OQO Hacker Claims World's Smallest OS X Machine

TechRadar writes "A hacker has turned his OQO ultraportable into the world's smallest Mac running Leopard. 'I will warn you this project is not for the plug and play crowd but definitely do-able,' the hacker, 'TRF' says. Interesting, given the OQO was designed by ex-Apple employees." It might run Mac OS X, but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac.

Comments

Apple already has that beat

[Anonymous Coward]

My iPod Touch is running a cut-down version of OS X, and it's even smaller.

Re:Apple already has that beat

[nano2nd]

And there was me thinking for a moment that the Apple TV was the smallest. D'oh!

The OS maketh the Mac?

[Sockatume]

Given that the OS is what most people interact with all day, is it really so wrong to call it a Mac? Most the purported Mac advantages are to do with usability after all. You're certainly getting more of the Mac experience than a PC one.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Farmer Tim]

You're certainly getting more of the Mac experience than a PC one.

Having installed OS X on an EeePC, I'd say all you're getting is an Aqua interface for a PC experience. When it's completely painless and everything "just works" I might agree with you.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

A Mac isn't a PC?

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Saint Gerbil]

"Just works" is not something which is associated with a Mac in today's world. With all the iphone its more "just works the way we want it too"

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Sockatume]

Yes, I suppose that saying it's "just like a Mac" after all that painful setting up and reconfiguring to get Windows to work is missing half the picture.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Sockatume]

Down at the hardware level, it kind of is these days IMO. The only real differences are the controlled selection of hardware (which is probably a bigger deal that I'm suggesting here, mind you) and the OS that's running.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Farmer Tim]

"Just works" is not something which is associated with a Mac in today's world.

It isn't? I must remember to explain that to the dozens of people I've helped switch from Windows in the last three years, because they all seem to have that impression.

Then again, they're only concentrating on the computer in front of them, not raising specious arguments about unrelated appliances.

With all the iphone its more "just works the way we want it too"

Oddly, the fact that I don't own an iPhone has not affected the reliability or usability of my Macintoshes one iota, so what one has to do with the other (apart from the obvious fact that they're made by the same company) eludes me. And since I'm not in the market for an expensive tinker-toy, I don't really care.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Farmer Tim]

...to get Windows to work...
 
...Windows...er, where'd that come from?

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[BrianGKUAC]

I think what he's trying to say is that it is regrettable that PC has now come to stand for "x86 core with general mishmash of components manufactured by different companies", as opposed to "Personal Computer" like it used to. IIRC, macs were actually the first PCs, so it does seem odd how the nomenclature turned out.

But then, of course, people would get confused if they used the term in a historically accurate fashion...

"Do you have a PC or a Mac?"
"Neither. I run Windows on an x86 core..."

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the OS is what most people interact with all day

Um, I don't know about you, but I interact with the hardware of my computer. I point and click with the mouse or trackpad, I type on the keyboard, and I look at the screen. Those are all a substantial part of what makes a Mac a Mac (for good or bad), and make a huge difference in usability. Furthermore, the software most people interact with all day is more likely to be their word processor or web browser or image editor or development environment or mail client, not the OS itself.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Stefanwulf]

When it's completely painless and everything "just works" I might agree with you.

I'd be careful about defining a system's Mac/not-Mac status in terms of things "just working". OSX on Apple's approved hardware configs will work without problems for most day to day tasks - but I've seen plenty of tasks where naive assumptions can and will stop things from working.

Unless a Mac intended to run Supercollider and Quarks or MySQL (for instance) ceases to be a Mac in your definition, I think you'd be on safer ground simply arguing that "Macness" requires both OSX and Apple-approved hardware.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Ortega-Starfire]

"Just works" is not something which is associated with a Mac in today's world.

It isn't? I must remember to explain that to the dozens of people I've helped switch from Windows in the last three years, because they all seem to have that impression.

From whymacssuck.mov Editing is all Mac based now. There are programs out there whether you are using Avid or using Final Cut Pro your working on a Macintosh.

Using a Mac is a little different than using a PC, it's not so much operating a computer, its sort of like tricking it, fooling it into doing what it is you want it to do. You kind of have to sneak up on a Mac. I don't feel I am operating the Mac so much as Im just there sharing the Mac experience and if I can do something useful while the Mac is willing than so much the better.

One of the coolest features of the Macintosh is its really easy to shut down. All you have to do is start using a piece of software and then POOF! It goes away! It's gone, it's shut down. You didn't close, you didn't push any buttons, you didn't even save, its just gone!

Unless you want to shut down a Mac than oooh that's a whole other story. You try to close a program and it locks up, then you try to do that funny clover leaf period thing, these unnatural and ultimately useless interrupt keys, and then nothing moves! Then you push the power button and it won't turn off, you go around and unplug it, and you better hope your not on a laptop or you have to try to find the battery and pull it out or the thing will never shut down!


So I put my cd in the CD-ROM tray and I'm dragging files onto my desktop, dragging onto the desktop, dragging onto the desktop, I eject it and, and... where did all my files go? It's the only OS that I know of the click and drag doesn't mean you move anything but you just create shortcuts on your desktop!!!
So I get my next CD and I slam it into the CD-ROM tray and low and behold it starts playing, all by itself. Im looking for a way to turn it off, finally out of desperation I click and drag the CD into the garbage can and the system locks up! So I do the clover leaf, period, space bar thing hoping I can stop the program and I get a little caution window saying careful, interrupting this program may lock up the system. I try to click ok, but the systems already locked up!

I like the handle here that's so you can attach it to a chain and use it as a boat anchor!

The Mac is practicing some sort of bizarre, psychological warfare on me because I am working late at night and out of the corner of my eye I keep seeing this thing jumping up and down, the update manager is bouncing at the bottom of the screen like a jack russel fucking terrier! So Im looking around at the list of this files it wants me to update and if I click on anyone of them back accident I rename it; Oh no, its been renamed nothing, it was some kind of important system file, and the computer crashes!

On a PC no data is really lost. Theres a way to undelete a file. If you know what your doing you can go into DOS and recover anything that's been corrupted. On a Mac, if you lose a file, you run to the store to get a copy of Norton Utilities. You come back only to have Norton go "You idiot, you own a Mac, the file is fucking gone!"

You don't have any dials at the bottom of the screen because if you go to reach for them, the DOCK menu comes up. Then you have to angle around and dodge the thing to get to the control. Its kind of like boxing with your computer. I can put it on bottom, I can put it on the left, I can put it on the right but no I can't put it on the top, that's reserved for the mighty blue apple. (crying... desperation)


My name is Hunter Cressell, I'm an editor, and I put together everything You saw here, on a Macintosh. Mac killed my inner child.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3000282100255582958

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Farmer Tim]

...but I've seen plenty of tasks where naive assumptions can and will stop things from working.

Emphasis mine: you can't stop something from working unless it worked to begin with. What you're talking about here is "it just works until I screw around with it before R-ing TFM"; this is a wetware issue that no OS can fix.

But I am intrigued to hear what kind of tasks you refer to.

Unless a Mac intended to run Supercollider and Quarks or MySQL (for instance) ceases to be a Mac in your definition...

Are they part of the operating system? No. Are they hardware? No. Are they relevant one way or another? Not in the slightest, because I'm talking about installing a basic operating system; that is, actually getting a computer up and running in the first place. If you're jumping through hoops to get to that stage (as I did with the EeePC), it is not Macintosh-like, because you don't have to do that to get a Macintosh up and running. That's the point; remember "Computers for the rest of us"?

I think you'd be on safer ground simply arguing that "Macness" requires both OSX and Apple-approved hardware.

That's exactly what I said! I'll rephrase it, so it's perfectly clear: if you install OS X on anything but an Apple, whether or not it will work (as in OS booting normally, all hardware functioning correctly) is pretty much dumb luck, so in terms of the amount of inconvenience involved it might as well be Windows with an Aqua interface.

*Example: a video editor who manually saved a new project file every ten minutes, and maxed out the hard drive because each project file took up ~240MB. Huge project.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[sir fer]

if you find windows hard to get working then you don't belong on /.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

0/10 troll. Come on man - seriously. I'd pick out the myriad of flaws in this, but it's late here. If you fucked up your Mac to the point to which you described, it's your own fault. Either that or you need to attend a GUI 101 learning annex class.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Sockatume]

I'd be a smartarse and bring up the term "Lindows" but my home desktop has an Athlon, so I'm stuck.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Sockatume]

Sorry, I was typing "get X to work" and "Windows" seemed to be the right thing to stick in there.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. With windows it's always the fault of the OS, with mac it's always the fault of the user.

I thought it was suppose to "just work". Macs are marketed to the technically retarded. If you need to take a GUI class to use one, then Apple failed.

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank heavens for backups eh! You _did_ make backups, didn't you? Ooops?

Re:The OS maketh the Mac?

[Stefanwulf]

What you're talking about here is "it just works until I screw around with it before R-ing TFM"; this is a wetware issue that no OS can fix.

I apologize, I apparently misinterpreted your original statement as applying to the entire user experience (including application installation/use), rather than just the out-of-box OS X install. I agree entirely that what I was talking about applies across all OS's, which is why I raised the point that it'd make a poor criteria for delineating them. :) Using the definitions you just gave, however, I think we're in agreement.

This does leave me curious though - if a third party were to get so good at packaging hardware which installs/runs OS X out of the box with no problems that the install experience was no more difficult than on Apple-approved hardware (for instance, what Psystar is attempting to do), would the lack of inconvenience then be enough for you to call that system a Mac? Or would genuine Apple hardware be required even if the experience was effectively equivalent?

Time for Apple to cede some control?

[elrous0]

Clones like this and the Psystar machine must have Jobs and the other control freaks at Apple screaming bloody murder right now. For years, their bread-and-butter has been tying their OS to their (IMHO overpriced) hardware. Now it seems that a lot of people are getting sick of it (if the preorders at Psystar are any indication, a *LOT* of people). Not only that, but the more heavy-handed Apple gets, the more they risk that cool-chique image as they appear more and more like just another greedy corporation (i.e., more like MS).

It might well be time for them to consider doing what they could have done years ago, realeasing a general version of Leopard that will run on non-Apple PC's. They might even consider doing an "Apple Certified" program for Dell and other companies wanting to offer OS X as an option for their customers. If their hardware is truly superior, then it won't cost them much hardware business and will cut deeply into Windows' market dominance. In the end, everyone would win--most noteably the consumer (and those who like building their own machines).

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[peragrin]

This isn't a clone, it's hack like installing netBSD on a toaster, with a remote bread loader.

Second neither this or Pystar systems can receive updates via Apple system updater.

Thirdly Pystar has pissed off the guy who makes the OS X boot on generic hardware software. I am waiting for him to sue Pystar, Apple won't even have to get their hands dirty.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[aliquis]

Uhm, so how many have preordered psystars systems? Compared to the amount of machines Apple sell? Compared to total PC sales?

I already have a hack-compatible mac system, and a real macbook pro, and I would never buy psystars system, and can't understand why anyone else does either.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[aliquis]

And btw Apple would probably not "win-win", atleast they don't seem to think so. And it's Apples property so they don't give a shit about what you belive.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[elrous0]

Well, I'm assuming they one day want to gain at least a modicum of market share. They're certainly not going to do it by forever staying in the niche.

Now, maybe they like it in the niche market. But I doubt it. And it certainly doesn't help consumers.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Maybe they'll start to worry more about market share once they're done counting the piles and piles of money they're currently making. Seriously, how hard is it to grasp that market share != financial success, and financial success != market share?

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[drsmithy]

Not only that, but the more heavy-handed Apple gets, the more they risk that cool-chique image as they appear more and more like just another greedy corporation (i.e., more like MS).

Most people interested in hardware Apple doesn't already sell are techies/enthusiasts and businesses. None of them should hold any illusions about Apple being anything other than another greedy corporation (just like Microsoft).

If their hardware is truly superior, then it won't cost them much hardware business [...]

Of course it will. Most people don't buy "superior", they buy "cheap" (because that's all they can afford).

Apple will cater to the crowd looking for a machine between the Mini and the Mac Pro long, long before they cater to the crowd looking for OS X on generic PCs - and they're unlikely to do the former anytime soon because it would take a significant chunk out of higher-margin Mac Pro sales.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[dogzilla]

What makes you say that "a lot of" people are "sick of it"? It seems pretty clear that a majority of people buy Macs because they don't want to deal with the hassle attached to using Windows and Linux computers. Hacking OSX to run on non-Apple hardware isn't easy, so the folks doing aren't really Apple's target market anyway. In any case, I find it hard to believe that the folks jumping through these hoops represent "a lot of people".

Let me repeat that because so few people seem to get it: hackers are not Apple's core market. Apple doesn't market to hackers, they don't have the infrastructure to support hackers, they don't design products for hackers. It's a different market, just like you won't find aftermarket performance minivan parts (requisite car allegory).

Also, why do you think this stems from frustration with Apple's hardware? Do you also think that people porting Linux to run on watches and PDAs are doing it because they're sick of commodity PC hardware? Seems more like they're doing it to see if they can.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Saint Fnordius]

I think Apple is playing a different game than you imagine them to be playing. Market share isn't as important as influence. They aren't playing Monopoly or Risk, but instead it's a sort of race game where the goal is to lead the pack in "coolness points".

I think that's been the source of the friction between Microsoft and Apple since the Seventies: Apple was more interested in making neat stuff, whereas Microsoft has always been about the profits and dominating the market.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[trolltalk.com]

Clones like this and the Psystar machine must have Jobs and the other control freaks at Apple screaming bloody murder right now.

I doubt it. The psystar is a *noisy* pc, the first thing most people notice about the iMac is it's QUIET!

People will pay a couple of hundred bucks for quiet, hardware and software support, updates, and the ability to just walk into a brick-and-mortar and pick one up off the shelf, etc.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[aliquis]

If they can choose from say 80$ in profit of average OS sale, $150 for OS + low-end designed PC or $600 for high-end PC with some options I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Two years ago everyone was complaining how dead Nintendo was because their sales was so low, but atleast they made a profit of their products. Sure Microsoft sold more Xboxes, but at a loss ... And sure Sony sold more consoles, but they (eventually, I don't remember the numbers, so don't trust me on this one:) didn't earned as much money.

And in this case it's probably the "custom PC"-market which is a nche. Companies, schools, governments, laptop buyers, many people who buy desktops are just fine with pre-selected components.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Orion Blastar]

Can't fight the Hackers without getting even more fascist than Apple already is right now.

Might as well license an OEM copy of OSX to a few PC Makers, in exchange for 10% of the sale and a small fee per machine OSX is installed on.

Apple makes most of its money via iPods, iPhones, iTunes, etc now. It isn't the old 1990's Apple that bled money via Newton, Printer, Scanner, Pippin, etc support and sales that cost more to support than they brought in. That is what really killed the Mac Clones in the first place, Apple losing money due to things that didn't sell enough like the Newton. Though many Mac Clones were cheaper than what Apple could sell. But that establishes proof that Apple's Macs are overpriced and consumers want a lower cost Mac. If Apple can't do it or only offers the crippled Mac Mini, then bring back the Mac Clones.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[aliquis]

No, the goal is to make a huge profit. Coolness doesn't have shit to do with it, unless it makes you more money.

Of course both wanted profits, it's just that Apple failed more so to speak. And yes, back in the days Steve Jobs may have cared about what the consumers wanted/should be getting. Nowadays it seems less so.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[morgan_greywolf]

This isn't a clone, it's hack like installing netBSD on a toaster, with a remote bread loader.

Yes, but does the toaster run Linux?

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[elrous0]

I seriously doubt Apple shareholders would buy the "Sure we could be making you more money, but what we really want to do is make cool stuff" argument.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't sell superior hardware, at least not in terms of quality. They sell stylish hardware.

The Apple products I own have actually broken more often than any other piece of electronic equipment I have. The form is good though, I would rather have my small smooth broken iBook on my lap that my fully functional blockly hot uncomfortable Dell.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obi-Wan: I have to admit that without the clones, it would have not been a victory.
Yoda: Victory? Victory you say? Master Obi-Wan, not victory. The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun the Clone War has.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Saint Fnordius]

That's the meta-game. The game which rewards how well you play the chosen game.

Microsoft: "We can ensure long-term value by dominating the playing field!" (the Monopoly/Risk way)

Apple: "We can ensure long-term value by being better and doing new, cool stuff!" (the race/exploration game way)

Both methods are risky. Microsoft's risk is that they trap themselves into only defining themselves through comparison. Apple risks ignoring the competition too much. But in the end, I think Apple's approach is better in that it tries not to lose sight of what they are good at. Trying to play Microsoft's game got Apple burned badly under Spindler and Amelio.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Saint Fnordius]

Like I said in a different response, there is a subtle difference. It's not making cool stuff instead of making a profit, but ensuring a profit by making cool stuff. And that is an argument that seems to convince enough shareholders that Apple's stock is still doing well.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The psystar is a *noisy* pc,

Back that up. Just because it's a PC, doesn't mean automatically it's noisy. So far, there aren't any reviews or measurements made that I've seen so far.

I've owned quiet Xeon workstations, as well as quiet desktop systems too. Heck, my G5s have been noisier than my PC Xeon workstation. Among other things, I think the ATI 1900 that Apple used in their Mac Pros have been excessively turned down in speed, they seem to go flaky after a year. Apple has had similar problems with GFX chips in the aluminum iMacs too. The G5s are pretty quiet at idle, but at 20% load the fans can spin up to make them louder than my other systems.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I meant the fan speed on the ATI 1900. I had to have mine replaced by Apple a few weeks ago. Hopefully it doesn't happen again, but I just can't help but think the fan runs too slow for its cooling needs.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[guruevi]

What most people ask in my environment about the iMac's (from the G5 onwards but especially the new batch): where is the computer? since they expect a big bulky or at least some type of tower where you put the CPU in. I have a dead iMac G5 next to a same size dead LCD screen in my office and sometimes one of the passer-by's ask: if you're throwing away those monitors, can I have them.

I like the new iMac's for desktop environments. They take up less space, are quite powerful and they're also easy to repair (3 screws gives access to everything).

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[tlhIngan]

The psystar is a *noisy* pc,

Back that up. Just because it's a PC, doesn't mean automatically it's noisy. So far, there aren't any reviews or measurements made that I've seen so far.

How about the video on Gizmodo showing one in operation?

Sure it's not a scientific measurement of noise, but the fan whirr is definitely noticable. The Dell workstation on my desk at work is quieter, as is my Mac Pro (think - the real noise comes from the hard drives, not fans, and that's the standard seeking noises when they're busy.).

Heck, I think you can get some whitebox PCs that are quieter.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[protobion]

... a machine between the Mini and the Mac Pro ...

It's called an iMac?

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[pressman]

Naw. Apple isn't going to sweat this at all. With a record number of Macs sold last quarter, something like this won't even really register on their radar.

They probably love it actually. It's free publicity for them really. More and more people becoming dissatisfied with Windows and doing crazy things like this. It helps Apple by damaging Microsoft.

Apple is really all about the experience, the relatively painless experience of being able to use a computer without really having to think much about the computer. When you need a hammer, you just pick it up and don't worry about the smelting technique used to create the steel the head is made from. Some people will of course and that's their prerogative, but that number of people is very very small. Computers should behave this way for the VAST majority of users out there.

With Apple selling more and more computers these days, we will eventually see price drops. They don't enjoy economy of scale like Dell or HP and that is reflected in their prices... plus some additional markup to keep analysts and shareholders happy.

Yeah, the management at Apple is probably pretty happy over things like this as it increases awareness of OS X, takes pot shots at Windows and they don't have to spend a dime for all this publicity.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[trolltalk.com]

Just look at the videos of the psystar - it's NOISY as SHIT after a bunch of bad tacos!!

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[NatasRevol]

You haven't looked at Apple's latest earnings report, have you?

They still make half of their revenue by selling Macs.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[aliquis]

But personally I think Apple do way to little in their mac and OS X business and to much with gadgets. Which may be good for their business/money flow/brand knowledge/whatever but it suck for ME ;D

Only part of Apple I care about are the OS and applications ;D (And computers if I'm forced to use them.)

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[pressman]

Apple makes HUGE margins on their laptops and desktops. Some reports say the highest margins in the whole industry.

iPods, though profitable, are sold at a lower profit margin to move them faster and they make a profit through volume.

Again with the clones. It would RUIN Apple if they tried it again right now. They are selling stuff like crazy now based off the impression that their stuff "just works". Start installing OS X on any old PC with who knows what inside and that experience goes away. It becomes a much more Windows like experience.

Trust me, if Apple ever found a way to ensure the integrity of the experience they're trying to sell, they might consider licensing OS X to 3rd parties, but until then it will never happen.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[qw3rty]

Apple Software Update probably does work on this OQO, it works on all OSx86 installs. It was specifically disabled on the Psystar machines because an update might break the OS. The updates can still be installed manually, even on Psystar.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Culture20]

Clones like this and the Psystar machine must have Jobs and the other control freaks at Apple screaming bloody murder right now. Indeed; the latest Mac & PC commercial shows Mac and PC in a therapy session together.

The doctor says "PC, It's not your fault Vista isn't working quite right, your hardware and software come from different places."
Mac: "Unlike my hardware and software which were made for each other. It's not your fault."
PC: "It's not my fault"
Dr: "Go with that"
Pc: "It's not my fault, it's not my fault... It's Mac's fault"

Seems Apple will be playing the Hardware/Software synergy more and more now.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[toddestan]

Well, at the very least, you can assume that the Psystar will stay cool and won't suffer from the same heat problems that the iMacs suffer from. It seems that Apple really didn't take into consideration the heat generated by the hardware they use when they cram it into an ultrathin case.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[pressman]

Their OS accounts for a very small percentage of OS's used in the world. They are however one of the larger computer manufacturers in the market... especially when it comes to laptops.

So are you saying that Mac users aren't consumers? Hmmm. I've dropped a lot of money into Apple's coffers over the years. I sure do feel like a consumer.

$1 billion profit for the last quarter? I'm sure the shareholders are furious.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Fear the Clam]

For years, their bread-and-butter has been tying their OS to their (IMHO overpriced) hardware. Now it seems that a lot of people are getting sick of it (if the preorders at Psystar are any indication, a *LOT* of people).

No, they're just cheap bastards. I know this because I was one myself.

When Apple did license clones both my friend and I ended up buying them from different makers (he bought Daystar, mine was from Power Computing). Both of them were significantly cheaper and when it came time to upgrade the OS (we're taking from 7.5 to 8 and 9 here) both of them turned out to be pieces of shit. We decided independently that an extra few hundred bucks up front for tools that we're going to use for thousands of hours is worth it.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just picked up the book "Inside Steve's Brain" by Leander Kahney. I'm not too far yet, but so far it's a great read.

It mentions that one of the things Jobs did when he returned to Apple was to kill the Mac clones. Apple is making a concise decision to cater to the mid- to high-end, and leaving Dell and the rest to bottom feed for the market that has little profit margin (and every year probably becomes even smaller).

From a business standpoint, Apple is at the top of their game.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[drsmithy]

It's called an iMac?

No, the iMac is a different class of machine - an all-in-one. May as well just buy a laptop.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Anonymous Coward]

R u serious? Apple isn't saying anything because this is all part of the plan. Move to intel chip so there isn't a clock speed excuse. Check. OS X full supports a two button mouse. Check. Bootable into Windows. Check. Run Windows apps on desktop (VMWare, Parallels). Check. Allow PC users who won't switch to Macs to run OS X on unsupported machines to get a taste of OS X. In Progess..

If Apple is smart (and they are), they should offer a trade in for these Franketoshes once the buyer is hooked on OS X but is tired of being unsupported.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Pope]

Nope. Steve & co. aren't worried in the slightest, and licensing Mac OS X will never happen. The profit on the hardware allows for all the R&D on the software and other "cool stuff" that Apple does.

They licensed out MacOS 7 back in the 90s and it was a total disaster for them, which is why it'll never happen again.

You know what they say about people who are ignorant of history.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Weedlekin]

"The psystar is a *noisy* pc"

The Psystar is noisy because it's a low quality machine that's been assembled from cheap components that have been put in a cheap case with a cheap power supply.

"The first thing most people notice about the iMac is it's QUIET!"

Until it actually starts doing work that generates some heat that needs to be gotten rid of, and the secondary internal fans start revving up (at least with the iMac G5 series -- can't speak for the Intel versions because I haven't used one).

"People will pay a couple of hundred bucks for quiet, hardware and software support, updates, and the ability to just walk into a brick-and-mortar and pick one up off the shelf, etc."

There are also people who are willing to pay extra for machines that don't wrap a cheap tin box around a bunch of bottom-of-the-barrel components. The video indicates that the sub-set of them who want to run OS X and attendant Mac software will be unlikely to consider one of Psystar's offerings as a way of doing so.

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control?

[Weedlekin]

"OS X full supports a two button mouse. Check"

MacOS supported mice with two or more more buttons long before Apple switched to Intel-based hardware. Just because Macs shipped with a one button mouse until a couple of years ago doesn't mean that the OS didn't let people use third-party mice with more than one button.

iPhone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the iPhone is the smallest machine running OS X.

Yes, it's kind of kiosk-style, but it is OS X.

Re:iPhone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPod touch is smaller: it's an iPhone without the phone and camera, so it isn't as bulky.

Re:iPhone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, and win-ce (aka pocketpc/windows mobile) is windows- it has all the same API's and most straight win32-core code compiles without modification for CE.

My point is that the iPhone is no more OS X than Windows CE is Windows. You won't be able to copy your desktop version of Word to either and run it, and its not just due to screen real estate.

Re:iPhone?

[onefriedrice]

Sorry, the iPod touch is smaller.

just how big is it?

[oliverthered]

The artical doesn't give dimensions or shoe something in the picture for size comparisons, so it may be the smallest but is it the size of a football pitch or the size of an apple?

Re:just how big is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Available with a 60, 80 or 120GB hard-disk, the OQO e2 is supplied with Windows Vista as standard. All this and it only measures 14.2cm wide by 8.4cm tall and 2.6cm deep.

Re:just how big is it?

[electronerdz]

It's an OQO.

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

...does it run Linux

he may want to consider

[OrochimaruVoldemort]

work at Psystar

why Wikipedia links all the time?

[with a 'c']

Why oh why does everyone insist on using Wikipeda links instead of direct company links?

Re:why Wikipedia links all the time?

[Saint Fnordius]

My guess is that Wiki links are more "trustworthy". That means they look less like pure PR (or like a misleading goatse-like link). Wikipedia isn't unimpeachable, but more flagrant troll-edits would get quashed soon.

There's another thing that may play a role here as well: slashdotting the site. The Wiki can handle the tonnes of Slashdotters out to RTFA (including all 23 of you who actually read it) better than a small company or a private page can.

Hmmm, now that I think of it, that /.-effect deflection makes even more sense than my first guess.

Re:why Wikipedia links all the time?

[stoofa]

So, for instance, You'd prefer this to this?

"Is not is a Mac"?

[Apple Acolyte]

From the summary: "It might run Mac OS X, but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac." Is not is a Mac. That's interesting. So it is a Mac? ;-)

Re:"Is not is a Mac"?

[Icarium]

Please tell me that English is not your first language.

Re:"Is not is a Mac"?

[elrous0]

Him write fine. Your a grammar-Nazi!

Re:"Is not is a Mac"?

[Chelloveck]

Him write fine. Your a grammar-Nazi!

Him right fine.

Fixed that for you. HTH.

Re:"Is not is a Mac"?

[LS]

I think you might get his grammar if you add a comma:

one thing this OQO is not, is a mac.

Doesn't make it any less dumb of a sentence.

Re:"Is not is a Mac"?

[Enderandrew]

He writes fine. You're a grammar Nazi!

Re:"Is not is a Mac"?

[elrous0]

Me thank you.

Re:"Is not is a Mac"?

[everphilski]

No, I think he meant,

one thing this OQO is not, is a macaroni salad

But midsentance he realized his craving for a macaroni salad was so intense, he had to get one.

From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The artical doesn't give dimensions or shoe something in the picture for size comparisons, so it may be the smallest but is it the size of a football pitch or the size of an apple? 'All this and it only measures 14.2cm wide by 8.4cm tall and 2.6cm deep."

hm

[virgil_disgr4ce]

Is the new /. meme going to be "does it run OS X?"

--Ted

Re:hm

[OrochimaruVoldemort]

Is the new /. meme going to be "does it run OS X?" probably, but does it run linux

Re:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly let's check the give o' shit meter...

Re:hm

[morgan_greywolf]

Give-A-Shit-O-Meter(tm):


YOU FAIL IT! |***.......|.......| YOU PWN3D iT!


Nope, looks like he failed it.

Re:hm

[Lars T.]

Is the new /. meme going to be "does it run OS X?" probably, but does it run linux

According to the Wikipedia link, "Many people posting on handtops.com [4] have reported at least partial success" running Linux on them. Does that count?

Superior Hardware?

[Khyber]

If their hardware is truly superior? It's not. Like everything else now, it's x86. There is no superior about it, it's the same shit as any other computer built nowdays. The only thing that may be superior is their OS.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[furball]

Please point me towards a Dell laptop with motion sensors.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[rizzo420]

Dell may not have them, but HP does.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Kickersny.com]

My cheap Toshiba tablet PC has accelerometers for emergency HDD-shutdown.

It's three years old.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly it's superior. It has been tested to run windows faster than other major manufacturer's gear.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[fsmunoz]

Indeed. It's almost laughable the veiled attempt at pseudo-elitism.

It might run Mac OS X, but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac.

No shit. To be a Mac it needs to be made by Apple. And perhaps have a faulty wireless card (yes, I have a MacBook, and that shitty Airport is a recurring problem, "just works" doesn't really extend to wireless).

There is nothing that separates a "Mac" from a PC: the Mac is, for all purposes, an Intel, IBM-compatible PC. Generally the Mac fans say that "OSX makes the Mac", but when they see OSX running on non-Apple PCs then confusion settles and vague sentences appear, like the above, that seem to be based on some mystical characteristic of a "Mac".

Re:Superior Hardware?

[timster]

What does the binary language of the CPU have to do with the quality of the hardware? Who cares? By "quality hardware", I'm sure that we would mean something more important than that.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[argent]

By "quality hardware", I'm sure that we would mean something more important than that.

Indeed. My Thinkpad had my Macbook Pro beat to hell in the quality of the hardware. It was more solidly built, had a far superior keyboard, and came with a mini dock (port extender) so I could just bring it in to work in the morning and set it down and go straight to work... no fumbling around for cables or having the stupid "magsafe" connector come out without my noticing it when someone drops a pile of books on my desk...

And I didn't have to go cap-in-hand to the genius bar to replace the hard drive or void my warranty. And it didn't overheat to the point that I had to pull the battery pack out to cool it down when I was doing something CPU-intensive.

And to my eyes it even looked better, the way a stealth fighter looks better than an Airstream caravan.

Apple's hardware is pretty, but there's more to quality than expensive clothes and heavy makeup.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[ajcham]

Ditto for five year old Thinkpads.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[nano2nd]

I'm a long time Mac user who recently made the switch - to a Hackintosh. The OS really is central to the Apple proposition. But.. the hardware is also a big part of it - in terms of the reliability that only comes with total control of hardware and software.

Hardware is also important in terms of the user's perception of quality. I'm using the Apple Cinema Display I previously used on my Powermac and it is still far superior to the Samsung panel I bought recently for my kid.

But all that said, I like the fact that my Hackintosh cost me a lot less than the new top of the range iMac (granted, I already owned the Cinema Display), and it still outperforms the real deal.

However, 10.5.3 may be the end of the road for Hackintosh as I'm sure all the recent noise around this and Psystar will have Apple bringing down the hammer and breaking OS X for non-Apple hardware very soon.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

I also recall seeing Thinkpad commercials pointing out this feature as early as 2004.

Posting as AC because Apple still has more fanboys than Toshiba/Lenovo.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Creepy]

wrong - the cases are unique to Apple.

oh - you meant the guts ;)

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Creepy]

Most interesting to me is the processor - it's not AMD or Intel - it's a Via C7M. Via owns Centaur technology, the Texas based owner of the Cyrix IP, which they acquired from National Semiconductor. They still release chips 2-3 generations behind the leaders at larger form factors, but apparently quality control is much better than Cyrix (at least I haven't read of anything horrible about them).

I didn't even know that chip supported SSE2 or better, but that was ignorance (see wiki)

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, it may not be the hardware. The wireless in my MBP and my wife's MB cuts out periodically in OSX but both are fine when the machines are running windows or ubuntu.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[MMC Monster]

The Apple Mac is a known hardware platform.

This adds stability since Apple doesn't have to worry about every $10 video card in existence working on it.

Make it work on generic PC hardware will likely decrease the stability of the OS.

Apple certified systems is interesting, in that they would probably only certify closed systems that are not readily extensible.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Saint Gerbil]

Still a 10$ Video card is all they seem to put in the 20" iMac

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Even if they use the same commodity chips, there's still the engineering behind the boards, power supplies, case and so on.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[the_B0fh]

--
When we impeach Bush, can we do something about Memphis' "King Willie" please?

Umm... you can't. Remember, while Bush talks to God, King Willie was chosen by God to run Memphis. He said this as he was hard at work on that baby that he refuses to support.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[fsmunoz]

You're right though, and the cases *are* nice. The design is well-thought and there are some nice details that show a certain amount of attention to little things that in aggregate can make a difference.

Still, hardly enough to position modern Macs as more then Apple PCs; the PowerPC times of yore are over, and I think that deep-down many Apple fans regret that decision, since the Mhz jump has come at the expenses of lack of differentiation.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[fsmunoz]

That's one of the reasons why I view the MacBook fuckup as something even more serious: not only does Apple control the hardware they want to supply, they manage to ship sub-par choices!

There are some nice things about an Apple laptop: the design is nice, some details are nice, etc. But it's not like it's in a league of it's own: when one comes down to it it's a PC with selected components.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[jcgf]

having the stupid "magsafe" connector come out without my noticing it when someone drops a pile of books on my desk...

I have been trying to duplicate this by dropping books onto my desk next to my MacBook and have yet to do so. Is it a feature unique to the pro? Or did you mean that you dropped the books directly on the adapter?

Re:Superior Hardware?

[LWATCDR]

Okay Apple does make good hardware. If you look at equal quality systems the prices are actually pretty close. And yes there is a difference in quality between X86 computers.
When you get a $600 notebook from BestCityDepoMax they really cut corners on things you may never notice but then you may.
The software I work with everyday records audio. Guess what? On some of the notebooks that customers buy the audio recording is really bad!
Not only is it bad but the recording hardware just works strange. On some the audio will be full of static at some sampling rates but not others or it will only be clear if you use 16 bit samples and not 8 bit!
When dealing with speech the sampling rate shouldn't have any effect on static!
Then you have things like the LCD screen, battery life, the keyboard, and even the case.
It is shocking just how good of a computer you can get for a little money these days. But don't dismiss the value of quality hardware.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[pressman]

As a 22 year Mac user, I think it's pretty cool to see OS X running on a non-Apple box. Am I going to go out and do that? Probably not. Too much effort and know how required of me to do it and maintain it. I just need a box that works out of the box.

Until Apple does license OS X to 3rd parties, I will stick with Apple brand hardware and applaud the techies out there that love tinkering and making this stuff work on non-apple boxes.

Really. We can all live together. It's not that hard.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[pressman]

Nope! We love our new Intel Macs! They're faster than our old G5's!

Really, this whole notion that we need to "be different" is blown way out of proportion. Was I stunned when I heard that Apple was switching to Intel? Sure. I never saw that coming!

I was thrilled to think about the speedy new laptops that would be coming out eventually and the possibilities that Intel Macs afforded a Mac user. I'm not a serious gamer by any stretch of the imagination, but being able to poke around in the world of Windows gaming on my Mac makes me very happy.

If I wanted to I could even goof around with Linux as well... all on my Mac.

As long as Final Cut runs faster and I have the stability that I am accustomed to, I really could care less what chip is in there.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[argent]

I don't know whether they dropped the books on the cable, on another cable that tugged on the power cable, or missed the cable altogether. As I said, I didn't notice at the time that it had happened, or I would have plugged it back in. When I returned to my desk my laptop had shut down to save power, and there was nobody else in the office at the time.

I have also had the magsafe connector pull away under trivial tension many times. I have never had any problem with any other power connector on any other laptop, either mine or any of the users I supported at ABB over the past 20 years. Nor have I had a power connector pull a laptop off a desk... video cables, yes, SCSI cables, yes, serial or parallel cables, yes, but those are all screwed in or clamped on. The magsafe connector may be an advance over the funky connector on the Powerbooks and iBooks, but a plain barrel connector is much simpler and more reliable.

Apple's definition of quality seems to be "it looks cool and costs more", not "it works better".

Re:Superior Hardware?

[fsmunoz]

I have nothing against Apple, Apple users, or OSX. If anything I've got some thing that rub me off, and others that attract me. The ratio was enough to influence the wife in buying a Macbook, so I'm not exactly allergic to Apple.

As with all communities there are always some things to like and dislike, and I was pointing at one common Mac behavior: the ofte misplaced elitism. Elitism by itself, in some amounts, it's not bad: heck, most GNU/Linux users are "elitists" in a different way.

But some part of the Mac fan base is in a weird crossroad: they still want to "exclusive" feel,the feeling of a tight, marginalised community, while at the same time cheering the advances of Apple consumer electronics and surrendering to the obvious evidence that Mac computers are for almost all purposes PCs. This is not something easy to swallow, I can understand that, and personally I was a little disappointed with Apple's Intel shift, but that's the way life is.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Joe The Dragon]

more video cards now days are the ATI or Nvidia ones that use the same core chips with differnt ram and speed configs

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

The hardware itself may not be "superior" but the fact that Apple can tightly integrate their OS and Drivers to exact known hardware configurations lends itself to "better" performance on the same hardware when compared to other OS as well as stability. Apple going plug and pray will never happen because that's just too many variables to test and QA. Ask Microsoft how that move is playing out for them now.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only so much that Apple can do to prevent Hackintoshes from working. Ever since the BrazilMac Vanilla Kernel hack it has been made virtually impossible to detect because the OS itself is left completely untouched. Also, the fact that Apple makes the source available as well as full dev kits for the OS and EFI anything they put out will be defeated. The worst thing they could have done was going x86, their hardware safety shell was PPC and now it's gone.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[CommanderData]

The worst thing they could have done was going x86, their hardware safety shell was PPC and now it's gone.
Maybe that's why they picked up a certain chipmaker for $278 million recently? I'm sure they can still compile Leopard (or it's next generation) to PCC and universal binaries are everywhere. Plus PA Semi's chips sound more efficient than anything else they could get their hands on right now, a MacBook (Pro) that ran all day on a charge would be sweet.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[ColdWetDog]

The magsafe connector may be an advance over the funky connector on the Powerbooks and iBooks, but a plain barrel connector is much simpler and more reliable.

You sir, obviously don't own a Labrador Retriever puppy that finds anything smaller than a 2 x 4 completely invisible. The magsafe connector has saved my MBP several times from Trips to the Repair Depot. And yes, I've had "regular" power connectors go sideways and fail, with predictably spectacular results.

OTOH, I agree with much of your complaints about the new Macs. I like em, but they're nothing to get all wound up sideways about.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[encoderer]

As does the Thinkpad on my desk that was purchased in the late 90's/early00s that I'm now using as my on-the-go staging server.

This company generally buys high-end, so I'm sure this was a helluva expensive laptop when they bought it, but still, it's 10 years old and includes the motion sensors.

IIRC, they had some commercials about this feature.. showing a laptop flying off a desk in slo-mo while the narrator talks about how the Hard Disk won't push the platters into the heads because the laptop knows when it's falling.

Personally, I always thought that they'd probably sell more computers if they made the damn thing play a WAV of a person screaming as it fell. I'm sure some people would drop it just for the fun. Surely enough people would fumble the catch that IBM could recoup the costs of including the sound effect!

Re:Superior Hardware?

[toddestan]

Make it work on generic PC hardware will likely decrease the stability of the OS.

Only on that cheap, flakey hardware. Windows and Linux don't have issues with stability on quality hardware either.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[toddestan]

They could starting querying the hardware more. Right now, OSX will run on a Pentium 4 chip, despite no Mac ever shipping with a P4 (except some early development loaner machines). It would be pretty trivial to have OSX query the CPU, and if it detects a P4 or some other chip that no Mac has shipped with, not run. And so on and so forth.

Then to take it one step further, they could start using DRM like the TPM chip to ensure the machine is a Mac. This might take some hardware changes, but if they started adding it tomorrow to their computers, at the rate they kill support for old products they could stop supporting the machines that don't have the chip in about 2 years and the Mac crowd would just roll over and take it.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Dog-Cow]

One of the two laptops I owned previous to a Macbook had the power connector break off the motherboard. And this from completely normal use. Never had it pulled off a table or desk. Never dropped it. Just having it plugged in was enough to cause it to snap.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[John Betonschaar]

If you don't understand that the friggin CPU architecture is not what makes hardware superior or inferior for the majority of Apple's target audience, you are most likely not part of this majority...

Apple hardware is superior in the sense that it is integrated, quiet and (to a lot of people) good-looking. The user experience of the hardware and software combines is what makes the hardware superior. I'm not going into the 'Apple hardware is overpriced' argument too much anymore, but let me say this: Apple hardware in the US (in $) is actually *much* cheaper than Dell hardware in Europe (in â), does that make Dell overpriced too? Seeing that the there are literally no competing products with the same form factor and level of integration that are actually cheaper, the 'overpriced' argument does not hold for me. Also, there's a difference between 'price' and 'value' that seems to be hard to see for some people. Something can be cheap but worthless (or devaluate really fast), while something expensive may in fact be a bargain...

Re:Superior Hardware?

[John Betonschaar]

So what you're actually saying is that Macs are special in the hardware sense in that they are designed and produced differently than the average PC, although their internals are very similar to PC's (Apple does use special CPU steppings and GPU firmware FWIW), and special in the software sense in that they are the only personal computers that can run OS X legally and fully supported.

Can you no please explain how Macs are *not* special from common PC's again?

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Joe Jay Bee]

Then to take it one step further, they could start using DRM like the TPM chip to ensure the machine is a Mac.

They already do; every Mac ships with a TPM, and if a check against it fails things like the Finder and the Dock won't run. Hackintoshes just remove the code that checks it.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[pressman]

Apple is not going to roll out new computers with a completely new processor design now that the Intel transition is nearing completion.

Apple is very happy with their relationship with Intel and the recent purchase probably has more to do with mobile, server or embedded devices than it does with their computer lines.

Your average Mac gets about 5 years of life and if Apple started cutting into that with DRM... there would be riots. A Mac's lifespan is one of the things we love about our Macs.

Sure, they get a little slower compared to newer machines, but you're not going to shoot that adorable little puppy you bought a few years back just because it got older and a little slower and you see a younger cuter puppy at a pet store are you?

Actually, this is /. you weird bastards are probably going to try and do something seriously weird and dangerous to that dog's innards in order to give it new life.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[pressman]

Price and value! A very nice distinction.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[argent]

You sir, obviously don't own a Labrador Retriever puppy that finds anything smaller than a 2 x 4 completely invisible.

You're right. My puppies have all been of the primate kind, though that opposable thumb is hell on computers, and I've pulled all kinds of interesting things out of CD and floppy drives.

Still never had a laptop pulled off a table. I'm not saying it can't happen, but based on my experience and that of the 150-400 developers and salesmen I've supported at various times over the past couple of decades... I really can't see that as a common failure mode unless you're in the habit of leaving power cables hanging in free catenaries about the place.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Choad Namath]

He said that they have nice-looking, well-designed cases. If that's all it takes to make a computer "special," then my computer is special from "common" PCs as well. Macs have the same hardware as PCs: the same CPUs, the same RAM, the same hard drives, etc. Yes, they might be better quality than a bargain-basement Dell, but so is my custom-built PC. There's nothing inherently better hardware-wise about a Mac, and the only substantial difference is the OS.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[amper]

The "AirPort dropping connections" problem is quite easily solved in most cases by making sure the base station you're connecting to uses WPA with the AES encryption option, rather than TKIP, or using WPA2 (where AES is required, and TKIP is not an option).

This drove me nuts when I replaced my G3 iBook with my C2D MacBook with the "N"-capable chipset, until I found the answer. This of course, doesn't happen when you're actually using an Apple AirPort base station, but is a common problem running typical off-brands. In my case, I was running two Linksys WRT54GS's with Alchemy, which I then switched to DD-WRT in an attempt to work around the problem. That in itself didn't solve the problem until I stumbled across the AES issue.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[fsmunoz]

No, that's not what I was actually saying. I was saying that they have some nice details. So does a Sony Vaio.

You're immediate assumption that I was talking about something very special and unique is part of what I was referring to.

You're main point is that it runs OSX legally. That is true: the only difference between an Apple PC and a non-Apple PC is artificial, DRM-like OS lock. This as some nice features - less hardware to support,less drivers, etc - but it's not something "unique" or "new", it's merely a restriction with a purpose.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[fsmunoz]

Thanks for the tip, much appreciated. Alas, I think my problem is slightly different: while it can be related eventually with some setting in the router I'm already using WPA2... the connection doesn't exactly drop: a ping to the wireless router will have ttl values of 200-1400ms (my ThinkPad with GNU/Linux displays a consistent 1.5ms). This makes everything slow as molasses.

I've searched around - being a Linux user I'm used to it - and until now most advices didn't work out (limit the speed of the router; change from 802.1g to 802.1n; other assorted recipes).

I'll thinker a bit with your advice though, since I'm allowing both WPA and WPA2 maybe the Mac tells me it is using WPA2 but secretly switches to WPA.

Still,bloody hell. I think that Macbook was a good buy, but this Airport problem is just something unforgivable really.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[jcgf]

I have never had any problem with any other power connector on any other laptop, either mine or any of the users I supported at ABB over the past 20 years.

I replaced the motherboards in over 30 dell notebooks because of bad connectors giving problems (usually the center pin would get loose or the pcb around the jack would crack and wreck a trace) about 10 or 12 were Latitude D600s. I only worked as the dell warranty guy for 14 months.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[amper]

I have to say I haven't heard of any problem quite like the one you're experiencing, and I'm an independent consultant that deals primarily with Macintosh systems. My personal MacBook is now over a year old, and the only thing I've seen is the mysterious dropping connection. I also have an iMac of the same vintage whose AirPort has been rock solid, and none of my clients have ever reported similar issues to yours.

That said, sometimes Apple releases some stinkers. My G3 iBook was repaired by Apple at least four times. The first time, the onboard memory failed five weeks after I got the unit. It took three attempts by Apple's repair people to fix the issue, because the first two times, they "repaired" the wrong thing. I was absolutely livid, and they managed to replace my perfectly functioning HDD with all my data on it (fortunately, it was a new machine, so it didn't really have *that* much on it, but still...I'll never send in another for repair without a backup). The fourth time was for the well-known video chip issue. My seemed to last longer than most others', but still eventually failed. It may have even gone back for repair one more time just before the extended warranty ran out, but it's been stable since then, though I don't use it very much anymore.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[fsmunoz]

Thanks for the comment; my problem seems to be indeed rarer then the dropped connection one, but not unique: the search term that brings up the occurrences is "Macbook Airport ttl=".

As for the stinkers, they can be excused if the support if top notch. I think that Apple had a very strong area in this (maybe they still do, don't know): even if the hardware had problems their user support was good compared to retail, which further served to mark a divide between faceless PC retailers that have little reason not to screw those who bought a Packard-Bell in prmotion last week and Apple, that cared for the costumers.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Ortega-Starfire]

Well, Dell bought Alienware, which does have those motion sensors. So, yes, they have those.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

...IBM introduced the Active Protection System (APS) in 2003.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[kklein]

Preach it!

I recently switched to the Mac both at the office and at home, but the sole reason I did was that the Mac isn't some annoying separate hardware platform anymore. I can boot Windows and virtual machines are easy.

If/when I make a Hackintosh (which looks like fun), will it be a Mac?

Sorta.

It's just a matter of semantics. If I were running a Hackintosh and someone who was giving me a file said "you're on a Mac, right?" then I'd say "yes," of course.

But if someone said "what kind of Mac do you have?", I'd have to say something like, "welll, actually it's just a regular old PC running OSX."

Since the Mac has traditionally been assumed to be a hardware and software platform, it just gets tricky.

But there is absolutely zero reason to be snobby about it, and I think you're right that that is a lot of what's going on.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[chromacat]

This is from my recent order confirmation for a Latitude D830: 120GB Free Fall Sensor Hard Drive 9.5MM, 7200RPM,Latitude

You can check the availability of these drives on Dell's site.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

However, 10.5.3 may be the end of the road for Hackintosh as I'm sure all the recent noise around this and Psystar will have Apple bringing down the hammer and breaking OS X for non-Apple hardware very soon.

Like the RIAA's going to bring down the hammer and stop all of those illegal copiers very soon?

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dell has motion sensors, I'm not sure about the cheaper Inspiron or Vostro lines, but their XPS m1530 has a hard drive upgrade with sensors built-in.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blokes
At the end of the day they are all machines designed to do a job, and we all have the choice of picking the one we believe best suits our needs and our pockets. If we want to tinker with them and make them different to how they came out of the box then good'o.

It's our right and choice..... even though it may all end in tears.

About 80years ago a bunch of Blokes where doing the same stuff with vehicles, making them faster, more powerful, more suited to there own purpose.

So what if we're all a wee bit different, one extreme leads to innovation, the other to weirdness... .... the worst that can happen is you're just too far weird...

Re:Superior Hardware?

[TheRaven64]

Apple is not going to roll out new computers with a completely new processor design now that the Intel transition is nearing completion. They just did. They called them the iPhone and iPod Touch, but they are really just tiny tablet Macs with a brand new CPU architecture. The NeXT core of OS X has always been designed to support multiple architectures - it ran happily on SPARC, MIPS, i486, m68K and so on - and there is nothing stopping Apple keeping three processor architectures active. They will probably continue to use x86 in the machines that people might want to run Windows on, but in machines focussed on more consumer electronics-like sections of the market there is no reason for them not to use PowerPC or ARM.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[argent]

I got Dell removed from the approved vendor list at my last-but-one job 10 years ago, and they hadn't gotten re-approved when I left there in 2005, so that's a pretty weak counterexample. :)

Come to think of it, if a vendor shipped us Wintel notebooks similar to the Macbook Pro I doubt they'd make it into the list in the first place. Apple's oddball hardware really does hurt it in the corporate market. Big companies have their own support staff and policies... for example, at one point (due to an audit further upstream) I couldn't get warranty replacement hard drives because we had a retention policy for hard drives that precluded sending the old ones back.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[pressman]

True, but for desktops, I do not see them abandoning Intel so soon after the transition.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[encoderer]

I'm sorry, does 2003 not qualify as "early 00s" ?

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't qualify as late 90s or "10 years ago", it's 5 years ago, or half of your estimate (50% error)

Re:Superior Hardware?

[John Betonschaar]

Now take a step back and try reading that as a non-techy.

I'll help: it doesn't matter what hardware is in it, Apple makes PC's that are special in the sense that they are well-integrated boxes that run an alternative OS. Simple as that, period...

Why is it so hard for Slashdot people to understand the hardware is just the medium the computer runs on, it's the software and experience that sets them apart. As of yet, no other vendor can offer the same *computer systems* that Apple offers, so that *does* make them 'special' compared to 'normal PCs'

Re:Superior Hardware?

[John Betonschaar]

The DRM argument doesn't impress me, both my Macs also run Windows and Linux. I've never run into any DRM issues on OS X, and as I'm using my computer like an end-user does most of the time, not as a free-software fundamentalist, I don't really mind running proprietary software if it's good.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Creepy]

Apple also has stricter quality control than the average PC maker. Dell was willing to use cheap ECS motherboards back when they had a hideous failure rate but were the cheapest part available. Apple would not put up with that in a vendor.

Not that any one vendor is perfect - I heard great things about IBM Deskstar drives before the catastrophic failure rate gave them the nickname Deathstar. In fact, I got mine replaced 3 times under warranty (and backed it up religiously, something I'm not generally good at). Finally after Hitachi took over the business I got a reliable drive that has not failed (in almost 5 years - the purchase was in 2002, the last failure in June 2003, or at least that's when I formatted it).

Re:Superior Hardware?

[fsmunoz]

. I've never run into any DRM issues on OS X

I was referring to the way OSX itself is locked to Apple PCs, when there is no technical reason for it (only business reasons of not wanting OSX to run on other combinations of hardware). This is similar to DRM in that something prevents usage even though there is no real reason for being so.

ot as a free-software fundamentalist, I don't really mind running proprietary software if it's good.

Of course, that was clear from the beginning, never assumed otherwise, since you're using OSX. There is little or nothing that would led me to believe that you were part of the free software community, at least no more or less than if you used Windows.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[encoderer]

So that's a "yes" to my question? Good. Glad you could concede that point.

Here's another estimate: I estimate that you're a pedantic douche-bag.

And I'm willing to bet I'm at least 75% correct on that one.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your question narrows the focus to one point early in your message, which was then contradicted by the statement about the machine being 10 years old (not giving a range the second time you referenced the age). Shipping a machine with this feature 6 years before Apple shipped is very different from shipping 1 year before apple. If they had actually shipped it 10 years ago, then Apple would be rightfully lumped in with the other manufacturers who have shipped with this feature in the last 4 years. Otherwise if it was 5 years ago, then Apple is placed in the category alongside IBM. Pedantic, yes. Douche-bag, yes. You just lost the game, yes. But your comment is seemingly trying to justify #23237170 by saying IBM was shipping with this technology much earlier than Apple.

Re:Superior Hardware?

[encoderer]

Lost what game?

Pointing out (rather correctly) that you're a douchebag? All I have to do is click on my name to get to your comment. It's so easy I can't NOT do it.

You've actually bookmarked this thread (or you navigate to it manually?) just so you can argue... what, exactly?

I do have fun when your type sticks their head up. Makes a pretty easy target. So I do very much encourage you to keep it up.

Tell me this: where is the contradiction?

I said "eary 00s." So, clearly, right up front, I put it out there that it's possibly as new as 2003 (2004 would have to be considered mid-00's, IMO).

The problem is you've taken an obvious hyperbole as a literal. A figure of speech as regular is metaphor, simile, sarcasm, etc.

So maybe it's some sort of learning disorder? Like aspergers for reading comprehension -- you never learned how to use context clues?

I do hope you come back for more. This is very enjoyable.

But do tell me more about how I "lost the game."

Re:Superior Hardware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, I figured that would have killed it since you took so long to respond. But whatever. Here's the game. Anyways, since you asked, it's bookmarked. I always bookmark my anonymous trolls to see if anyone bites. That being said, I really don't care what you think about me. The truth is I wasn't trying to be inflammatory with my first comment, I was really just curious about when IBM released it, since your comment about it being "late 90s" piqued my curiosity regarding the date this technology appeared. I checked a few sources and linked one that clarified it, but you seem to have responded to it as if it was a troll, so I just ran with it.

The new black?

[pzs]

Is cramming MacOS onto a wholly unsuitable machine the new version of doing the same thing with Linux?

I want a dock on my watch and my microwave to make that *DNNGGG!* noise when I open the door.

Re:The new black?

[Ford Prefect]

Is cramming MacOS onto a wholly unsuitable machine the new version of doing the same thing with Linux?

I'm reminded of this - Mac OS X running on a Centris 650. 68MB RAM, 25MHz 68040.

No, not even a PowerPC processor. Fully software emulation.

Running? Well, booting. Sort of. Excruciatingly, glacially slowly!

Re:The new black?

[ickoonite]

I think you're right. We need a new meme.

...but does it run Mac OS X?

:P

Re:The new black?

[dissy]

I'm reminded of this [mactalk.com.au] - Mac OS X running on a Centris 650. 68MB RAM, 25MHz 68040. Wow, those are some mighty specs for shoehorn bragging rights.
Closest thing that jumped to my mind from this thread was OS X on an xbox 1
But that's still a 700mhz celeron chip, but with only 64mb ram. Slightly less useless in speed than the 25mhz 040 I'd say ;}

Oblig. blurry YouTube

[necro81]

The article links to a fuzzy YouTube video of the device going through what looks like a boot loader, then booting Leopard, then flipping through a variety of Mac applications.One can also hear what I think are the OQO's fans working overtime to keep up.

The video looks credible, but it would be nice if it were recorded with something that could focus in closer.

Re:Oblig. blurry YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a HaKR d00d! He's using his |33+ Haxored iFone wit da Vido!!!!! Y u need da quelity! Hez 2 kewl for quelity!

(Spelling for sarcasm )

Why is this Slashdot-worthy?

[Tatsh]

Hackintoshes apparently are Slashdot-worthy now. Ridiculous.

As with relation to this post, 90% of the work is done with the hacked ISO of Leopard you get off where you want (Google is your friend) by people like Zephyroth. He might have done a little hacking, but I do not care really. This is not ground-breaking. The Psystar article was more ground-breaking because if Psystar exists it is a company trying to market 'clone Macs' without sanction from Apple. I bravely say, anyone (who knows about osx86 and only even has a decent amount of skill of playing with OS's) could achieve what was done in this article.

Re:Why is this Slashdot-worthy?

[Oktober Sunset]

Lol, I love the way you say Slashdot-worthy, like slashdot is some great and highbrow institution. Hello, Lego cases are slashdot worthy. Saying 'Slashdot-worthy' is like saying Karaoke-worthy, or gutter-worthy, or rubbish bin-worthy.

Re:Why is this Slashdot-worthy?

[avanderveen]

I would argue that this is ground breaking because with each new piece of hardware is hacked to run Mac, Apple loses hardware some hardware sales (maybe not so much with this one) and it loses it's whole "Macs have superior design" thing (not that they actually do).

The thing is that if Apple started offering Mac on more than Apple hardware (as one commenter suggested) then they would lose a lot of hardware sales. Apple's hardware isn't superior, it just looks nice. It's like going to a car dealer and saying, "I want the red one" without even looking at the make and model or specifications. More important than specifications here is the make and model. Apple doesn't even manufacture it's own hardware, Asus and Quanta do (among others) and coincidentally these companies also manufacture hardware for PCs.

It's not as if Apple's hardware is superior (if what I've been reading online is any representation it isn't at all), it's just that Apple gets to bundle their software with a shiny new package that "just works" because it's 100% compatible with their hardware and everything compliments each other with Apple products. When Mac starts running on other hardware there will be issues, just look at the number of Windows Vista issues cause solely by bad nVidia drivers.

Re:Why is this Slashdot-worthy?

[Tatsh]

I guess I find it funny too, but I thought Slashdot was meant to push out stories other places would not, with some moderation. And if I were final decision moderator, this story would not be posted.

Re:Why is this Slashdot-worthy?

[Lars T.]

Hackintoshes apparently are Slashdot-worthy now. Ridiculous. Hey, it seems to be hard to get Linux working on these things - maybe that's why it got trough.

Re:Why is this Slashdot-worthy?

[Weedlekin]

"I thought Slashdot was meant to push out stories other places would not"

The fact that most Slashdot stories are lifted directly from The Register, Ars Technica, and Gizmodo would seem to indicate that they not only publish stories others _would_ publish, but storiees that others have _already_ published (including Slashdot itself in the all too frequent cases of "dupes").

So it's smaller than an OS X iPhone?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the picture in TFA it looks bigger than an iPhone...

"this OQO is not is a Mac"

[ThirdPrize]

So you don't have to be gay to use it? Cool.

Sony VAIO UX does it too.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is hardly anything new, Leopard has been running on the Sony VAIO UX for awhile now. The UX is about the same size, and double the performance of the OQO http://micropctalk.wetpaint.com/page/Installing+Macintosh+OSX+10.5+(Leopard)?t=anon

"It might run Mac OS X..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac."

Forget the weird grammatical structure, what exactly is this supposed to mean? That it runs OS X poorly? That it is not Apple hardware? That it's not authorized? Thanks for the enlightening comment Timothy!

"I just put my dick in your moms mouth, but one thing your mom is not is a condom."

An important development because...

[astroblaster]

This is the first usage of a non-intel or -AMD x86 CPU to run desktop OS X on non-Apple hardware. There are no known guides to running a VIA C7 variant, so if this guy's not bluffing and provides some info, this helps other ultraportables using the C7 to run OS X. Regardless of the complete un-kosherness of running OS X on non-apple hardware, it has opened the gates for tons of free enthusiastic public user testing.

Wait,

[Canosoup]

Don't all the Ipods have a tiny chunk of OS X on them?

Re:Wait,

[Constantine XVI]

Only the Touch and iPhone. All the other iPods run a custom, 100% unreleated OS called Pixo.

Devil's Advocate here

[Serenissima]

But if Apple did a "Certified Program" they'd lose their compatibility and optimization. Right now, since everything is in-house, they can write their software/firmware around the exact specifications of certain pieces of hardware. If they had to broaden that field, they couldn't optimize for specifics. The system would bog down more. And as far as compatibility goes, you'd have to start getting drivers for every other piece of hardware you buy. If it's in-house, that's not a problem.

The only time it becomes a problem is when you have a sales model and market base of "people-who-never-used-computers". I think we can all agree Apple cornered the market by selling their computers as "the easiest to use" or "plug it in and go". The customer base for that type of model doesn't need the complexity. And even though their "Power User" market is growing which makes that model less sustainable, I would imagine that they'll want to hang on to the "ease of use" as long as possible.

Even though Slashdot readers revel in the complexity of computer systems, I'm pretty sure Apple isn't going to change their model for us. I think we all know that for all of us that know a thing or two about computers, there's way more people out there who know jack-diddley about them.

Re:Devil's Advocate here

[oahazmatt]

Actually, Apple did have an approved Mac Clone program. Companies such as Daystar and UMAX took part in it. The result? People wanted to buy Macs, not clones.

Re:Devil's Advocate here

[Serenissima]

I know, but that was before Jobs came back. I had a Power Computing Mac Clone. Actually, it might still be in my garage somewhere... hmmm... Anyways, it was a lot cheaper. When Jobs came and bought back the rights, and they came out with the iMac; that started the whole "this-computer-is-easy-to-use".

Re:Devil's Advocate here

[pressman]

Yeah, the Umax and PowerComputing machines were actually faster and less expensive than the Macs available at the time.

I had a Umax. Man! It was zippy for the time, but it was far more accident prone than the actual Macs I used at work. I won't even go into what my friend with a PowerComputing went through with his rig.

For the increased horsepower that these clones had, I typically would lose more time due to them being down than I would through the slightly slower Macintosh I was using at work.

Re:Devil's Advocate here

[Pope]

Not really, the clones did a little too well for Apple's liking: the original idea was to grow the overall MacOS market, but all that happened was the clones ate away Apple's sales. Bad news for Apple, which is the reason the clones were killed.

At the time, if there was only a market for 100 MacOS-running machines sales a week, Apple is better of getting all 100 of them and not 70 while the clone makers take 30.

Hard Hack? Really?

[andreyw]

I don't understand people tagging stuff like this "hard hack". Sure, it's not as trivial as installing XP or even Linux or some flavor of BSD, but let's see. Is there any original development done? Nope... just leveraging existing OSx86 work and other odds and ends around Darwin/x86. You're doing the work of an OEM. All you need to do is find a hardare platform reasonably close to one of the Macs (not hard, it's all Intel based), or pluck and pick some third-party drivers. Yay. Is it a hack? Yes. Hard hack? No... the dude that cracked the iPhone was a "hard hack".

Re:Time for Apple to cede some control? Nope.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

They won't do it because of two and a half fundamental reasons:

1. MSOffice
2. Profit Margins
3. History as Computer Maker

If Apple put MacOS onto other machines, MS would pull support for MSOffice on MacOS in a New York Nanosecond. That would seriously batter Apple computer sales, because many of us (myself included) are forced by our employers to use MSOffice. Yes, OpenOffice is a lovely thing, but our IT dept and management doesn't give a flying fuck about OpenOffice, and never will. It's an MS shop and that's that. They don't care what COMPUTER you use - so I have a MacBookPro - but the software for our daily interactions Must Be MS. (sigh - I know, I know)...

So, That's Reason #1 (with a gun to the head) why Apple won't open up.

2. Apple makes Serious Bank on their high end machines (desktop or laptop) and opening up would blow those margins to the wind because if you're so up on a high end machine, you could probably build something to rival today's fire breathing dragon at a substantially lower cost than what HP and certainly Apple would charge you.

Also, Apple depends on that margin, as it allows them to use that money to seed other projects, some few of which might pan out (iPod, iTMS) and some more that won't do so well (AirTunes, AppleTV) some that seriously Tank (20th Anniversay Mac) and some that leave expensive craters in the ground (Pippin, Newton, The Cube). Without the margins Apple pulls from their high-end gear, none of those ventures would have happened, and while Pippin was a fucking disaster, the iPod is anything but.

So, they're not going to cannibalise their bovine cash dispenser.

3. History as a computer company. They are known first as a computer company, that happens to make totally hip consumer items. This will change over time, as computers slowly fade into the woodwork, but until then, their flagship product is MacOS - it's the one thing that ties all their products together, and it is intimately tied to their vision as a computer company.

So, for all those reason (and I am sure, many more) Apple will not open up their OS. It would be suicide.

RS

timex/sinclair keyboard

[Anonymous Coward]

or is that a tandy keyboard. I can't tell from the picture.

$1500 ? ouch.

NOT running OSX

[alcmaeon]

More like strolling or sauntering, but definitely not running.

OQO isnt a "clone"

[Anonymous Coward]

The OQO was out way before the MacBook Air, it has held the ultra-portable record for a long time. And it's always been, obviously, a Windows machine.

What you are talking about isn't "opening up"... it's about breaking down the Apple monopoly. Thats... not going to happen. Ever. You are going to have to tear the Apple monopoly from Steve Job's cold, dead fingers for that to ever occur. He put a LOT of work into creating that monopoly.

You guys forget: Jobs is old-school. Jobs was formed in the time of IBM, ATT, Novell, etc. They were all the brutal monopolies, that was how business was done. All your stuff is in-house, and it STAYS in-house. The only reason IBM-PC clones happened was because IBM saw it was losing ground to Apple. IBM has never been afraid to destroy themselves in order to destroy their competitors (and that spirit is still alive today, just look at all the money they are flushing down Lunix).

As soon as Jobs took over, he destroyed any companies making Apple compatibles, destroyed companies selling Apple equipment, and destroyed companies making gear for Apple. Anything involving Apple computers, be it sales, hardware, software, service/repair, etc... would be handled by Apple, and ONLY Apple. Unless you like being sued into oblivion, that is.

So yeah, it's nice that OSX doesn't have copy protection, aside from checks to make sure it's not installed on non-Apple hardware. But if enough people start doing that... expect that to change REAL quick.

Re:OQO isnt a "clone"

[Anonymous Coward]

So someone needs to call out a hit on stevie?

Re:OQO isnt a "clone"

[elrous0]

Wouldn't help. Evil never dies.

Re:OQO isnt a "clone"

[pressman]

Heh.

The company which became IBM was founded in 1888 as the Tabulating Machine Company by Herman Hollerith, in Broome County, New York. It was incorporated as Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR) on June 16, 1911, and was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1916. IBM adopted its current name in 1924, when it became a Fortune 500 company.

I had no idea Apple was that old! And here I thought Steve was in his 50's.

Re:OQO isnt a "clone"

[pressman]

Yes, Steve Jobs is evil. He eats babies and strangles kittens for fun. He destroys other companies because he enjoys watching the suffering of others.

Steve Jobs didn't destroy those companies. He bought back their OS X licenses so that Apple could survive. Spindler/Amelio almost destroyed Apple with their confusing product matrices, botched OS upgrade plans and a self defeating clone program.

If Jobs didn't do what he did, Apple would still be losing money in the billions and there would be no OS X or iPod or iPhone or Macintosh unless they were gobbled up by Sony or Sun or something like that.

Jobs wasn't out to destroy anything. He just wanted to save the company he founded and bring it back to profitability. And by that standard, he's done an amazing job.

Enough with the "destruction" and "evil Machiavellian plot" rhetoric. They want to make cool stuff and make money doing so. I hardly find that evil or really even manipulative. They're just doing what a business does.

Until they start breaking laws, attain monopoly power and abuse it... tone down the rhetoric. It just doesn't work.

Expensive

[tmalone]

These machines are neat, but holy shit they're expensive! Why is there such a leap in price when you go from a PDA that costs a few hundred bucks to one of these things that costs between $1000 and $2100 (when not on sale)? This is actually one of the most expensive portable Macs. I think I'd rather bolt a keyboard onto an iPod Touch.

apple should come out with a mid-range head less..

[Joe The Dragon]

apple should come out with a mid-range head less desktop and A $1500 laptop with a real video card.

Wow Look at the 3D... wait n/m

[hyperz69]

OSX brought to you in wonderful Vesa 3.0 with SSE3 emulation. Why even bother putting it on a device you cannot get QE or CI on? Leopard NEEDS 3D hardware. Without the pretty, OSX is just BSD with an outdated kernel model ;P

That's fantastic because...

[pandrijeczko]

...if the entire Mac is smaller, there is much less chance of scruffy art students trying to blind me with a light reflection from their little silver "Snapple" logo from their "Big Macs" evertime I walk into the local coffee shop.

Plus if it's that small, I can smack said art student around the head and drop his "Mini Mac" into his "Chocca-Macca-Poser-mericano" also!

Cool!

FreeBSD?

[mi]

I was considering buying one of those nifty computers, but it would have to be capable of running FreeBSD — with all/most hardware supported...

Has anyone tried?

YouTube video

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia has a link to the YouTube video

The thing roars like a chopper! Too loud for me thanks.

Nike, Banana Republic, Eddie Baur, Apple

[rubypossum]

If you go down to China Town and buy some knockoff Nikes they will not, if fact, be real Nikes. They *may* be higher quality products, they may be better designed. But they will not be Nikes.

This is the Apple argument. People pay exorbitant prices for commodity PCs strapped up with a BSD operating system and some shiny widgets. But they aren't buying that - they're buying an Apple. It's that simple.

Good for them, I'll stick with Ubuntu thanks.

IBM Compatible?

[jpellino]

What means this "i_b_m compatible?"

Re:IBM Compatible?

[fsmunoz]

Hehehe, I used it on purpose. I almost used IBM PC-AT compatible, since those were the naming codes I remember from the Mac vs. PC rivalry in the late 80's/early 90's.

running OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

eh, read the fine print at apple's website. Jobs even said it on the keynote for ipod touch and iphone. apple is running a full osx on those pieces of hardware. it may not contain the same programs, but its the same OS.