time for a short lesson in Ancient Apple History, kiddies.
It turns out Apple had seriously considered porting the MacOS to Intel hardware in a joint venture with Novell beginning in 1992, as part of the secret, so-called "Star Trek" project (although Intel's Andy Grove knew of and supported it.) It's all covered in detail in Jim Carleton's book "Apple" (yes, sometimes you have to actually read real books, people!), on pg. 166-180, and elsewhere.
The goal was to put the Mac's "finder," which provides the distinctive look and fell of the Macintosh on the screen, onto an Intel-based computer...(Gifford) Calenda designated a former System 7 manager, Chris DeRossi, to head up Apple's side of the project. In a meeting with their colleagues from Novell, someone suggested the endeavor be called "Star Trek". "The idea beaing 'Boldly go where no Macintosh has gone before,' Rolander recalls.
Note that this is all well before the release of Windows 95. One can only wonder what the outcome of a full-out battle of the Mac OS with Windows 95 on Intel boxes would have been, because the project was killed in 1993, shortly after a working prototype was developed. The ostensible reason given by Carleton was that the cost of development was too high : Apple had finite resources, and didn't commit a large enough software budget to handle both the release of MacOS for Power PC hardware and Intel simultaneously.
Carleton goes on to criticize Apple for its short-mindedness in squandering a prime chance to compete for market share. However, the larger debate within Apple has always been whether to pursue the "high-right" strategy of selling small numbers of highly profitable boxes and hardware, or the "low-left" strategy of selling larger numbers of low profit boxes and hardware. The same debate occurred when Apple licensed its hardware in the late 1990s. The discussion ultimately comes down to this basic point.
While I won't go into the merits of both sides of the argument (Carleton does in some detail), I will note that people don't run computers for the operating system : they run it for the applications. For the largest fraction of consumers, the single largest software application is Microsoft's Office. Microsoft now develops and sells Office for MacOS because it is a nice niche market, and doesn't directly compete with it's bread-and-butter Wintel market.
However, would Microsoft develop Office for an Intel-based MacOS directly in competition with Windows? I would bet not. Think about what that means for an Intel-based MacOS.
Best,
Bob
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
driver support for alternative OS on intel is a problem today, even with linux having a 10 year head start. Does Cringely think these drivers for sound cards, graphic cards, eathernet cards, modem (winmodem anyone?) would just pop out of thin air?!
No way is apple going to do this.
The keyboard is a standard size... you are thinking of the old iMac keyboards... they have been shipping with the newer Apple Pro keyboard and ProMouse (not the stupid round one) for a while now. Its a very nice keyboard too... I'm typing on one now.
As far as the 15" monitor... well I'm using a 19" on my G4 Tower, so I agree, but the resolution and the fact that LCDs have more viewing space than CRTs makes it closer to a 17". Hopefully Apple comes out with a 17" model.
But still as far as price, the towers start at $1500, which isn't so bad for the quality you get. Nice things are expensive.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Gates will never allow this to happen. If Jobs wanted to move OSX to an Intel platform, he would not be "granted" Microsoft Office to run on that platform. Moreover, its very likely that Gates would then pull Office from the OSX on Apple hardware. This would be suicide for Apple. You can beat your drums all you want and the govt. could threaten the MS monopoly and so on and so forth. In the meantime, Apple would be dead...
FMFrank W. Miller
If you own an x86 box(pentium or higher), I'd suggest you take a look at BeOS. It's as dead as OS/2 for all intents and purposes, but it's really an incredible OS for the PC. Just a little bit longer and it would have become everything Windows is and much, much more. All it needed was Hardware OpenGL, which was slated for the next release.
It sits with my OS/2 Warp disks. Yes. I support innovation with my wallet and my mindshare. That's why it sucks so much to see them fall.
It's been a long time.
As for cost, the price of a high end Mac doesn't seem so unreasonable compared to similarly configured high end dual Xeon (and even Athlon MP) workstations. It may even come out favorably for Apple. The Apple entry level isn't so high, either. The cost argument has just been the most popular anti-Apple FUD lately.
As for ease of use, I'm still not buying the idea that Macs are easier to use. There are ancient studies and a lot of unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence, but not much proof of anything. I think it's pretty much a wash, and probably a dead issue.
As for speed, the G4 leaves me unimpressed. Altivec optimized binaries _do_ scream, but for >95% of the code you run, they don't seem any faster (MHz for MHz) than Intel's Pentium 2/3 generation. Binaries optimized for the P4's extended instructions, and account for the branch predictor that is woefully inadequate for its deep pipeline are also very fast, but in the PC world, this is considered a Bad Thing(R).
Of course, that brings me to one of the more interesting concepts: there is a perverse relationship between the Macintosh and PC worlds. Hardware/software/design deemed good by one camp is considered bad for the other. All-in-one systems have never been popular PC designs, and so on.
I registered my hate for Jon Katz
1. software production costs are hardly limited to the manual and cd. how'd it get there, how does it stay updated? how does it get sold?
2. that hw liquidation scenario has only happened on a handful of isolated occasions to apple.
they charge for their boxes, most of their sw is free - if more money could be made the other way around, wouldn't they have done it by now?
remember, MS is 79 on the fortune 500 - there are three intel box makers ahead of them.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
... you might as well add a Salon icon too. ;)
Oh, and don't forget that kernel update icon everyone's been bitching about. I wouldn't mind be able to ignore those either without missing Linux posts.
----- rL
Erm ... BeOS might be nice and all, but a) no ISV's are touching it now, and b) neither are hardware makers.
To be everything windows is, you have to bury your developers in mountains of documentation and SDK's. Linux, for all its hodgepodge character, actually does work there, in perhaps not providing a great depth of documentation but certainly a breadth of SDK's to choose from. Be managed to screw its developers every time it turned around (it's on PPC, oh nevermind now it's not, oh now it's an appliance!) and the documentation, except for a few notable subsystems like the filesystem, was grossly sub-par.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
What part of "as dead as OS/2" don't you understand? The reasons are rather irrelevant in the light that they are, in fact, dead.
Tell me, were you a BeOS Developer?
It's been a long time.
Remember that $150 million in non-voting Apple stock purchased by Microsoft, and patent cross-licensing deal? Anyone? Here's the Apple Press Release [apple.com] in case you forgot. Apple was in bad shape, and Microsoft was up for monopolistic practices.
Getting a bit off-topic, but I just found it interesting that Microsoft did the same thing with Corel in Oct. 2000. It's no coincidence that Corel sells WordPerfect.
Microsoft is effectively helping competition stay alive, which is probably cheaper than buying a verdict via expensive lawyers. I don't know how a judge can look at that and not realise a conflict of interest.
It may be non-voting stock, but don't you think Microsoft will continually hold that over the company's heads like an older brother? "Remember that loan I gave you a while back? That was really nice of me, wasn't it?". So now all of these companies are expected to play nice with Microsoft even though they are really competition? Common sense sees right through that, and hopefully so will a judge.
DISCLAIMER: I work for Corel, but I do not speak on their behalf. My opinions are my own.
----- rL
Think about it. Apple currently has a reasonably profitable hardware business going. Their gear is attractive, performs well and is priced reasonably compared to machines of comparable quality and power.
I offer that the reason most folks want an OSX port to x86 is *not* to help Apple beat Microsoft in the battle for desktop dominance. That war is over. Microsoft won. In fact, I believe you will find that the overwhelming majority of Apple users don't really care whether Apple's market share gets much larger. Honestly, we might be happier if Apple didn't attempt to take Microsoft head-on. Would Bentley realistically try to take on Chevy for market share? Probably not if they want to maintain their reputation of quality and prestige.
Instead, I believe that folks are pushing for an x86 port because OSX is a viable alternative to *Linux*, not to *Windows*. OSX is what all of us hoped that Linux would someday become. Instead, it is here now. The problem is, that you have to actually have to go spend money to obtain OSX. My guess is that if Apple did release a port of OSX to x86, they would only sell a handful of copies off the shelf, yet 345784385 slashdot readers would run it through the magic of ISOs and cable modems. If Apple did find a way to force you to pay for it (god forbid), imagine the chaos. Here is a hypothetical timeline:
*Linux users convince Apple to release OSX for x86
*Large Slashdot thread devoted to how unjust it is that Apple is forcing people to pay for OSX
*Large Slashdot thread on "spyware" inside OSX which determines if a user actually payed for OSX
*Two college students crack OSX registration and licensing system
*Large-scale adoption of OSX on cheap Intel hardware by 12yo Slashdot readers
*Large Slashdot thread devoted to how crappy OSX is because it won't support XYZ video card on cheap, frankenstien hardware. Gawd, if it works this bad on *my* hardware, I'm glad I didn't shell out any cash for over-priced Apple gear
*Apple hardware market share plummets along with company profits
*ZDNet article about the imminent failure of Apple (#4567547896457896)
Don't do it Apple!
It would be nice if there was a Cringely slashbox so the editors wouldn't feel compelled to post a front page story almost every week.
I guess Sundays are slow anyway. *shrug*
-Peter
Everyone is saying the same, obvious things about how Microsoft would pull their applications and that apple is a hardware company.
The truth is that OSX sucks. I know, I have it running on my Powerbook. The thing is that MacOS is poorly designed and it has only gotten worse. I really laugh when people say that it is easier, as I find it the most difficult and annoying operating sytem to use.
I will admit that the user interface in OS9 was quite nice, although far from perfect. Unfortunately, OS9 was also unresponsive.
The problem isn't raw speed, which in OSX can sometimes be a factor as well.. but the way that they multitask. OSX will give the active application full tasking priority, lets say it is Internet Explorer or Mozilla.. and it is fetching a page, while it is doing such.. it will put up the wait cursor. While the wait cursor is up, that application is using a lot of CPU and makes it more difficult if not impossible to switch to another application.
This has gotten worse in OSX as it has replaced the popular finder with the Dock. Unfortunately, even without anything running or using lots of CPU.. trying to use the dock to switch between running appliations can be somewhere between difficult and impossible.
Well, this shouldn't be a rant about usablity.. the point is that I don't think that OSX or any other version of MacOS is a very well designed Operating System. The best commercial OS, imho is Irix (although still far from perfect, still better then OSX)
If they were all that wouldnt more ppl be building clones of Macs?
If you're not a troll, then damn, you are the dumbass of the century.
Being "all that" has NOTHING to do with why PC clones are a dime a dozen. Do you think IBM, the all-time king of the proprietary system, allowed clones to be built of the original IBM PC, 20 years ago? Hell, no! Clonability was just a side effect of IBM's quick-and-dirty project, hurriedly throwing together an open system they could get on store shelves quickly to start taking marketshare from the Apple II. Then the Compaq guys figured out how to legally clone the BIOS in a way that IBM couldn't stop with an army of lawyers. Then another company (Phoenix, I think) did the same thing, but then instead of building their own boxes to put it in, just licensed their cloned BIOS to all comers-- which were mostly Asian companies cranking out dirt-cheap knockoff PCs by the thousands and flooding the market with them.
The x86 PC architecture has always been, and always will be, shit, simply because it was a bastard child built from off-the-shelf parts to save time. Its easy clonability was made possible by IBM's greed and shortsightedness. Its high popularity is because most people are cheap and dumb.
On the other hand, I make a very comfortable living fixing the crappy friggin' things when they break. More than enough to buy a nice Mac to use when I come home at night. After a long day of battling the BSOD, struggling with PCI cards that refuse to be recognized, and playing 'hunt down the correct driver,' it's nice to have a machine that just works at home.
~Philly
I don't think the Mac is only about visual appeal. Sure it looked nice, but it was the fluidity and ease of use that came with the MacOS that made it shine. I think Apple could have something that wasn't as flashy like BeOS' interface and still make a good OS. Apple has just used the visual appeal as a way to attract attention while at the same time justifying an expensive hardware upgrade to thier customers.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
If Mac users really are confident that Apple hardware isn't overpriced and represents a good value, they should have nothing to worry about, right?
On the other hand, if they are concerned that existing Mac users would switch to Intel hardware, perhaps that's a sign that the hardware does not represent the hardware value they say it does.
of jumping into the Mac vs. PC war...
I consider myself to be somewhat computer literate. I've been building and servicing PCs for 6 years, and seen what wintel has to offer. I've also worked as a systems administrator (*NIX systems).
I bought my first mac about 6 months ago. I chose mac vs. pc due to the higher quality hardware, the tighter integration of the OS, and the feature set (try to find a good small, leight-weight wintel laptop with internal DVD and 802.11b that doesn't burn the batteries in 1.5 hours). I'm also a big fan of OS X. I'm sold on the integration between UNIX and a good GUI. Yes, there are a bugs and annoyances, but overall, I'm happier with my mac than I have ever been with a PC. My main argument is this: You get what you pay for. I chose to pay more for my mac because I expect more from a computer system than wintel can provide.
Sure, you do see a nice PC once in a while, but for the most part, they are klunky, thrown-together (read: no top-level design), and let's not forget to factor in the chineese discount (read: cheap quality) hardware. (No offense to chineese hardware manufacturers! Please, keep making $7 10/100 NICs!) A wintel box will provide a big bang for your buck, but unless you're a power user, you'll never see the difference--or care for that matter.
Why choose the bare minimum in satisfaction? Isn't it better to be pleased/happy with a purchace, rather than just satisfied?
That's my $0.02 anyway.
True. Apple is a "marginal player, selling to a fan club."
But why does it need to be anything more?
Apple, unlike "bigger" companies such as Dell or Micron, always makes a profit and has a much higher margin per machine sale than anybody else. This is because there's no other player in their market -- who knows what the cost of a "clone" apple would be nowadays?
Now, Apple stock is a different thing. It's currently worth next to butkiss, and even though Apple the company is run more solidly that any other computer manufacturer, it's still hovering low. Why? Because Apple's practices aren't going to make shareholders rich. They'll never post a fifty dollar per share profit year, because most profits go back into R&D.
In short: Apple is a failure because they research and develop. Apple is also a success because they research and develop. If you can't stand the dichotomy, well, place your funds in Microsoft.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
You can't scale up Apple's model to 95% of the market, or even 50% of the market, and hundreds of hardware manufacturers. If you try, you end up with the same configuration problems as Windows or Linux have, and you end up with the same complaints about usability that people have about Windows and Linux. A single company can't be everything to everybody.
What we need is not one Microsoft that has 50% of the market and one Apple that has 50% of the market, what we need is 20 companies and efforts like Microsoft, Apple, Linux, BeOS, etc., each of which caters to the needs of 5% of the market.
Both the "Common Hardware Reference Platform" and "PowerPC Platform" were the last hopes of bringing the Mac OS to inexpensive and open hardware to compete with Wintel.
However, it was not a smart business move for Apple to continue with it. They had the Mac OS all set to go (running on the reference platforms), and also some hardware vendors ready to produce these units. In fact, I think PPCP didn't even require a Mac ROM to be present on the motherboard, so it made things that much easier.
Also at the time, there was a Windows NT port for PowerPC. It was rather worthless because there was no Windows software compiled for PowerPC, but it was basically ready to go.
I am sure in some labs at Apple and elsewhere, there were PPCP machines able to boot into either Mac OS or Windows NT. I, reading articles about these machines, was really excited about this, and was wanting to buy one when they came out. If it all did not happen, it probably would not have been an Apple machine either.
FYI, this is all separate from Power Computing and Motorola Mac clones because those were basically the same old Apple motherboards, complete with the ROMS required to run Mac OS.
To add to it, Apple is doing well enough right now to not care about expanding to Intel hardware. If I were Jobs, there is no way in hell I would authorize a Mac OS X for x86 to be released. Not when Mac OS X for PowerPC can still use every developer they have to improve it.
(Apologies: This is actually a crosspost of something I wrote on Macslash. I didn't feel like rewriting it, since I'm already late for this discussion -- curses for sleeping in on Sunday morning!)
I can't believe Cringely's bought into this argument now. I expected better from him.
The whole Mac-on-x86 argument has many followers, with multiple -- and frequently contradictory -- goals. Cringely's is to get Microsoft a competitor on their home turf, one with the human-interface knowhow that Linux and other *nix versions don't have. He's a little better at strategizing than most, offering the idea of a strategic alliance with one of the surviving OEMs as a bulwark, but ultimately what he's suggesting is an altruistic gesture from Apple that offers little chance for success and huge odds for catastrophic failure.
Imagine if Steve Jobs were to announce tomorrow morning that OS X for PCs, developed in secret for months, will be available immediately at your nearby Apple Store or CompUSA. Never mind for now the enormous logistical problems of getting the installer to recognize the nearly infinite combinations of PC hardware out there, or the need to repartition your HD to accomodate an HFS+ partition; we'll say that the installer works like a dream. Here's this brand-new, gorgeous OS ready to go -- and there's not a single damn program that'll run on it.
That's because there's no developers' kit out there in the public. Oh, sure, Apple will port its developers' tools, but programmers need time to use it. (It could be that our mythical Stevenote will include a surprise announcement from Adobe that Photoshop 7 is ready to go for OS X-for-Intel, but considering Adobe's reticence in porting to Carbon, that strains credulity far past breaking. And considering that Adobe already has a perfectly good version of Photoshop running on Intel iron, it'll take quite a bit of arm-twisting from Steve to get them happy about more work.) Existing Cocoa apps will need to be recompiled; I'm not even sure how Carbon apps are supposed to move their legacy 680x0 and PowerPC code crossplatform. And good luck getting your Classic applications to run in emulation (and if you didn't create an HFS+ partition during the setup, you won't even be able to get their resource forks copied over.)
So this brand-new OS, which you paid good money for (and you're dreaming if you think Apple can afford to stick with $130 per license), is sitting on your computer without a thing to do. You have to reboot into Windows to get any work done, which makes you seriously wonder why you bothered in the first place. Meantime, the platform shift -- as Cringely says, Apple can't go into this move halfheartedly; OS X for Intel has to be first-class from the outset -- is having the effect of completely killing sales of Apple's remaining PowerPCs. New users are scared off by certain obsolescence; after all, not even Microsoft could keep two full-blown versions of the same OS running on different platforms at the same time, and Apple's clearly given up on the G4. Old-timers like me have no reason to repurchase the new Mac-compatible PCs and waste our existing investments. Plus, Apple's the only vendor of PowerPC-based desktop computers, and they're now battling Dell and Gateway on price; even assuming that they've been licensed as OEMs, they can undercut Apple's prices even more severely than the clones did.
So Apple, by shifting to x86, would have no legacy software, very few willing developers, an extremely dangerous and powerful competitor on Microsoft's home turf, none of the years of optimization that makes OS X run well on G4s, millions in lost sales for their own hardware, millions more lost dollars in R & D, an alienated fan base, and little hope of evading the implosion of Be and other would-be MS competitors. And they would do this -- why? The goodness of their hearts? Apple really has no reason to budge from PowerPC; the platform's still running, if not neck-and-neck with Intel and AMD, at least fast enough to give Mac users value for their money. Porting would not be Apple's best way of leveraging their comfortable niche market -- it would be a leap of desperation from a company that doesn't need to do it.
--- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith
Classic may require the PPC, but Carbon is cross platform, as is, of course, Cocoa. I would imagine that any "guidelines" for "MacOS for Intel" developers would require native compilation. Emulation would detract from the brand-- as it would create the impression that MacOSX was slow.
It is in Apple's best interest that application developers port their works over to Carbon (or preferably, though more ambitiously) Cocoa. The Classic environment was intended primarily to assuage folks who already had a substantial investment in non carbonized servers-- in other words, existing mac users.
Most of the hypothetical MacOSX for Intel users do not have substantial Macintosh software investments-- if a desktop publisher shop was upgrading its existing Apple hardware, any speed advantage of Intel processors would be outweighed by emulation overhead.
Although some publishers might be dragging their feet on Classic to Carbon ports, I suspect that by the time OSX for Intel had undergone beta testing, Carbon ports will be ready-- and the recompilation for Intel platforms would be comparatively trivial. Thus-- no need for Bluebox support.
Altivec to SSE conversions might prove more difficult, though.
This is the reason that most Macs other than the Latest And Greatest will not run MacOS X. I have a G3 Blue And White. 350MHz G3. 192MB RAM. It's also something that could be bypassed if only MacOS X allowed people to run alternate GUIs.
What am I going to do about it? Well, upgrading the processor is an option, but it is a costly one. I'm thinking that maybe the Penguin might be my ticket to xNIX on Mac bliss. PPC distributions of Linux have lots of good features and are not too far removed from the Bleeding Edge of Linux. My friend Chad has been running DebianPPC on a G4 Sawtooth and he's very happy with it.
The difference between Linux and MacOS X is this: GUI freedom of choice. If Apple gave us the ability to bypass Aqua and run, say, Ice or BlackBox as the GUI, I could maybe run OS X on my beloved G3. But they won't, so I can't, so I'll be moving to a dual boot of Linux and MacOS 8.6 eventually.
Maybe I'll get an iLuxo Jr. sometime in the future. But until I do, I'm staying well away from MacOS X.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
First, Cringely's article is 90% about what this port would do for consumers and Microsoft. There's no compelling case here for why Apple would want to do it, which means there's no story about why it would happen.
Steve Jobs already tried this game with NextStep and it didn't work out. I bet he did that under duress, and since it didn't work out, there's no way he'll be convinced to try it again.
Cringely also writes, "So Apple has to make at least a "good faith" effort with this OS X port, reflecting the realities of Intel hardware." This points to a fundamental reason this will never happen. With Apple hardware, Apple can sell a product that "just works." With Intel hardware, Apple is stuck with a massive and unprofitable effort to develop and test drivers for all the cheap Intel-compatible devices out there, or they're stuck with a bunch of customers screaming about how their machines don't work with OS X. Either way, Apple loses.
Finally, I'm amazed by this whole business about Apple hardware being "too expensive." Look, obviously some people are buying it at this price, so it must not be "too expensive" for them -- i.e., it offers something they're willing to pay for. It's just "too expensive" for you, and that's why you're griping. And I think that's outlandish for coders, because we can pretty much universally afford to pay the $400 extra to get a really good box. Some of you just seem to feel entitled to perfect hardware at bottom-of-market prices, which I don't understand. I've worked in carpentry, and I know that you have to pay extra for good tools, but they make the work experience so much better. If you're making your living off the hardware, a few extra dollars is nothing. Think about all the other things you throw money away on, yet you balk at investing in decent tools for your work?
MacOS as freebie ended with System 7.1.
Everything from 7.0.1 backwards was free as in Free Beer. Now 7.5.3/7.5.5 is free as in Free Beer and can be downloaded from several Apple servers. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for 7.1...apparently there is some third-party proprietary code in there which prevents 7.1 from being released as freeware. Too bad...7.1 is the ideal OS for some elderly Macs.
7.6.1 and above are payware, with no sign that Apple is going to release them into freeware any time soon.
HTH.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
If you want to get work done, or run more then one app at a time - run OS 9.1. Not 9.2.1. OS 9.1 gives you features that they take away - like being able to close your iBook lid and still use an external display. Now they force your iBook to sleep in 9.2.1 and 10.1 - so forget about docked configurations.
I expected a little bit more for the money I invested in this laptop, and I'm still very bitter about it. But that's my .2 cents.
-Pat
I disagree about there being no DIY: While you usually don't start with a motherboard, choice of power supplies and processors, etc., there's a pretty large assortment of choices to start low and build big.
My 8500 (~8 years old) was designed with a PPC604 CPU running @ 120MHz. Standard buss was Fast-SCSI-2.
It's now got a relatively recent G3/400MHz in there, and ATTO Ultra-Wide SCSI controller, lots more RAM and DASD. All of this, I've Done Myself, and the box is MORE than usable for the variety of tasks I throw at it; if i needed more juice, I could certainly add it.
If you go to Mac Rescue, or David Baucom's site and the like, you'll see plenty of 'barebones' Macs and the add-ons you can buy to soup-up yourself pretty nicely.
You can get yourself a pretty nice LinuxPPC box for around $200.
Takes a bit more looking than on the PC-side (it's sort've like finding Linux-compatible componants was ~3 years ago ...), but it's definitely more than do-able.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Cringley is wrong.
Apple is about holistic system design. Sure you pay a little more initially, but you pay a lot less later because of the quality of the design.
For new users Apple is a great choice. Nowhere near the number of potential issues waiting to hose things up.
Apple has identified a clear niche and is making money at it, why would they give that up?
Blogging because I can...
FUD is right! The G3 iMac (comparable to most Intel Pentium IIIs) is only $799! That's how much the base Dell, Gateway and IBM models cost. Depending on when you buy, you might get a CD-RW thrown in, double memory, etc. - just like the Intel PC sellers do. If you need a laptop, look no further than the iBook - its got everything you need for merely $1199, if I recall correctly. Those two prices are not bad starting points - from there, things go up, but relatively slowly, all things considered. I believe the new G4 iMac starts at $1299 - you get G4 power, a sweet Apple flat screen and a slew of great trimmings like gigabit ethernet, I believe.
If you're still thinking that a 600MHz G3 is like a 600MHz PIII, think again. Look in slashdot's history to see articles addressing the architecture and speed differences between ia32 and PowerPC. Basic gist: the PIII and P4 have to have at least twice the megahertz rating of the PowerPC chips just to pull equal in computing power. And with OS X's Aqua interface, what's not to like about Apple?
If its expandability you're after, go for the G4 towers. But don't anty up more $$ just because you think you'll need expandability. The only true reasons, in my book, to go for the towers are (a) you need SCSI/RAID access and Firewire converters aren't good enough, (b) you need multiple monitors or using the iMac's mirroring output isn't good enough, (c) you need the raw horsepower of a dual processor machine, or (d) you have a PCI peripheral that doesn't have a firewire/usb alternative that's as good. The point of the list isn't necessarily to be exhaustive but rather to start you looking towards what you can do with external peripherals. Especially firewire. Need video capture/output - yep, that's there, in spades. More storage that's fast? Yep - no problem. Better/different media storage (burners/tape drives/etc.) than what Apple puts in the iMac's? Yep - got that, too. The number of excellent firewire/usb peripherals available is simply mind boggling. Take a look next time, before expounding on how 'unexpandable' Apple computers are.
Peace.
The bright idea to take the LC motherboard design and graft a PPC 603e onto it was one of the main reasons why Apple was sucking so badly in '96 and '97. The 52xx, 62xx and 63xx Performas had a laundry list of things wrong with them because of this ill-conceived design decision. It would be like stuffing a Pentium II onto a 486 motherboard and expecting it to work.
Gil Amelio was on the road to fixing Apple, but he didn't have enough time to do it. Steve Jobs gets all the credit but Apple was on the uptick (modestly, true, but still on the rise) even before he got there. Jobs deserves a great deal of the credit...the iMac was Jobs' baby, so was the G3 Yosemite and the Cube.
The crappy Performas did more to push people away from Apple and towards Windoze than anything else. It certainly turned a lot of the educational market away from Apple. Remember, the 52xx all-in-one series were one of the crappy Macs and that was what the educational (K-12 in particular) market was buying. They got stung real bad by those stinkbombs and were then very receptive when Dell came calling.
Here's the full story of these Road Apples:
http://www.lowendmac.com/tech/x200.shtml
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Here is the near top of the line dell system I'm able to purchase for $1759 shipped. This includes a 2ghz pentium 3, 256 megs of ram, dvd, cd burner, 80 gig hard drive and 64 megs geoforce 2mx w/17 in monitor.
Here is a 933mhz Mac with 80 gig HD, 256 megs of ram, radeon 7500, and a superdrive for $2600. This unit has no monitor but does come with a superdrive.
Actually this was EXTREMELY effective, IMNSHO. Whether you worked in a Mac shop or a Windoze shop you could see familiar things about the computers the geeks worked with. There were even Linux-like aspects of that weird hybrid "operating system" the computers used.
Add to it the anachronistic software boxes on the shelves. I laughed my ass off when I first saw it and everyone looked at me funny because they couldn't see how humorous it was to see DBase II and Lotus 123 and Wordstar 3.3 on the shelves next to more-or-less modern computers on the desks.
Of course it could have all been accidental. The set decorator could have gone through thrift stores in Austin, TX looking for cheap software and finding those old classics. The guys who made the fake OS for display probably were working with Macs (Hollywood LOVES its Macs) and Mike Judge was probably telling them to "make the OS look like Windows." But the result, intentional or unintentional it might be, was true geek humor.
It is my assertion that the co-stars of Office Space were the computers themselves. One more reason that movie is an underrated masterpiece.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Its a pentium 4 not a 3. I wish they had a 2 ghz pentium 3 ir would probably be REALLY fast.
That's a pretty fair summary, excepting the omission of the idea that even IF the Mac was 10% worse in EVERY way than an MS PC, I'd still buy a Mac because Apple have never stated it as an aim to have THEIR software running on every device in the world. I remember Bill G saying something like that - and I've seen him do everything in his power to make it happen.
That was classic intercourse!
OS X will never be available on the x86 platform.
All you Mac devotees seem to have forgotten something - Uncle Billy owns 5% of Apple. Steve "can't market my way out of a wet paper sack" Jobs made a pact with the devil a few years ago and it wasn't without strings attached. Specifically, IE-only on the Mac and Apple doesn't compete with M$ in the x86 market, among others. It wouldn't matter if the Borg of Redmond didn't own part of Apple. To kill Apple, all M$ has to do is stop developing Office for the Apple platform, a move they're sure to make if Apple so much as spits in the direction of the WinDoze monopoly.
Like it or lump it, that's how it is. I am no friend of M$. I would consider buying a Mac if I didn't have to pay double for a platform that nobody's developing for.
If people here complain about the "overpriced" apple hardware, won't they complain about the overpriced apple software? $130 for an OS? When you're used to getting that for free - $30?
Of course, that's just us open source zealouts. The average, everyday user probably doesn't care quite so much. But if you start looking at associated software for the MacOS, like say, Microsoft Office (which everyone beleives they have to have), you're looking at $400 minimum if you're not a student. Probably higher, if MS decided they don't like the fact that Apple moved into their space. And that's if it exists at all -- how easy would it be for MS to simple decide that they didn't want to develop Office for OS X Intel? Meanwhile, having Office come with your Windows PC is becoming more common.
Nope. This isn't going to work, and Apple's not going to do it.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Would be to sell the port for $500-$1000. Basically have it as a development operating system. This would allow intel shops a slightly cheaper way of porting to OS X. Of course, final testing would have to be on an actual mac, but it would be a good investment for a intel/windows only company who wants to enter into the mac market.
I guess then the problem would be piracy, though.
-no broken link
You say that the public perception is that you need MS Office to make a computer useful. Then maybe this is what we should change. Don't accept MS Office files from friends and co-workers when another more standard format is possible. My mac doesn't have MS Office on it and I have no problems. Now this won't work for everyone, but it does for me. My office suite is Appleworks which I purchased as it did not come with my g4 tower. To me $80 for an office suite was fair and has provided all the capability I require. I agree that MS Office is better than Appleworks. For the difference in price, I don't need that capability.
Also, why is it Apple's fault that Microsoft doesn't cut them a great deal to bundle Office v X with new machines?
Microsoft brought us Windows XP. I bought a Mac.
Cringely mentioned a company named ARDI. This is a company that for many years has been working on a Mac hardware and OS emulation environment for PCs. The product is called Executor and it will run many 68k mac Applications. It does not rely on Apple roms or on the MacOS. It is also VERY FAST. There is work being done on a PPC version, but I don't know how far along it is.
In any case I just wanted to point out that what ARDI does would do nothing to help Apple port OSX over to intel. ARDI produces an interesting emulator, but what is needed is a native port of the system itself. Not to mention the fact that Executor is for the 68k and OS-X is written for the PPC, not exactly an insignificant difference.
There is already a version of Darwin for x86. In case you're not familiar, Darwin is the underlying BSD/Mach core OS that OS-X is based upon. Creating a complete port of OS-X would involve porting the upper layers of the system such as Aqua, the upper layer API systems, and the GUI, among other things. Since these layers are undoubtedly written in C and Objective C (another story), and the low-level OS inferfaces they rely on would be the same for the PPC and x86 versions of Darwin, porting them should be very easy to do.
Its kind of like Linux itself. There are x86 versions, Alpha versions, and even PPC versions. These versions are 99% source code compatible. Meaning that code written on one will compile and run on the others with VERY FEW if any changes. The same should be true of OS-X. In fact I would not be a bit suprised if there is already a complete version of OS-X for x86 today. The hackers (!= crackers) at Apple would just be too tempted not to port it as an experiment with Darwin already existing on x86. It would also be created in order for the company to hedge its bets. Should Apple ever have to drop their hardware line, a ready to go version of OS-X for intel would be their primary escape strategy.
Do I expect to see this version of OS-X? Not anytime soon. We may never see it. Back in the 80's Apple developed an x86 version of their classic OS with Novell, it was never released and the project it was developed as part of was dropped. There was also a version of MacOS developed for Apollo to run on their Domain workstations (Apollo was bought out by HP some time ago). This project was also scrapped when Apple dumped Apollo and began trying to cozy up to Sun. So seeking an alternate platform for their operating systems is nothing new, its just that we've never seen any prior examples of this marketed.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Apple's marketshare has grown over the last 4 years. Part of this can be attributed to getting back some of the market they lost to the clones back, but I think at least some of it has to be attributed to getting new PC buyers with their products and even stealing a few previous intel buyers away. They are selling hardware to new customers.
This makes the prospect of OS X for Intel dicey. It means that Cringley's assumptions about it not competing with Mac HW are at least partially wrong. The guy who walks into the store MIGHT buy the Athlon box over the iMac. In which case Apple loses the sale of the HW. In a market where apple is trying to grow (and succeeding), this hurts.
Cringley isn't stupid, but this idea isn't anywhere near as easy or as foregone a conclusion as he seems to think.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
2 - If the PPC hardware wasn't overpriced or if there really was parity between "similar" systems, why would 3 be valid? Why would Apple lose out? Would people choose the wrong choice simply because it existed? No, people would look at a performance metric and balance that with price considerations, and x86 would, most of the time, win that; over 80% of the market is x86, and like GM, they pay a lot less for nuts and bolts than SAAB does.
About HW/SW integration being worth the premium. I don't buy it, I've used so many computers from so may platforms, and between x86 and Apple, its certainly very easy to build a "highly integrated" x86 box with all the trimmings. Sure, in a laptop you have to rely the manufacturer, but on the desktop, anyone obsessed with integration can build their own souped up hardware - like I have, with no problems, none. And I don' even need support. Bad integration makes me think of Sun, not Dell. In fact, the other day I got my hands on a new Dell C400, they are amazing - 1.2GHz 512K P3 -M, faster than any Powerbook even wet dreamed - and 3.5 lbs to boot with 30GB hard drive. Now if you want to trade 50% of your speed for that built in firewire port that never gets used, go ahead (not that firewire is a bad thing, I think its great.).
I agree with another poster about something, if no X86 port, then "What we need isn't Mac OS X for Intel. What we need are cheap PPC machines, with dull beige designs.." About this statement:
Is a godsend. This go the extra mile to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that Microsoft is in fact a monopoly.There is way too much conjecture in this thread, and not enough test marketing or real critical thinking about the viability of the x86 OS X project.
I had a guy at work who knew Steve Jobs from his last job. This was the kind of freak who would print out his correspondence and show it to me to prove he knew Steve. Steve apparently has a flair for brevity or more likely, doesn't know this guy.
Anyways, he was submitting his brain droppings to Steve about various things from time to time, the last of which was the iPod. Each time I begged him to ask Steve to port OS X just as NeXT was. The goofball seemed to think it was a bad idea. Not so. This is essential. Nobody goes and buys a Windows upgrade, every Tom, Dick and Harry just pass along upgrade, Microsoft makes 80% of its sales from Desktop OS and 90% (figures off the top off my head from what I can remember) of those are from OEM pre-builds.
SOME people will go out and buy OS X and remove that festering piece of garbage OS - whatever resides there. The main Caveat is an HCL. Apple should have a fairly short HCL and work with the vendors to bring sanity to the X86 platform (like BeOS did, 'this is what works, here you go.')
I am dying to buy a PC with OS X on it. I have to use Windows for my job function as a Hardware Release Engineer (Unix based systems) - go figure. I was formerly an IT Manager just to know... The latest rendition of Windows, XP, is a step in the right direction but like Office XP vs. Office 2000, there is hardly enough there to call an OS upgrade. It should be called Plus! For Windows NT 5.
A friend and I argue in jest about Win32 vs. OS X. He seems to think of OS X as a passing afterthought, relegated to niche-dom. I love the OS. I allows me to use bash, the god of shells, and still have a desktop that doesn't promote an eructation of vomit. I surely hope that you can influence Steve Jobs (who I refer to as Steve Slobs, because every time he about to "score with that chick", to use a metaphor, he cuts a nasty fart and she runs for the hills) by producing more fervor of this nature.
Apparently Steve has had it with the clearly inferior PPC. There are may things that make PPC a better architecture, but people who buy fast cars look at the quarter mile, the 0-60 and the 100-0 times. And a skid pad rating for more European types.. The point is that the PPC fails in all three, its slow comparatively, proprietary and expensive. Its has the proper endian, but Intel is out there so most code is Intel endian clean, not PPC making running ports on OS X/PPC slightly problematic. The story goes that Steve told Chris Galvin of Motorola to get out some faster chips, and as part of that demand he send a Dell PC running OS X to Galvin's office. Corporate megalomaniac antics are a far from reality at this point - but I can only hope for x86 OS X. Some zealots will mod down for this, and cry Altivec, go right ahead.
Also, from the corporate IT perspective, I would like to use OS X for all corporate PC desktops. It reduces the amount of "crud" applications that can run there (Napster, Audio-galaxy, spy ware, things that mess with windows registry) its licensing and cost are far better, and Microsoft Office for OS X is better.
This is just another "Steve Jobs Fart." He is about to score, to land the chick, and he does this. Sequesters the best thing Apple has ever done on a niche. He knows that Apple goofs will pay for it, but is still not willing to put his money where his mouth is, if it is truly better and more elegant, he should make it so everyone can put it to the test. These people are the types who sit down in front of a plate of steak, bread, mashed potatoes, and looks at a fork, a spoon and a knife. The pick up the spoon and refuse to use anything else holding the spoon high above and screaming this is the physical incarnation of the savior, the spoon. Its not hard to sell to the spoon only types, as they are zealots.
One can only hope to see OS X on x86. One can only hope to see Steve finally score with that chick without getting kicked aside by some "nerd" named Bill who has better bowel control.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
You can (or could, last I checked) get Office v.X for $150 with the purchase of a new mac. Quite a deal.
--Dan
"Microsoft hasn't been able to reverse engineer the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field either" Au contraire! I'd argue that MS have been FAR more succesful in the field of reality distotion that Apple. They'v actually managed o convince the majority of computer users/buyers that they somehow need Windows+Office to perform even the simplest WP, DB or spreadsheet task. I work with people who genuinely believe that they need office to make labels. LABELS!
That was classic intercourse!
NT/2K can and will run headless. You can use Terminal Services to remotely administer if you're using 2K. If memory serves me right, it requires a bit more gyrations to convince a Mac to boot headless. This is why people use SE/30s to run as cheapy web servers. The Mac will check to see if a monitor is attached before attempting to boot.
I'm a fan of Macs and use one every day to deal with the Internet. I'm also an MCSE/A+ and work with PCs on a just-about daily basis.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Usually Cringley has some interesting ideas and some of them even make sense but this is one of his lesser ones that should go in the same box as his idea to build a custom-designed airplane in 6 months.
OS X would be terrible as a port to x86 hardware. Here's why:
I'm willing to bet that development and production of PPC hardware is a major cost center at Apple. Here's a much better idea: Abandon the PPC platform and switch to x86. This doesn't mean that Apple has to run on Dell machines. Apple can build x86 motherboards based on open firmware and omit annoying backwards compatibility features. Their hardware configuration will still essentially be proprietary but their cost for development after the changeover should go down dramatically. What it means is that Apple can leverage the tremendous investment in x86 architecture (both hardware and software) made by others so that Apple may design and build their systems cheaper. I'd be suprised if Apple hasn't researched this business strategy already. It just doesn't jive with their traditional culture of total platform control.
It would be a little sad to see the low-end of the PPC platform die but the market and business realities probably make x86 a more competitive and profitable platform. Oh well it's Apple's loss, not mine.
In late January I bought a 667Mhz TiBook. This was my first Mac (not my first Apple, but the ][e isn't competitive anymore) ever, and OS X was definetly one of the reasons. For me, it's an OS with 95% of the Unix functionality I need, and 0% of the hastle. (It took a lot of effort to get Linux running on the Toshiba work gave me.)
OS X wasn't the only reason...Apple took a very sexy platform and put a sexy OS on it. Would I have bought the TiBook running Windows? Probably not. But I could go for OS X on another platform (if the TiBook didn't exist), it's just the that the features of the hardware wouldn't be as exciting.
As for the price issue, my TiBook came stock with:
512MB RAM
30GB HD
Firewire and USB
802.11b
DVD/CD-RW Combo drive
When I started trying to decide if I really wanted this TiBook, I priced out the competition. And what I found was that most of the name brand laptops that could come close in terms of feature set were $3500 or so, which is more than the TiBook. And none of them had a wide screen (which I love), or GigE (which believe it or not, I have used).
And even setting aside the feature set....this isn't some beige box that sits under the desk. It's a piece of hardware that's in my face, so to speak, and the form factor is exciting.
Apple's got killer hardware and a killer OS. For those that don't think Apple is price competitive then usually they're not being sure to add in all the features. I'm very happy with mine.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
I wish people would leave it out with "double the Mhz" crap. It really isn't true. I'm a big Mc fan, and a G3-class PowerPc DOES peform better than a PIII clock for clock... by around 25-30%. Seeing as the fastest G3 Apple ever put in a computer was a 700Mhz PPC 750cxe, and that I've seen PIIIs at 1.3Ghz we can see how that comparison pans out. If Apple use a different CPU architecture and are able to produce a product that performs as effectively at it's given task (or more so) than an x86 machine, then what's the problem? PS2s make better games machines than PCs too - doesn't really matter what's going on inside, does it?
That was classic intercourse!
1. Release Windows for Machintosh: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
2. Bundle IE with the OS, release Office for MacWindows: Microsoft Standard Operating Procedure
3. Discontinue support for IE and Office for OS-X: claim that the effort in porting Windows has consumed resources previously used for Mac apps. Promise updates 'soon'
4. Release products that directly compete with iTunes, iDVD, iPhoto, iEtc... : replay the counter-Netscape strategy
5. Watch Apple dry up and turn to dust
Cringley uses Borland and Netscape to make his point. The more obvious conclusion is that "he who competes with Microsoft, dies." I don't think Apple users and shareholders would like that, would they?
Why would I want to run a hacked up proprietary OS derived from an older version of BSD when I can run the real thing? Or Linux. What's the point? What would you gain? The interface is nothing to raise an eyebrow at in terms of real functionality. It's bloated and cheezy. Yes, those stupid minimize/restore warp animations get old after about.. the 5th time you've seen them. What's the point? Proprietary is dead. Get over it Apple.
"... Steve Jobs has been for months making these bold predictions that we'll all be making home movies with our computers, but I just don't buy that. What we do with home movies is shoot them then put them in a drawer or closet and forget they exist. ..."
3 0. html
Ref: I, Cringley:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit200011
So, what does he want us to do with OSX on i86? Run MS Word?
This is the same guy who said "Broadband is Dead". I don't think Steve Jobs is going to pay much attention.
And if he does, goodbye Word on OSX.
ClarisWorks and AppleWorks run on Windows, but I've never met a Wintel user who owns a copy. It would be the same for OSX; the average Windows user would yawn, say "where's the games?", and reboot.
That's for the few that pay attention; most wouldn't read the second line of an article that has Apple in the first line.
If you NEED OSX (or some Mac function/application), you buy a Mac box. If you don't, you buy SGI, Wintel, a GameCube, or a pen and paper.
I can buy that argument. Which just goes to show that there are both carrot and stick arguments for Microsoft to not fight the Mac very much. As it turns out, the Mac part of M$ actually makes some good money as well. I don't know why that's true, and I've never verified the claim, but so I've heard it said.
C//
It would have to be an act, at the moment. Gates is acting "panicky" about Linux, probably because it blindsided him and he cannot get his meathooks into it, has absolutely NO leverage against it at all. With Apple, he can PRETEND to panick if an antitrust suit calls for such an act, but know deep down that he owns Apple.
Course, I wonder how he felt when the US Army standardized on Macs after becoming fed up with the insessant virus and worm and hack attacks suffered via windoze?
Where the Army goes, eventually so will go the rest of the armed forces...for similar reasons. It may not be going to Macs (though that would be logical) and more into opensource alternative mixes, but it will not become a stranglehold of Gates.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I see no reason why apple cannot do exactly what they are doing now with the PPC and simply switch CPUs. There is no magic here, afterall. This would leave you with an Apple-branded x86 box on Apple-branded motherboards (subcontracts,etc), with Apple-branded HDDs, video, etc, etc. It would be in some ways a pain it the ass like Packard Bells and others with their special propriatory mobos, but you would be buying a quality hardware package, certified to work.
Sure, you could swap out components, upgrade, etc, perhaps moreso with an x86-based design than with the PPC but take it too far and you simply void your warrantee or Apple official support.
They could still sell quality Apple hardware and quality Apple boxes all nicely integrated to work 100% together but the CPU would just not happen to be a PPC.
There is not mysterious magic to Apple using a PPC vs anything else.
Apple could do two things: make a little money selling the OS for other x86 boxes, perhaps with limited support, and make more money selling fully integrated OS X-x86-based boxes that WILL work well together (they'd be tested every bit as much as they are now with the PPC systems).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Heh, not to start a war here but I take personal exception to your assertion that because "Apples have personality you care about it more..."(paraphrasing). I built my box from the ground up. ME, my labor, my money, my selection of components, everything. I know every last mm of my box, its weaknesses, its strengths. Where I had to skimp and where I went all out.
I CARE about that box a lot more than I would any cute colored berry on my desk OR some biege nasty with XP on it. Mine has penguin personality and my blood, sweat, swearing, and, well, no TEARS because I don't frickin' cry - that would make me some kind of EUROPUSSY. You get the idea.
Perhaps for most average people, a colored berry shape on their desk has more personality and doubles as a decoration and is cared about more. To those who role their own bottom-to-top, top-to-bottom, they ain't squat.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
In order to use OS/X you've already paid Apple for a system, hardware and software and are simply upgrading.
The same will not be true on Intel or other open hardware platform. The hardware won't subsidise the software pricing.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Like Cringely or not, I must admit that at least he gives valid reasons for the point he's arguing.
I don't think it would really hurt Apple's hardware sales to release an x86 version of OSX.
I also think it would be good if consumers had a valid alternative to MS. Sorry, I'm a Linux fan too, but its still a work in progress and IS NOT ready for prime time. At least this way we have a decent alternative that is already established and proven.
On the other hand, Apple would be taking a risk to do such a thing. Just because its not likely (IMHO) to damage Apple's hardware sales, it could. Plus, in the larger scheme of things, Apple would also be shooting themselves in the foot unless they want the world to belong to Intel (and AMD). Wouldn't Apple rather that the G-series processors dominated instead of Athlon/P4?
Also, I must confess that I've grown weary of the PC (x86 archetechure), and actually perfer Apple's hardware these days. I've grown rather disenchanted with PC hardware. As far as we've come, I can't figure out why my damned computer crashes more than it did in 1994! I've played with a G3/OS at school for awhile, and I don't ever remember it so much as hiccupping. Can't say that for any PC hardware I've used, ever.
So while yes, maybe it would be cool to have OSX in PC, its a moot point for me at least, cuz my next computer's going to be a Titanium laptop.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
It's a frickin' box. A tool. I made mine from scratch so I have a little more personal investment in it than just money...but it is still a frickin' box. Don't be so literal.
The original poster referred to a "soul" and "personality". I merely reacted with my somewhat tongue-and-cheek response. Lighten up.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I would not buy OSX on the x86 for the same reason that I refuse to buy WindowsXP.
****IT IS FUCKING UGLY AS HELL***.
Thank you.
(blue + curves == UGLY AS DAMNED HELL DAMNIT FUCKING SHIT MAN.)
---- self subscribed Beige + 90 degree corner lover.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
... OS X core foundations on Windows XP/NT, now you are talking.
Yellow box has been killed. WebObject shifted to Java. Now if Apple would offer the Aqua Look and Feel and Services including CoreAudio, CoreGraphics, OpenGL, and QuickTIme (the full blow version, not the bad windows implementation), on top of Windows and Linux kernels on Intel, that would be the real killer thing.
PPA, the girl next door.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Cringley's remarks are about restoring competition to the market place, he uses Apple OS/X as a candidate.
But there already exists suitable candidates that have a large amount of software available, that could easily be pre-installed on computers.
The simple process is to dual-boot all new computers, and provide internet and networking connectivity through the non-Microsoft OS.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
That's true, but I'd wager most of the businesses (especially with the BSA thugs around) are paying for support with their Windoes liscense. How good the support is should be a topic of a whole new story.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
For anyone in the position where they are managing a bunch of Macs, but don't know what to do:
t ml
I would suggest you somehow get yourself a mac, and just play with it. Break it, have to reinstall, etc. Whatever, just get an feel on how things interact with each other.
http://www.macsurfer.com/ is a great website that tracks multiple mac news websites. Pretty much a twice a day visit for me.
Apple freely provides a tool similar to Ghost, you can read up on it here;
http://developer.apple.com/testing/docs/TNasr.h
http://www.macmgr.org/ includes a ton of resources when it comes to managing a bunch of macs on a network.
http://www.versiontracker.com/ is great for keeping your software up to date (it now also has a windows and palm section, even a subscription type program that will moniter software versions across multiple computers)
I haven't read any of the "missing manuals" by David Pogue, but he is a great mac writer, and O'Reilly makes good books, so they should be a good place to start.
I know it may seem obvious, but I wish I discovered the plethra of information that apple's knowledge base archive provided, and their discussion boards (you need to create an account to access them).
http://www.apple.com/support/
Jobs likes to say that Apple is the last company that can take full responsiblity for the user experience, hardware and software. That's pretty much the end of the story.
This is the sentence after the end of the story. They are probably keeping OS X's intel capability alive internally in case something bad (or, maybe, something worse?) happens wth the PowerPC. But even if the chip becomes an Intel chip, they will go on making it so that their OS only runs on their machines, because they want to remain int hat position.
Also, Jobs hates fan noise.
Liberty uber alles.
by customizing yoru choices at Dell, Compaq and Gateway.
You're either under by less that $50 or over by up to a few hundred.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Apple won't release a general Intel port of OS X. It makes no sense for them to do so. Apple makes the vast majority of its revenue through hardware sales, somewhere around 90-95%. If they released Mac OS X for Intel their hardware sales would fall dramatically.
I'm curious to know if you actually read Cringely's article, which argues fairly convincingly that this isn't true. You don't respond to his point at all, but simply reiterate the initial claim.
"... He also ignores that M$ hold 40% of the shares of Apple, ..."
Say, What?
You have to publicly announce to a stock exchange and the investing public whenever you own (depending on the exchange) 5 or 10% of the outstanding shares. Let's see... Microsoft, Apple, NASDAQ... nothing.
Microsoft bought $150 million worth of Apple Stock in August 1997. Based on market cap at the time, it probably wasn't even 1%.
I suppose they own 40% of Corel, too (MS buys $135 million of Corel stock, 24 million non-voting shares at about $CDN 6 each).Corel's market cap is a fraction of Apple's, but it wasn't even enough for a seat on the board (usually around 10% gets you at least that).
What we need are cheap PPC machines, with dull beige designs.
What keeps Apple machines from being cheap is not the color, but rather the money required to develop, maintain and give away software and internet services with your hardware. For instance, if Apple had to work with razor thing margins, we most likely wouldn't even have Mac OS X in the first place, and the point would be moot.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
you can expect Apple to be totally uninterested in the OSX for PC idea
I expect you're right, but I doubt it has much to do with Jobs deciding not to gain too much marketshare. Jobs has historically wanted to ship a single box as a piece of art. He doesn't want people to have to worry about how the computer works. He wants the the complete experience to be seamless. This is pretty hard to do unless you have control of the hardware and software platform.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
In theory, you're absolutely right. In practise, well...
..."
I bought a clone, came with a HP USB keyboard. Also came with drivers for said KB, but they didn't work. No problem, go to Hewlett-Packard...
HP has never heard of the device. Go figure. Even tech support says things like, "yeah, there's the part number, but we don't know what it is, there's no drivers, but another user has found a driver on our site, we don't know where it is, but go to his site and it points back to ours (!)
You get the idea. The numeric keypad doesn't work, with HP's "official" but mysteriously located driver, etc etc
Standards are only half the battle, not the end of the war.
Ah, but you do not understand what the RDF is. It is not simply a deception or misinformation. It is, in fact, outside the realm of either. (Whether or not they apply is immaterial.)
It is about the wholesale adoption of a world view or perspective.
To get sucked into Steve's RDF means that you see the world in, once rainbow striped, rose-coloured (apple red), now aqua-coloured or ice-coloured or Ti-coloured glasses.
______
Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.
Any estimation of 'double the MHz' is just that, an estimation. However, I was pulling some of my information from arstechnica (or Tom's Hardware, don't remember) which indicated that at a purely architectural level, since the x86 core's pipeline on the P4 was so incredibly deep, the penalty from branch mispredicts and the comparable number of fp units and the like would indicate that it needed to run at twice the MHz as a G4 architecture chip, just to achieve comparable performance.
:)
:)
Now, most comparisons between G3/G4s and PIII/P4s compare apples to oranges, e.g. Photoshop tests and such. Photoshop does not share much of a codebase between the two products, Mac and PC. Also, the compilers for each of the platforms optimize code very differently (sometimes better, sometimes worse, depends on how evolved the compilers are for their particular architecture). Not to be ignored is the fact that many of the functions of each of the products is implemented using system calls of one sort or another. Even if this is just semaphore locking or similar, the difference between the MacOS codebase and Win9x/NT/2K/XP can have a significant impact on what's going on.
A more comparable comparison may be installing Linux on two machines and running a few benchmarks with that. Since much of the Linux codebase *is* shared between architectures, you might see a more pure comparison of performance in this way.
My main point is simply that my G3 400 can cope just fine with anything I throw at it, be it Photoshop or just interacting with the OS (OS X v10.1.3). However, my dual 450 PIII pulls a bit with Win2K even for simple things. With Linux, both of them are quite comparable, especially when the PC is handling multi-threaded code which can take advantage of the SMP system. Then I see a comparable performance. What people should realize is that buying a 867MHz G4 system could provide them with a more favorable end-user experience than purchasing a 1.6 GHz system from Gateway or Dell. Live a little, buy a Mac
This coming from a guy who used to hate Macs, only a few years back