Slashdot Mirror
Apple to 'Switch' to Windows?
JFlex writes "PC Mags writer John C. Dvorak discusses the idea that Apple may dump OS X and 'switch' to running Windows in a recent column: "The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.""
I'd like to see some of these cameras, since DV over USB isn't standardized and would be vendor-specific.
The proper transport for DV has always been FireWire, and the only transport for HDV is FIreWire.
Sure, you can *make* specialty drivers and software, and capabilities in the camera at the other end, that can let you transport data any way you wish...after all, it's just bits.
But DV and FireWire are intertwined, at least for proper, full quality DV transport, and it will be that way for quite some time.
You know that old expression: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"? Just a reminder that there are 23 other hours in a day.
This type of article is typical for Dvorak. Throw out a crazy statement with no justification, add some flame-bait ("fanatical users", "crazy"), and sit back smirking. In fact, I feel like we just went through this sort of thing.
(Hey, even that old post mentioned a broken clock. I guess if you cross a broken clock with a broken record, you get Dvorak!)
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
a bit more on your points... I bought an iPod... About 6 months later I sold my Dell Latitude D505 notebook and bought a PowerBook G4. This was about the same time as the "Switch" ads.... So, Points 1 and 3 are just lame. No firewire? Moron... USB is cheaper than firewire to implement. and, IIRC the chips are smaller and use less power. Not to mention that USB2 is faster than 1394a. just my $0.02
Gil Amelio got pretty far along in high-level talks with M$ about using NT as the future platform for the Mac. Apple engineers even met with M$ engineers to discuss the details of what that switch would entail. Luckily, Amelio ended up not doing this, and the rest is history.
A second correction to your point 2 rebuttal is that OS X has never supported USB booting. This is a common misconception (http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/06/u sbharddrives/index.php). There is even a knowledge base article about it somewhere. Only the newest Intel-based machines will support USB booting (http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=724).
He's not even a professor anymore!
Dr. Epstein along with his wife Helane Rosenberg, Ph.D. are a husband and wife team of infertility counselors, researchers, and writers.
http://www.inciid.org/index.php?page=epstein
Dude, USB2 does not have the sustained data rate needed for DV.
simply prove it with an Ipod. transfer via firewiare then again via usb2 usb2 sucks horribly compared to firewire.
Joe sixpack would be pissed if his camera was always dropping rames or simply stopping during a capture.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
USB 2.0 is slower than Firewire 400 in practice and uses more CPU. That 480Mbit/s is theoretical.
That post should be +5 Informative - CPU utilization was always one of SCSI's biggest benefits over IDE (thank GOD the ATAPI folks have finally almost resolved that issue!) and it's the same with Firewire vs. USB - Firewire boasts a more SCSI-like architecture, including less dependence upon the CPU.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It's been clear for many years that Dvorak is little more than a troll, who the world somehow never stops feeding.
Just ignore the guy.
"If apple switched to Windows they would strictly be overpriced hardware."
Interesting idea. Especially as I'm typing this on a £400 Mac, which is roughly the same price as a low-end beige PC, about 1/4 the cost of a decent PC, yet smaller than "miniature" PCs costing £350 just for the case.
I know Apple have long had a reputation for huge profit margins (not as bad as some, *cough*Acorn*cough*), but they're not exactly demanding the proverbial arm+leg for computers at the moment.
As to why they'd want the most famously overpriced OS to run on their hardware, that's a different question. -- Windows: £360 just to have an OS capable of acting as a server?!? Apple can do that for £70, Debian will do that for free, and Ubuntu will not only do that for free, but will pay to send you the CD!
Are you talking about the "Thanks, Bill" moment in 1998 when MSFT announced Mac Office 98 + 5 years of continued support for the platform + an investment of about $200M of non-voting AAPL stock?
I believe that was partially due to a court settlement, but it was also a big PR stunt for both companies. It got the DOJ off of MSFT's back, it renewed faith in the Apple/Mac platform, and it was a hell of an advertisement for Mac Office 98 (believe it or not, MSFT makes good money from Mac Office).
Apple has *always* had a lot of money in the bank. $Billions ever since their IPO in the early 1980s. At their lowest point they still had over a billion dollars in cash in the bank. Compare this to Silicon Graphics who is now down to a few tens of millions in the bank, dwindling from about $500M about 5 years ago. Even if Apple would have continued bleeding money, they would have remained in business for a long time, even without this so-called MSFT bailout.
Also, Apple marketshare, .... [is] at their highest ever
Surely you're not considering the early 80s in that assessment. Apple dominated marketshare then.
I switched in 2002. the iLife (as they were later called) got me interested and buying my first Apple product in my lifetime.
A powerbook, and an iPod followed about four months later when my wife got tired of me using 'her computer' as I told all my geek friends.
Kinda like getting caught riding a moped at first, but now it's not that big of a deal. I remember the first time I got Tomcat running on it, that shut up the guys that were mad at me for dumping Linux as a desktop client (2002 again mind you, i'm sure things have changed)
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Not to mention that USB2 is faster than 1394a.
Not really. Sure, the basic specs say USB2 is 480 Mbps while 1394a is 400 Mbps, but when you add in protocol overhead and especially when you start adding stuff on the bus (1394 can do peer to peer, USB can't, 1394 also handles the bus better), the throughput is better for 1394a. And of course 1394b blows it out of the water (granted, there's still not much 1394b around).
-- Alastair
Don't the Nanos have the same custom thin interface that all iPods have? My video certainly does. You can plug it into Firewire using a Firewire to iPod cable just fine, but you can't transfer data, only charge. The Nano (like the shuffle) just doesn't have room for two interface chipsets... have to choose one.
Let's go to the math:
USB 2.0 effective bandwidth: 320Mbps
Required bandwidth for DV: 59 Mbps
USB 2.0 bandwidth remaining: 261 Mbps
This isn't to say that transferring something over Firewire 800 isn't faster, just that USB is more than fast enough to handle DV capturing duties.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
You get Applecare for a year, not a month. Even without Applecare there are options.
I bought an ibook used from my brother in law, when I had a problem I took it to the Apple store's genius bar and got excellent support and was never asked for a proof-of-purchase or warranty.
I think it's worth pointing out (again) that OS X includes the FreeBSD userland, and not so much the kernel. The kernel is built on top of Mach. (This, incidentially, is also why those benchmarks that were here a few months ago showed some inherent slowness in the kernel.) I'd personally much rather see them switch to a kernel architecture that had less overhead.
Huh? What are you talking about, almost every single camera on that page lists IEEE 1394.
The ones that don't have it listed probably almost all HAVE it, it's just such a standard feature that they don't bother giving it top billing anymore. It's practially assumed on anything that's MiniDV.
Many of them have, in addition to FireWire, USB connections, usually for downloading still pictures using proprietary software or drivers. It's what I would consider a completely useless feature, but it fills space on the outside of the box I guess, and apparently somebody thinks it's a good idea. I'm not sure whether you can actually download the full-quality DV stream through the USB port, but I doubt it. On the cameras I've used (mostly small Sonys) they have a built in DV-to-MPEG converter, and they put the MPEG stream out the USB port, so you can have pre-shrunk movies for email or webcam use.
Just as an example from that list, the Canon Optura 600 isn't listed as having IEEE1394 or FireWire, it just says USB 2.0. But if we go to the Amazon page for the same item, we read: "Otherwise known as Firewire or iLink, the Optura 600's IEEE 1394 DV Terminal is a high-speed digital interface that ensures virtually no loss of video or audio quality when transferring videos to a computer. Simply use a DV cable to connect the camcorder to your computer's DV Terminal and you can be sure that your favorite, recorded moments retain their pristine image and sound." Furthermore, in regards to the USB port: "Quickly transfer images from the Optura 600 to a computer with the USB 2.0 High Speed Terminal."
So basically, the USB capabilities on there are just fluff -- they're for transferring still photos that are taken onto the memory cards to your computer, and on the higher end cameras they'll sometimes do video. But the real video transport is FireWire/IEEE1394, and probably always will be for MiniDV. The whole 1394 system was designed as an interconnect for DV equipment, and I don't think you're going to get all the players in USB together and invent an alternative, with all the stuff that's already in existence.
The only exception I can think of are the DVD based camcorders down at the bottom of the page, which really aren't "DV" at all, they're MPEG2. And as you'll find out if you read some of the owner comments from people who've bought them, there isn't a particularly good way of getting the video into your PC anyway -- basically you have to rip it off the DVD.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Be careful of jumping to conclusions.
That chart shows the Canon Optura 600 as having USB2 but does not mention 1394. One might assume that means it does not have 1394 support, and if I'm reading your reply correctly, you did assume that.
However, checking Canon's site shows that the Optura 600 does have 1394 support.
So, clearly, just because Steve's Digicams doesn't show 1394 support, that doesn't mean it's not there.
I'll leave checking the other cameras for you, but please rely on something a bit more accurate than that page, as it is demonstrably incomplete and inconsistent on feature lists.
USB is simply not useable for high bandwidth connections. While the burst speed (the number that everyone talks about) is higher than FireWire 400, the actual thoroput is much lower, and you cannot reserve bandwidth on the buss for an application. These two factors make USB of any form unusable for DV video.
The reason you don't find FireWire on many low end PC's is that it has not been a part of Intel's reference designs for motherboards, since Intel is not a member of the patent consortium that profits from FireWire. Now that Apple is a high-profile customer there is a chance this will change.
Here's my take on that 'analogy':
Linux/Unix is like a classic muscle car, loud, crude with raw power, often customized, sometimes not too pretty, but kicks ass; the essence of what a car should be. However, not everyone likes it because there's no A/C or power windows or GPS navigation or some other crap.
Windows is like a SUV, bloated, gaz guziliing, thinks its safe and secure but is a danger to the public. Most people don't need it but everyone wants one.
Mac OS (before Intel chips) is like nice luxury car. Looks good, well made, just works, lotsa bling bling, but damn too pricey. For 'professionals' with money to spend.
my 2 cents
Here we go again!
> If apple switched to Windows they would strictly be overpriced hardware.
You mean like the iPod is just an overpriced mp3 player? Hasn't stopped Apple from selling at huge margins based on a 'brand experience.' Same way Nike is just selling some fucking shoes.
But no, I doubt Apple is considering switching to Windows yet. But it will probably happen eventually in spite of what His Steveness wants. Look at the market position they find themselves in.
1. They are now, essentially, selling Dells in pretty cases. The legacy free nature of the current boxes will keep Windows off them for a year at best. Once Windows boots and runs most people will see Apples as pretty but overpriced Dells preloaded with OS X instead of Vista. Especially since the tales of OS X running on generic hardware will be widespread, even if many are total urban legend.
2. Their business model demands they sell at what everyone else in the PC industry considers insane profit margins.
3. Eventually everyone is going to realize that they ARE in the PC business.
4. They have to sustain massive R&D expenses for OS X and spread it over a fairly small number of unit sales compared to the Beast in Redmond.
Consider Point #2 in light of point #4. High unit costs + high profit markups. Ouch. Eventually at least one of those drags on sales will have to go. That only gives them a couple of options, all bad. Stagnate development on OS X to cut costs: die. Do some funky Open Source gambit: probably die. Adopt Windows: probably die. Do nothing: die slowly.
Democrat delenda est
burst speed != throughput
He's "convinced" that they guy "may" be right. I've seen stronger positions in Jello.
Who said it was? I didn't quote you the burst speed, I quoted the effective sustained bandwidth as measured by current USB connected hard drives.
The total bandwidth of the bus is 480 Mbps. Had I used that number, you would have a somewhat more legitimate gripe, although it would be misleading. As it is, you've said nothing.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
OK, just went to Apple.com and looked at the base G5, then went to Dell and selected the base XPS. The XPS was cheaper, so I added some features to make the priced comparable. Note that I didn't complete the orders, so no shipping/support options looked at
G5: $1,999.00
XPS: $2,039
G5: 2GHz Dual-core PowerPC G5
XPS: Pentium® D Processor 820 with Dual Core Technology (2.8GHz, 800FSB)
G5: 512MB 533 DDR2
XPS: 2GB of same
G5: 160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
XPS: 250GB of same
G5: NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE 128MB
XPS: 256MB PCI Express(TM) x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) nVidia GeForce 6800
G5: no monitor
XPS: 19 inch E196FP Analog Flat Panel
G5:16x SuperDrive double-layer (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
XPS: Dual Drives: 16x DVD-ROM Drive + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
The simple formula is
Profit = Margin * Volume
You have to have at least one of the terms high
to get a high profit.
... and I can't wait for Rob Enderle's response on that one!
/. despite the fact that everybody knows his shtick by now.
These two have totally cornered the market for "crazy talk that makes money if it only pisses off enough people who feel strongly".
Dvorak is a master of deception - he still gets on
So, you really ARE a troll. Pay attention, n00bz.
Let's recap your little tirade, or as you put it: "Sample of Apple customer policies/problems I've run into".
* No phone support after 90 days.
So, you wanna give me an example of one of the Big Three that offers a dial-a-geek phone service STANDARD after 90 days? Dell? Nope. Gateway? Not a chance. HP/Compaq? Not even an 800 number.
* If you post into the web forums about a problem Apple doesn't like to "discuss", expect it to be silently removed.
Okay. Quack conspiracy theory. What web forums? Macintouch? MacAddict? apple.com?
* 14 days, blah, blah...
This one's not even true. I received my iBook G4, which I'm typing this to you on, via UPS Ground. Took two weeks. The day I got it, the RAM wasn't seated correctly. Took it to my local Apple Store. Fixed on the premises, no charge. While the genius was looking it over, he said, "Wow, this is a bummer. Do you know that the new model just came out?" No, I didn't. He notified the store manager, and I walked out with the new model. No Charge.
* A guy that works at an Apple Store was less than knowledgeable and rude to you.
Really?? Rude to YOU!?? Why would ANYBODY be a jerk and lie about something like wobbly screens? Maybe you should take an etiquette class, but I digress.
* No reserving a spot via the web for the 'genius bar' unless you're a ProCare customer. At the local Apple store, that typically means a 30+ minute wait, and there's nowhere to sit.
Dude, I've been to Apple Stores on the East Coast, West Coast, and the Midwest. I've never seen an Apple Store that didn't have somewhere to sit. Besides which, you're in a MALL!! Sign in and go shopping.
* Various parts are not "covered" by Apple. Duckbills, feet, yada, yada...
This is really getting old. I've gotten two sets of replacement feet for my iBook (you know, the one I'm typing this to you on), mostly because the one time that I lost a foot, I flipped out and wanted LOTS of spares. Went to an Apple Store in Chicago. Got two sets of replacement feet. Still in the ServiceSource parts bag. For free. No paperwork. Really. Look, by now, either you're really just trolling, or people really don't like you very much. My heart goes out to you.
* Parts are not available. You're very certain. And you're mad about it..
Are you just impaired? You can't get parts for a Macintosh from Best Buy, but you can probably develop a relationship with your local independent Apple dealer (not an Apple Store). He'll probably sell you anything you need. I don't know what parts you'd need to buy that you couldn't purchase from a legitimate service channel.
I think you really need a vacation. And an AppleCare warranty.
Keep your lies straight, you liar:
As a friend discovered, Apple's return policy is 14 days AFTER DATE OF SHIPMENT, not DATE OF RECIEPT, despite this being VERY clearly outlined on their store policies page. Her iBook took 7 days to arrive via UPS ground, and 4 days later called Apple to return it. No go. I even found the URL of the webpage on the store.apple.com website which reads "from date of reciept", and they refused to adhere to it. Slimy doesn't begin to cover it.
Even assuming 14 days after shipment, it still would have been eligible. 7 + 4 = 11 14.
You even suck at lying. Stop trying, liar.
Not only would it be a great strategic move for Apple, but it is hard to see how they could pass up developing such a product, if only because they could give it such a great name.
Actually, I think it would be a killing blow for OS X. I've said it many times before - it's one of the mistakes that IBM made with OS/2, leaning on "We're compatible with Windows! You can run unmodified Windows apps!" to shore up their shortcomings in the applications department.
The trouble is that app developers tend to be lazy. If they can develop separate versions of an app for both OS X and Windows, or develop one version of the same app for Windows and have it run on OS X for free, what do you think will happen? Unless they can find a *huge* reason to do otherwise, they're going to take the easy way out and develop just the Windows version. It costs less in development time and effort, and they still make money from the Apple crowd. (Yeah, there might be a few hardcore Apple people who won't buy it, but they're still way ahead.) Then, when Microsoft makes some big change that makes Windows apps incompatible with OS X again, what happens? Goodbye OS X, it was nice while it lasted.
Because of this, I really seriously doubt that Apple would try to have Windows apps run seamlessly on OS X. They'd be selling out their own platform for no good reason, and sapping their developer base. It wouldn't be a win for them, and it'd leave them very much prone to Microsoft's will - which I think it's safe to say is *not* where they want to be...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
You can call after the 90 days, but you pay per incident. If you get AppleCare, your support and warranty extend for 3 years.
This makes no sense. I would've called again and talked to someone else.
If her order was already in transit, what can you expect apple to do? You still have 14 days to get a price adjustment at the very least.
False. Anyone can make a same day appointment to the genius bar. ProCare customers can make appointments up to one week in advance. Go here and click on the store.
This is an apple philosophy. Apple when repairing a machine, will replace _everything that needs replacing_, and make sure to give you back the machine in perfect condition. The only people that can work on machines without voiding warranty are apple authorized service centers. There are plenty, probably many in your area. Take a look here.
Although I don't agree with everything they do (I have plenty of stories), I think they try to stay consistent to their ideals. In general people will bend over backwards to please the customer; or so has been my experience.
If Dvorak had bothered to Google for a list of Intel compatible Mac apps that are already shipping, he would have done something useful. As he has failed, I have done that job for him. Here is the list.
l
http://www.macintouch.com/imacintel/ubinaries.htm
There are too many apps already ported on the list to count. I did do some estimates based on how many were on the first few pages, and it looks like 500-1000 apps are on the list.
Dvorak fails to mention in his article whether that Yakov he was talking to actually owns a Mac. It would be interesting to know if he does or not. Because if he doesn't own one, then I cannot even guess what his qualifications are to prejudge what OS X software vendors are going to do with respect to Intel Macs.
I actually have a Mac, and a whole lot of the apps I own are already ported. I am running the universal binary versions of those apps on my Mac right now.
I also went to Adobe's site and they have clearly said they are going to make the next versions of their Mac apps run on Intel/PowerPC. They explained they are not going to go backward, and convert the current versions of their apps to Intel. So there will be a reasonable delay. Rosetta emulator was designed to handle those who run to the finish line a bit slower than the rest.
Mathematica is a pretty huge app and it was ported in 4 hours and was demonstrated running native on an Intel Mac back in June 2005.
Personally, I was shocked to see how many Mac apps have been ported by so many vendors in so little time. Most were probably caught off-guard when the Intel Macs unexpectedly shipped in January - instead of June - 2006. Yet they still got it done.
I remember how long it took to get some apps ported to Windows 95 - and gee, Windows NT. You didn't have so many apps ready to run native on those platforms 4 weeks after they shipped, believe me.
If he is going to publish articles to the web about computers, he might as well use his computer to search the web for facts.
We're going to have to agree to differ about Windows and NeXTSTEP's stability.
Comparing glibc and IE is comparing apples and oranges. With Linux you'd need to replace glibc with something that implemented the same functionality, but you can change the window manager or browser without difficulty.
Cutting and pasting code isn't modularity - this is what Visual Studio encourages (code snippits). Simply put, nobody but Microsoft would even have thought to add such a feature.
WMF needed extra patches applied if Office was installed - simply put the code was duplicated from Windows into Office. It should have been in a framework that Office called.
This kind of "design" is totally different to Mac OS X - where there are modules and clear interfaces. Microsoft have said that Windows Vista is a total rewrite of Windows around these design ideas, clearly XP wasn't!