Running Mac OS X On Standard PCs

ZDOne writes "ZDNet's reviews team have been tinkering with the various ways of running OS X on standard PCs. They found that with the right hardware components, a standard PC running Mac OS X Leopard is, at first sight, no different from a genuine Apple Mac. Special CPU extensions such as Intel VT-x provide support for software solutions like Parallels Desktop for Mac. Even Adobe Photoshop, which queries a Mac to verify its authenticity, runs fine on a standard PC thanks to EFI emulation. However the article points out that it's a pretty technical proposition to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware, beyond all but the most powerful power users. And then there is the legal question. Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard."

Comments

Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[CogDissident]

Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Mac does, in almost all areas.

I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, Where can I buy a PC that is as small and quiet as a Mac Mini or Apple TV?

There is currently, no such equivalent.

For now, I will stick to my Ubuntu running AppleTV. It has digital audio and video out, and casts $250.

But if you have a suggestion, go ahead.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

Powerful, maybe. But have you seen the video of those clones? It sounds like a jet taking off!

Apple has a big hole in their lineup, IMHO. That is the mid-sized tower... basically a headless iMac. Apple should just sell one - I don't think it would be too expensive... their other products compete quite well with similarly-spec'd PCs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[PenguSven]

if you think video framerate and cpu crunching is the only measure of "performance" for a computer you should go back to sleep.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Nursie]

yeah, that's one company's very cheap clone boxes.

If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly.

Of course they may not lose much in the way of business, as "shiny" seems to be one of the main reasons current customers buy Macs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Lumpy]

They dont want that nightmare. the PC can be a mishmash of really bad hardware. I have fixed many PC's by removing that new Winmodem or USB card that someone bought and installed themselves. Crap ram causing random crashes, and the 65,000 different motherboard makers some work some are crap (I'll never buy PCChips and MSI again) and attaching OSX to the non-stable world of PC is something that jobs and Apple does not want.

They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.

Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Corwn of Amber]

Okay, I'll bite.

17" silent-ish HP laptop : Eur 1000
17" PowerBook : Eur 2800

Eur 1800 Just for a working webcam? FUCK YOU, EXTORTIONIST PIECES OF SHIT! Like I haven't paid enough for that ssslllooowww MacMini G4 (Eur 500 at the time, worth 10 on flea market for equivalent perfs), then the over-overpriced MacBook (Eur 1400, worth 700 at Asus - again, for same perfs).

No, I've ponied up way too much more than enough at Apple stores to NEVER have ANY qualm whatsofuckingever to happily tell everyone I'd install OSX on their PC using my Kalyway install DVD if they'd just let me.
Just like I nailed my original WinXPProSP2 CD to the wall the day I discovered slipstreamed installs with VLKs that pass WGA. (Also after said CD, installed and verified, killed itself with the slow-self-destruct-feature that's called Windows Update.)

Apple hardware is NOT worth what it costs. Nowhere near. The higher the class the more exaggerated the price. How MUCH for a MacBook Air? Eur 1700 and it has no optical drive? BWAHAHAHAHA. Who ever bought one? Morons? And what about the MacPros? Eur 10,000 for an eight-core? I can make that for 4000 WITH a pair of 24" monitors AND a studio-class sound card AND wireless speakers. And better hard drives.

And install MacOSX on it.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[PenguSven]

well heres a quick one for ya.. show me a workstation with multiple firewire800 and firewire400 ports standard

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[EastCoastSurfer]

When Apple does an update, the MBs and MBPs are usually pretty competitive pricewise. The problem is that most people don't need all that a Pro has to offer and can get by with a $400 laptop. I'm on a SR MBP now, and when pricing dells or Lenovos with the same features they were always within $100-$200 of the mac.

The problem is that Apple doesn't lower the prices of their machines over time, so if the machine hasn't been updated in awhile then the value does indeed suck.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[BlueF]

Yet another reason to consider licensing specific HARDWARE. I require silent computing (with high performance as well). My custom built box cost 30-50% less than the equivalent Mac Pro, while running in my a silent case.
I own 3 copies of OS X (two mac mini's and a mac book, not to mention my iPhone). I wouldn't feel badly about running Leopard (OSx86)on my PC. Only wish there was a legal/supported way to do this!!

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried that back in the mid 90s. It didn't work so well from Apple's point of view.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

While he's at it, why don't you show me a Mac capable of running OS X that has DE-9 and DB-25 serial ports, and a DB-25 parallel port? Those USB adapters don't always cut it, depending on the device.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[canUbeleiveIT]

...and the 65,000 different motherboard makers some work some are crap (I'll never buy PCChips and MSI again)...

It seems to me that if you ask a hundred PC techs about which brands of MOBOs are best and worst, you get a hundred and five answers. Not that I'm promoting MSI or PCChips, but I've had just about every brand fail at too high a rate for my tastes.

I can't say that I've seen many Intel brand boards fail, but that may simply be that very few consumer-level computers have Intels inside (I know, bad joke).

I think that it speaks more to the industry overall, as well as to consumers who are concerned mostly with price. It certainly wasn't always this way, at least not when a good desktop cost as much as a decent used car. I finally recycled about thirty P2 IBM Intellistations with the MOBO manufactured in Ireland. Of those, not one ever had a bad board.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[aliquis]

Depends on when you buy them. Always buy just after a new modell are released and you get a decent deal. Better yet if you use some sort of student discount / ADC student membership / are a "real" ADC member / ...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[aliquis]

Which is why people should just use http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ live with it and stop complaining. Just wait until it updates and buy. Sure it sucks that Apple don't adjust prices, but there is nothing to do about it.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[FictionPimp]

Back about 6 or 7 years ago I built about 15 computers for a small company using amd processors and pc-chips boards (onboard sound, video, nic). As far as I know, they never had a problems (and I suspect if they did, they would of been calling me). HOPEFULLY they are not still using those machines. They were low-mid range at best when they were built, today they would be downright sad.

But they were rock solid.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[gobbo]

Ok, Where can I buy a PC that is as small and quiet as a Mac Mini This is a good point, relevant to the not-quite-low-end. I went to build out a very quiet Shuttle with similar specs to the mac mini; larger and not quite as silent, but with a desktop hard drive and jacks on the front where they belong. It was about the same price, and the mini seems really well-built; I had to skimp on some of the shuttle components. Plus, the mini could be mounted on the wall (SoHo server).

All-in-all, about the same price. Silence is Golden... literally.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[rinoid]

How can the mods o' the day mark the above post "Insightful" ??? ... when the author slips in a stupid retort claiming the main reason people buy an Apple product is due to its "shiny" factor.

What horse baloney. Get over the 18 year old arguments and see reality.

I suppose Mac sales are rising as they have been these past years simply due to the shiny factor.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[gEvil (beta)]

Admittedly this time around, they wouldn't be the sole providers of the R&D involved. In the era of PPC clones, Apple created the reference designs that Umax, PowerComputing, etc used in their machines. This time, it looks like Intel is the one providing the reference designs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Firehed]

I've been saying the same thing for years. I've accepted that it's just not going to happen, and that I really will need to cough up for the Mac Pro.

Yes, I too think it sucks.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Uncle Focker]

Or you could just save yourself the Mac premium and just use that extra money to purchase those as addons and still have a net gain in your pocket.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ArcherB]

well heres a quick one for ya..

show me a workstation with multiple firewire800 and firewire400 ports standard That's easy!

The one I built myself!

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[PenguSven]

you mean i could "save the mac premium" and buy the cards and hope to christ the company that makes them isn't going to disappear in 2 months, or that the drivers won't crash - insert os here - because they're written by a half-blind monkey on a chinese typewriter.
the "macs cost more" thing is a load of shit and you all know it. spec out a pc from a COMPANY (none of this home made frankenstein bullshit) and generally the stuff people harp on about (ie the macpro) comes out cheaper when configured the same.
and before you go on about "i want to build my own". fuck you. i don't. my time is precious, and expensive.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Nom du Keyboard]

Apple is a lot like Intel before AMD came along. The Intel mantra was, "You'll get your faster chips when we are ready to give them to you." Apple likes to time system upgrades to when Steve Jobs can introduce them at large, regularly scheduled, Apple gatherings. But improvements in the market march one regardless of the Apple timetable. How long did it take to get the excellent Nvidia 8800GT in your Apple system? How often is faster+cheaper+larger available from someone else? Will Apple ever sell a BluRay writer even though they were an early member of the BluRay camp? You get the idea.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[PenguSven]

see my above post.
oh and add an extra fuck you. when you build it yourself, nothing comes standard and nothing is guaranteed to work. and lets not forget the time. obviously yours isn't particularly important/expensive.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[maxume]

But that only means anything for those boards, at the point in their life cycle that you bought them. I pretty sure that major bugs get fixed (either directly, or buy discontinuing production) by pretty much every vendor, but they release so many products and keep them around for such a short amount of time that you need to evaluate each board, not each company.

That leaves room for companies being consistently good or bad, but that doesn't really seem to be the case (maybe consistently better or worse than average).

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[vasqzr]

Get out of here. Find a Mac Mini, iMac, or Power Mac from a manufacturer like Dell, Lenovo, Sony, HP. Match it spec for spec and have just as clean of a design.

Go ahead, I'll wait. You can't even get a dual quad from Dell for the same price as Apple.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[prestomation]

*Citation Needed*

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[JimDaGeek]

Apple has a big hole in their lineup... Yup. My feelings as well. I have an Intel iMac and an Intel MacBook. What I really want is a mid-tower that I can replace the graphics card in. The Mac Pro is too much money for my tastes. My iMac is almost perfect, except for the fact that the graphics card will get outdated for my needs and then my only option is to buy a new iMac or switch away from Mac OS.
Come on Apple, put out a mid-tower priced around $800-$1,000 and they will sell like crazy.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[dunkelfalke]

a scythe ninja cooler costs about 30 euros and is big enough to passive cool the lower end core 2 duo cpus.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[molarmass192]

No way that's right, first, purely semantics but the PowerBook is dead and gone, it's a MacBook Pro now. Compare the MBP with any other 2.6G Core2Duo laptop with a 17" screen and the difference is minimal. There's still an Apple "premium" but it's only a few hundred Euro/USD. On that note, Apple DOES charge far too much for it's products in Europe based on exchange rates. That's why my European co-workers always hit the Apple stores when they're over in the US, it's like getting a 30+% discount.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[kylehase]

I'm not a mac fanboy. I've never even owned a mac but I read an article some time ago comparing prices between a mac pro (workstation) and Dell precision (also a workstation) and the MAC came out the price winner. The article is a bit old but it's still interesting. Oh and it was written by Paul Thurrott, a Windows guy.

It's important, when comparing prices, to pick machines in the same class. Don't just compare CPU/RAM/HDD specs. I have a precision workstation and it's built like a tank compared to the dimension line.

It would be very easy to buy the cheapest ECS motherboard, no-name power supply and generic case then slap in a quad core Xeon, lots of cheap RAM and a high capacity value hard drive and try to pass it off as "similar" to less technical customers.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

Closest Dell i can build to a Mac mini ($799 version with DVD burner) includes a 2.4GHz processor, compared to Apple's 2.0, and a 500GB drive to apple's 160 (the Dell HDD is slower though, but either could be easily replaced cheap). The Dell is $759 + $149 for OS X, + $79 for iLife. ie, the Dell costs WAY more. This is a part for part match, as close as can be done. (Inspiron 530s). It's nowhere near as small and doesn't include a wireless remote or media sharing support. If I drop to a lower end Dell unit. the only way to go cheaper is to go to a Celeron, which would NOT compete at all.

As for a iMac, Looking at the 20" $1499 model, and comparing it's base config to a Dell XPS One, in a 20", the processor in the Dell is only an E6550 (2.33GHz), and doesn't compare to Apple's 2.66, the dell uses the slower and less powerful G33 chipset, and even with the best video card it can get (Radeon 2400) it can't compete with Apple's 2600 Pro graphics. Same RAM, Same HDD, and all configured, the Dell is MORE THAN $600 HIGHER IN PRICE, and that's before adding OS X and iLife to it's config! Even the lower end model Dell running on a 2.2GHz processor with no dedicated graphics is STILL more expensive, even before adding OS X.

A desktop compared to the iMac 20" you say? - Best I can configure is a Dell 420 desktop. including the graphic upgrade to the 8800GT (slightly better than the 2600Pro from Apple, but not a lot) and it comes with 3GB of RAM, but guess what, it's $1499 configured that way. It's the same price as the Apple, until you considder it's still missing a remote, uses more power, makes more noise, is not an all-in-one, and add OS X and iLife to it and you're over the mac's price by more than $200 again. Oh, no firewire either...

Every Dell to Mac comparrison I've made in nearly a year, the Dell costs more when you factor in Wireless N, Bluetooth, hard disk performance and size, video performance,screen resolution, and software equivolents. I did 2 others yesterday for the MacBook pro 17" and 15" compared to 3 different Dell machines, Apple was cheaper and had more components, and was lighter and had 2-4 times the battery life in all cases.

Power of the CPU is not a comparrison at all. The CPU and mainboard can easily be compared between 2 models and could very well be faster on Dell's side, since THEY USE THE SAME PARTS. However, add HDD performance, 3D rendering capability, and connectivity options, and Dell falls apart on price. Try editing a video, or running a lenghty photoshop render on a Dell and on a Mac. At the same price point, Adobe states clearly, you can NOT beat Apple's price/performance figures.

With Apple buying Intel and common name brand parts now, but having FAR lower support costs (fewer helpdesk calls vs microsoft OS by FAR!), simpler service logistics, a simplified model line-up, the other guys can't compete on price.

Dell outsold Apple last year nearly 4:1 on hardware. Apple's PC division had higher profits than Dell. If Apple ever really feels threatend on price, they can sell systems at BELOW Dell's cost and still make proffit.

Oh, and a word about support. Even if you can find a mcahine from Dell, HP, gateway, etc, that can compete with a mac on performance, including the cost of OS and typical application software, who supports it? Some friggin guy in India? ...and he's not going to know shit about OS X and Apple won;t help you either since it's not licensed legally. Apples' support is not only US based, but you also have walk-in access to Apple Stores, where most systems can be repaired right on their bench with in-stock parts, including Apple notebooks. (they might have to order a part, but 1 way shipping and on-site repair is a LOT faster than getting Dell to come to your house 2 days from now, find out your notebook really is broken, then tell you it has to be shipped to Dell and Back and it will take 6-8 days. A 2 week turnaround on repair is not acceptable. 3 days is bad enough on Apple's side of the fence, and I don't have to learn a foreign accent to get help!

by the By, Apple's macBook Pro is still the fastest machine running Vista on the market under $3500... and thats for their $2700 machine.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[AusIV]

Why do I want multiple Firewire ports standard? I don't have a single thing that uses Firewire. If I did (and one port weren't sufficient), I can buy a PCI(e) or PCMCIA card.

The thing with Apple is that they tend to give you everything you might need up front, rather than keeping costs low and letting you upgrade to the things you need. Sure, if you start with the Mac pro as your base and bring up other systems to match, the Mac pro may be less expensive, but I'd probably have everything I needed on a PC well before its specs rivaled that of a Mac pro.

As far as your argument on an sibling post about poor drivers and companies going under: if you buy the cheapest cards on the market this might be a concern, but you can buy expansion cards from reputable companies. Many OEMs (Dell, Hp, etc.) offer various expansion cards. I would expect their expansion cards work well with the systems they build, and these companies have five times as many sales as apple, so I don't see them going under any time soon.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[bhtooefr]

Will Mini-DIN-8 on the serial ports do? (And, Mac printers tended to be serial.)

If so, I do believe the PowerMac G4s can run OS X (10.5, even,) and have serial ports.

No Mac has EVER had parallel ports, though.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mini me]

Perhaps PCs cost 1/2 as much as the Mac does because of the added cost of OS X? The boxed version for $129 is just the upgrade version. Who knows what the "full" version costs. I'm guessing it's in line with what Windows costs; in the $400 range. However, in the case of Windows, Microsoft will give away the OEM version for essentially nothing so that cost isn't passed on to the hardware like it is with the Mac.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[loony]

If your time is so precious, why do you spend so much of it on insults?

Seriously though, the only time a mac beats an HP or Dell on price is in the edge cases - macbook air, fully loaded 8core workstation and so on. But that's not what most people buy. They want the imac, the regular macbook. That's where the volume is and that's where Apple takes their premium.

Peter.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Mac does, in almost all areas. I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home

Allow me to add perspective to your largely correct assertion:

Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Sony does, in almost all areas. I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home

You can buy a cheap, low reliability system with the features other than CPU stripped out for less than a machine with lots of features designed for real users who do more than run a folding@home farm in the basement. When you compare machines based upon all their specs, including reliability, Apple is pretty much in line with other premium vendors who come close to the same levels of features and reliability based upon independent testing like Consumer Reports.

In short, Apple offers reasonable prices on their hardware, they just don't have a wide selection of hardware compared to all other hardware vendors combined. As a result, if you're looking for a machine to meet your specific needs (like headless folding@home servers), you will probably be able to find something more exactly suited to your needs elsewhere and may save money by not paying for features that you don't need.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

I think your opinion would change if you would try to build a Dell to the same spec as just about any Apple model. The Apple is always competitive and sometimes even cheaper.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[John Harrison]

The solution is simple. Run in a VM. In fact, require it.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been widely reported that two of the top three factors that influence people who have never before owned a Mac to buy one are appearance (of the hardware) and "look and feel" of the OS. (The third is "ease of use").

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MobyDisk]

Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Mac does, in almost all areas. Not according to any reviews I've ever found. For example, this month's Popular Mechanics comparison pits a PC and a Mac at the exact same price, and the Mac blows it away.

You will find this to be consistent. I bought my MacBook Pro after reading the review in the December issue of Laptop magazine where the regular MacBook was the price/performance king in the home/office category. I personally priced a Dell, an AlienWare, and an Apple. The AlienWare was the cheapest (despite the reputation they have, AlienWare laptops are very price competitive in the high-end), Apple was the next by about $100, and the Dell was over $1000 more expensive. I went with the Apple because it was half the weight of the Alienware and because the Alienware came with Vista.

The reason Apple has this reputation is because they don't sell cheap computers. You can compare an $1800 PC with an $1800 Mac: but you can't compare a $500 PC to a $500 Mac because Apple doesn't sell to that market.

* Note: In defense of PC manufacturers, they are crippled recently because Vista is making their benchmarks look terrible. When they compare the Mac's running XP to PC's running XP, the OS X advantage goes away and the results are nearly identical at the same price.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

$400 laptop? bukllshit... I can't get by on a $400 desktop, not even including a monitor.

"Most People" buying a machine today work with digital photos, have a camcorder, want to be able to burn DVDs, want to play music while working, want to keep a web browser, e-mail, and at least 1 other application running. ANYONE buying a machine today that doesn't have dedicated graphics at some level (even if soldered onboard) is buying a throw-away machine. Anything with Vista and less than 2GB or RAM is also pretty useless once you add the overhead of security software to your load.

I have a Core 2 HP Notebook, 5400RMP 120GB drive, 965 chipset graphics, 1GB of Ram, and Vista Home Prem on a machine i use for work. It was a 4900 machine. My wife's 2.5 year old gateWay AMD 64 notebook runs CIRCLES around it. I've optimized every setting in vista that's available to tweak, I've gone through every one of the 140 services, performance settings, background tasks, and more, and it still takes longer to do anything on this PoS than any older machine I have running.

A $400 notebook? for anything beyond runnign XP home, cheap antivirus, and e-mail, there's no way. A Celeron notebook in that price range can barely handle Java apps without stuttering, faulters on You Tube, and runs out of resources scanning documents. I can't even imaging trying to open 8MP images and try even simple editing tasks on one, even under XP...

Apple doesn't sell machines in that price range for a reason. Their machines are designed to be home entertainment and personal systems for photo, movie, and music use. If they made anything less powerful than the Mini, half their own software would exceed the hardware capabilities. Same goes for a PC.

Apple is basically Vista ultimate, with a few other bells and whistles on top. Can you imagine running ultimate on anythingless than a $1000 notebook or $800 desktop? Microsoft won't even allow ultimate to be pre-installed on a system that doesn't have dedicated graphics and 2GB or RAM... The cheapest Dell with Ultimate as a configurable option is over $800...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X... I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt.

I agree Apple's hardware can stand on its own merits. Their OS, however, cannot. The desktop OS market is monopolized and as such, entering directly into it is a lost cause. It doesn't matter if OS X is superior to Windows because MS's monopoly can introduce artificial problems with OS X by making it incompatible with 90% of OS's in use. As such, Apple realistic choices are to tie their OS and hardware sales together, or abandon their OS and stop developing it.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[bhtooefr]

Well, there was a time that PC Chips didn't have a good model in their lineup - so if you got a good PC Chips board, it was THAT SPECIFIC SERIAL NUMBER that was good.

There was a time even earlier that PC Chips sold boards with generic chipsets branded with name brands, fake cache, etc., etc. Back then, they were outright fradulent.

So, a modern PC Chips board is an EXCELLENT board compared to the crap they were pushing out back in the 1990's. But, I'd still prefer something like an ASRock for that price range, just because the stuff they've done in the past does leave a bad taste in someone's mouth.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[0100010001010011]

Just like Apple would NEVER switch to X86.

Also reminds me of this classic quote: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.", hindsight is 20/20

Not that I think it will happen, but never is a long time.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[failedlogic]

I don't know about selling like "crazy" but it will certainly sell very well with the more enthusiast and advanced users. The mac Minis in the same price range aren't selling like crazy because they are severely handicapped.

I have a PPC iMac and I'm really not liking it. The USB ports don't work (save for one) ditto the firewire ports. I'd rather they make it easier to expand a system internally than add stuff outside the case. Screw aesthetics. I don't care. I ended up getting a better CD/DVD burner (the Superdrive is utter crap) on my desk and two external FW HDDs. So the desk real estate is about the same as a tower would take up anyways. So much for the space saving aesthetics.

I was about to trade in my PPC iMac and get a Mini but then I remembered it blows. Everything else is overpriced. And the Mac Pro - $3 grand .... no thanks! I might just get a trade in credit to the only appealing Apple product a: a 20" Apple monitor as it has the IPS pannel. I think I will very well consider a shiny new PC to run Leopard on. I only really need 3 Apps for my Mac which aren't on the PC and help my workflow.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Divebus]

First, go to the Dell web site and spec out a machine like the 8 core MacPro 3.2GHz. Apple Retail = $4,399. Dell T7400 = $6,338. (Don't forget the 512MB GeForce 8800 equivalent). Does the Dell have two independent 1.6 GHz busses or just one? I can't tell from the specs. The Mac Pro has two.

Second, look at how you install hardware in the two of them, like drives. The Dell is a rat's nest. The Mac Pro has carriers that slide the SATA drive straight into the logic board. No cables. The hardware certainly feels a lot better.

If I could get the equivalent performance and reliability from a commodity PC for less money, it might be worth it. Comparing new Macs and new PCs tells me that isn't going to happen with this generation of equipment.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[wootest]

Right, but look and feel doesn't necessarily equal "shiny" to everyone.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Abjifyicious]

Fair enough, but many people fail to take the extra features into account when doing this kind of comparison. Yeah, you might be able to get a laptop as fast as a MacBook for half as much, but does that laptop come with

- integrated webcam
- 802.11n
- bluetooth
- ~five hour battery life
- gigabit ethernet
- built in microphone
- firewire
- standard AND optical audio output AND input
- IR support with remote included free

etc.

In the informal comparisons I've done, they come out about even when you include all the extra stuff that Macs come with. Obviously, not everyone needs all those things, so maybe for some people it's not the best choice, but that doesn't mean that Macs aren't a good value for the money.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

No. Laptop hard drive alone kills it for me.

And I've now had two consecutive Macs with flaky firewire ports, and thus have had two consecutive Macs with 3nd party cards in them.

I typically keep a Mac for about 5 years, so I like to be able to expand hard drives and optical drives and memory as time goes on. All of these things are restricted rather heavily on the Mini. For some, video would probably kill it as well.

I suppose you could argue that I could buy 2 or 3 minis for the price of a single Pro in the same 5 years - and that may be a valid point. But the hard drive still sucks :)

I might consider a Mini for my wife, though.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

Why get a headless iMac? they're more than powerful enough for everything but hard core gaming (they Play WoW in very nice resolutions and great framerates on those 20 and 24" screens). You can upgrade the RAM and HDD easy enough, and you can get an external Blu-ray player later this summer (when Apple finally announces OS X bul-ray support).

If you need more power, the Mac Pro is only a couple of hundred bucks more... A $1000-$1600 mac mini-tower line would not significantly add to their options. You can get a system at any price from $599 to $3500 in $200-300 bumps. Sure, you can't just swap out the CPU or mainboard, but if you want to do that, you're doing it to play video games and improve graphic performance, in which case OS X is not for you.

In another year or so when Apple restakes a claim in the games market, with help from EA and others, then i might concede your point, but I have a feeling OS X will be sold on a shelf for PC hardware anyway before that time happens.

Reme,mber, part of Apple's package is a simple model line-up. If they start complicating that with customizable machine at a mid-market price poiint, their costs will spiral internally, and drive up the cost of all their other systems.

For video editing, photo work, music, and 95% of the tasks that people buying a mac want one for, over 3-5 years software requirements don't change much. They might need some ram, and some extra HDD space, but everything else besides high level 3D horsepower can be added externally for cheap. If you WANT high end graphics, try comparing a Mac Pro to a high end Dell or Alienware desktop and guess what you'll find: The apple is cheaper and more configurable anyway...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[0100010001010011]

After some more reading, here are my favorites.

* Apple will release a tablet
* Apple will release a new PDA
* Apple will release a cell phone
* Apple will move to Intel chips

The same damn rumors keep popping up over and over and over and over and over again. Enough already. If I was Jobs, I'd swear never to do any of the four just to piss people off.

While I will agree that there is little a PPC can do that a x86 can't currently do - besides run Mac software at the moment - the likelihood of Apple using x86 chips as their central CPUs is just ludicrous. If this happened, Apple would need to provide support for two seperate code bases in the x86 and the PPC realm. This means two versions of Final Cut Pro, two versions of Xcode, two versions of Motion, etc. This will alienate their current base of customers and serve to wreck what little momentum they have gained in the PC arena.
This is simply a shot across the bow of IBM; you'll NEVER see the x86 version of MacOS X.

- Microsoft might actually not want to release office at all.

This is simply a shot across the bow of IBM; you'll NEVER see the x86 version of MacOS X.

'Analysts' have been predicting this for years, saying its cheaper, more flexable, etc. Apple has too buch invested PPC, if Apple switched to x86 EVERY program on the current platform that is optimized for PPC would have to be reworked to run on x86. That and Apple has too much of a proformace advantage with the G5. Congrats on predicting the future Slashdot.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[NemosomeN]

"And have just as clean of a design." Translation: "I am free to reject any evidence as invalid." The Mac premium is mostly for style, therefore any alternative should be considered cheaper, primarily, because it lacks style.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

or I could argue you could get 2 iMacs in the same time instead of 1 Pro, and in that case the HDD is user replaceable as well as supporting dedicated video. I hate to say it, but even if the screen didn't meet your needs in the future, you can use an external via DVI port and disable the internal screen (or better yet use 2 side by side)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[sabre3999]

You should look around at stuff in the ITX form factor. They're hella small and insanely quiet. They mostly come with processors of the VIA flavor, in speeds of about 1GHz. However, if you really need something that small, you most likely don't need super awesome hardware. Pricing isn't bad either. I've seen fully-built systems for around $300-$350. IMO, you can't find a better option for the flexibility offered.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

I'm a little confused by your post.

My primary machine is a 4 year old Dell notebook. It plays Youtube just fine, handles Java, scans, prints, and edits photos (using Gimp) like a champ.
(It doesn't run OS X, due to a lack of CPU instructions (no SSE3, though I hear that there's a patch to get that working.)

Looking over the laptops at bestbuy.com, the ones that cost $500 are generally superior or equal to my notebook in every dimension[0]. Bump it up to $600, and you can find plenty of notebooks that are better in every way[0].

Heading over to Dell, $500 gets you roughly the same specs as the notebooks at bestbuy.com. Don't like the Celeron? Bump up the cost $50 and you don't have to have one.

If I could find any actual $400 notebooks, I would compare those specs, but such beasts don't seem to exist outside of sales, and I can't find any sales right now for them. I'm not the person to whom you were replying, anyway, so it's not like $400 was my claim. But it doesn't look hard to find notebooks with prices approaching that that are more than suitable for the tasks you're talking about.

[0] Except for screen resolution, but then, Macs have pretty crappy options for this, too.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[maxume]

My last couple of computers have come from "Dell" and "Lenovo" (that's in 10 years), so I haven't worried a great deal about what was inside (the more recent one is a laptop, so even less worrying about what is inside).

I might end up building a computer to stick by my TV, if I did, I would happily pay $100 more for the basic assurance that it would work out of the box, messing around replacing a defective board isn't worth $100 to me.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[jedidiah]

This is of course a false premise.

Quite often you don't need the "same spec".

Thus, the mini is overpriced for anyone that isn't interested in small & quiet.

The same goes for any Mac with a PCI slot.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[nine-times]

Of course, not only would they be facing the risk of whether their hardware can stand on its own merits, but it'll also require Apple to support additional hardware-- and in some cases, crappy hardware, poorly designed hardware, or hardware where the vendors have done a horrible job writing the drivers.

I'm not a Microsoft fan, but it is true that a fair amount of the instability comes from crappy drivers. Linux overcomes this by using (mostly) open source drivers and not the manufacturer's proprietary drivers. (ironic, right?) Apple overcomes this by controlling most of the hardware/drivers themselves.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

You really hit the nail on the head.

When Apple does an update, they tend to be using top-of-the-line, bleeding edge hardware. When you compare a freshly-updated MBP to other notebooks, the price/performance ratio is usually in Apple's favor, or very, very close to it. Apple makes their profits when parts prices fall, because they keep their prices the same. Near the end of a product's refresh cycle, Apple products look like horrible deals. Near the beginning, they're quite competitive. Unfortunately, people tend to remember the bad and spout off their vitriol even when the Apple machine is a perfectly good deal.

And then, as you alluded, there's the issue of options. With Apple, you just don't get very many. Even though OS X would probably run fine on a budget notebook, Apple doesn't offer budget products. It probably works in their favor--companies usually have fairly slim margins on their budget lines, and there are plenty of people who buy Apple computers simply to get OS X.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[apt-get moo]

Powerful, maybe. But have you seen the video of those clones? It sounds like a jet taking off! Replacing the coolers and fans and mounting them in a way which avoids unnecessary vibrations would set you back something around 50 bucks, probably less.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[credd144az]

I would also argue that Apple provides better service (than PC makers), in general, and better community support (except maybe linux). That has to be worth something.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[jedidiah]

...a mac mini is twice the price of it's uglier competitors.

It uses more expensive storage components and has no expansion slots.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[neoform]

What would be the harm then, to allow people to install OSX on 3rd party hardware, but without support..?

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[NormalVisual]

On the other hand, let's also see what a replacement parts costs comparison between all those machines looks like. My G4-400DP sits idle in the corner because I can get a new desktop machine for LESS than what the replacement Apple power supply costs. (Hey Apple - thanks for that goddamned proprietary 28VDC line in there to support the harebrained ADC hardware instead of just putting a power supply in my display) I can't imagine the current Power Mac parts costs are much better. I might also point out that the G4 is the *only* desktop I've ever owned that's eaten a power supply.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Dana W]

Its nice to call Apple and get a call center in the US, not in Bangalore India.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[jedidiah]

> You can buy a cheap, low reliability system with the features other than CPU stripped out

This is just Apple fanboy BS.

The Mac is just another x86 PC now. It's not even something made distinct by using
a different microprocessor architecture. A Mac has all the same sorts of parts that
a PC would. It's the same "random colleciton of spare parts" that any PC. The only
difference is that there is a very short list of Apple produced combinations.

It's the same guts, the same audio chips, the same northbridge chips and so on.

The same guts are being bought from the same 3rd party suppliers and just being
put into a prettier case.

Other PC's can and do stand the test of time.

Places like ebay are hip deep with such machines that have outlived their working life intact.

An IBM 945 is the same whether or not it comes in a machine with an Apple logo on it or a Dell logo.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

It's usually pretty hard to configure a machine with identical specs to the Apple, but I did my best.

Apple MBP $1999
Dell Inspiron 1525 $1428.
The Dell is missing dedicated graphics, includes 50GB more hard drive space, and has a higher capacity battery.

Apple MBP $1999
Dell XPS M1530 $1602
Dell has 50GB more hard drive space, higher capacity battery, and a fingerprint reader. Otherwise, as far as I can see, the specs are identical.

When this line of MBPs came out, they were competitive. But Apple won't drop their prices as components decrease in price (it's where they make the bulk of their money!) while Dell does. So right now, you can get an equivalent Dell for almost $400 less than the MBP, and it's got better specs in a couple of areas.

Of course, whether or not this is competitive is pretty subjective.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ubuwalker31]

Try an Asus Eee PC. It is small and silent. It wouldn't be a good choice for running a DVR though.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[pisto_grih]

I'd wager its more to do with the ipod halo effect. i.e "wow, my mp3 player looks awesome, and its really easy to use. I wonder what Apple's desktops are like?" ... "wow, my iMac looks awesome, and its really easy to use (and it doesn't get viruses, and doesn't come loaded with a shitload of bloatware, and it works, and, and, and ..." apologies, this fanboi's head just exploded.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Eccles]

The problem isn't the comparison for specific designs, it's getting the machine that fits a typical slashdotter. Say I want a quad core machine with 8800GT-level video. What's the cheapest Mac that reaches those specs? $2449, by my check. What's the cheapest Dell? I've priced ~$600 for a decent configuration without the card, add another $150 for it. Power Macs are great when you need the full expansion, but for most users they're overkill.

If I want a small form factor and don't care about 3-D graphics, the Mac Mini is great, the best small form factor machine out there (save possibly the AppleTV.) The notebooks also seem more price-competitive.

But they definitely could use Blu-Ray now.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Dana W]

No, the $129 is not a "upgrade" version. When I bought Leopard I loaded it onto a blank drive. "We don't need to go though all that activation nonsense either" OS X Leopard. One version, one price. $129. The only other version is Server. There is no such thing as a Leopard upgrade version. If you don't know, Don't FUD.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mr_mischief]

"Appearance of the hardware" is about as important as "shiny", even if "shiny" isn't the part of the appearance of the hardware people are concerned about. If it's ugly and it works, stick it under your desk instead of showing it off on top.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[KillerBob]

The Dell is $759 + $149 for OS X, + $79 for iLife

You lost credibility here. If you're going to add $225 for retail copies of OS/X and iLife to your comparison, then you need to add $250 to your costs on the Apples, to cover the copy of Windows Vista that it doesn't come with. Whether you actually use it or not is irrelevant, it's a question of comparing like for like.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mini me]

Of course you don't need to activate it. They already know you bought the "full" version of OS X when you bought your Mac.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mr_mischief]

No. There's the part about "decent specs".

The Mac Mini is great for an office desktop maybe, but for a home PC or any serious graphics work I'm going to need better graphics and quite possibly more storage.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[WaroDaBeast]

including the graphic upgrade to the 8800GT (slightly better than the 2600Pro from Apple, but not a lot) I beg to differ: the 8800 GT has roughly four times more bandwidth than the 2600 Pro. Don't forget that, after all, the former uses a 256 bit memory interface.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mr_mischief]

If you have a higher-end later-model G4 then it'll run Leopard. My 500Mhz AGP graphics Mac is stuck on Tiger. 500Mhz on a G4 is a serious amount of computing power for its day, but its day seems to be past.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mr_mischief]

Show me a mainstream peripheral that uses firewire800. Plenty of PC machines have firewire400, but most peripherals stop at 400 or use USB2 instead.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Dana W]

I was going to say, when I build someone a desktop, "meaning I couldn't talk them into a Mac" I insist on MSI. Never had a bad one, not even during that year or so of bad caps.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Rafe_Aguilera]

Similarly fully spec'd machines from Apple and Dell are around $1,000 apart:
Dell Precision T7400 vs. Apple Mac Pro:
2x Quad Core Xeon 3.2 Ghz
32 GB of RAM
4x 1 TB HDD
DVDRW drive
nVidia 1.5 GB Quadro 5600
No monitors
No other addons
3 year AppleCare or Dell 3 year 4 HR on-site 24x7
Dell: $17,231
Apple: $18,248

Yes, there is an Apple premium. Always has been, and always will be.

But honestly, only someone who has no concerns about final build cost buys extra memory and hard drives from Apple (or even Dell to be honest) since companies tend to charge some fairly heavy markups on those upgrades. As a note, both charged the same price for the Quadro, $2,850

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mr_mischief]

I can build a PC in less time than you spend insulting people on Slashdot in day from what I can tell.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ArcherB]

They dont want that nightmare. the PC can be a mishmash of really bad hardware. I have fixed many PC's by removing that new Winmodem or USB card that someone bought and installed themselves. Crap ram causing random crashes, and the 65,000 different motherboard makers some work some are crap (I'll never buy PCChips and MSI again) and attaching OSX to the non-stable world of PC is something that jobs and Apple does not want.

They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.

Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight. What's stopping Apple from saying, "OK. We are releasing OSX for $200 that you can install on any PC you wish. We have posted a HCL on our website. While it no longer requires Apple hardware to run, if you wish to receive support from Apple, you MUST RUN IT ON APPLE HARDWARE! For non-Apple hardware, may we direct you to our user-run forums. Thank you, and have a nice day."

Hell, Apple could even sell support contracts to pad their wallets a bit further if they thought it would be profitable.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[zerocool^]

I'll bite:

Apple:
        * Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Harpertown" processors
        * 2GB memory (800MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
        * ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT graphics with 256MB memory
        * 320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
        * 16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,799
add 3 year warranty, $3,048

Dell:
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5440 (2.83GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5440 (2.83GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
3 Year Limited Hardware Warranty with Next Business Day On-Site Service
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290, Dual Monitor DVI Capable
2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS)
16X DVD+/-RW w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD(TM) and Roxio Creator(TM) Dell Ed
320GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive
$3,973

Waaay more expensive to go to dell.

Apple laptop:
# MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
# 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 200GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
# SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# 2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
$2,499

Dell:
Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo Processor T8300 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB, 3MB Cache) edit
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition edit
High Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LCD(1440x900) & 2MP Camera edit
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms) edit
Size: 250GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive edit
Slot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write) edit
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT edit
Dell Wireless 1395 802.11g Mini Card edit
Finger Print Reader XPS M1530 edit

$1,374

Better graphics card, and way cheaper at dell.

If you're willing to skip the dvd writer and use an intel graphics card, from dell you can get one with 3GB of ram, and it's $999.

~X

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Drawsalot]

You need to ask what exactly you want an expansion slot for? Other than graphics, the Mac has it already. Anything else can be added via USB. Specialty card users would be better served by a more expandable Mac.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ArcherB]

see my above post.

oh and add an extra fuck you. when you build it yourself, nothing comes standard and nothing is guaranteed to work. and lets not forget the time. obviously yours isn't particularly important/expensive. Well, that's where you are wrong. When I build a PC, it is guaranteed to work. If it doesn't, I find that part that is causing the failure and I exchange it for a working part. It's really not that big of a deal.

And time? I can plan, purchase and build a PC in about 3 hrs. One of those hours is spent in Fry's buying the parts (which is also where I do most of my planning). 20 minutes to drive it all home and rest is assembly and OS installation. It would take me at least two hours to find a PC that does most what I want and compare that one to the rest of them. So, that extra hour or two saves me about $1000. How much do YOU make an hr? I doubt it's $500.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The Mac is just another x86 PC now. It's not even something made distinct by using a different microprocessor architecture.

I see so all x86 hardware is exactly the same. A computer from HP that has twice the failure rate in the first year as a machine from Lenovo is in no way distinct and we should all ignore the individual specs and reliability ratings of hardware. Do you happen to work for Dell?

The only difference is that there is a very short list of Apple produced combinations.

Every hardware vendor sells a very short list of combinations. Apple actually sells more variations than several companies with much larger market share than they have (such as Asus).

It's the same guts, the same audio chips, the same northbridge chips and so on.

Some vendors, such as Sony and Lenovo buy only hardware that meets certain standards. To them a 250Gb hard drive from one vendor and another are very different things. To other vendors, such as Dell's desktop division, a 250Gb hard drive is the same as all the others and they'll buy whoever is selling the cheapest one today, regardless of how often they fail or how long they last. They don't test it extensively and often you don't even know what will be in the machine you get (and it may not be the same across all the machines you buy at the same time). This cuts the price, but it also makes for a crappier machine.

My post was pointing out that if you compare Apple to vendors who have similar (even up to 50% worse) failure rates, you'll find very little difference in price as several reputable reviewers have pointed out. Buy a subscription to Consumer Reports already.

Other PC's can and do stand the test of time.

Some do and some don't. The ones that are significantly cheaper than Apple, tend to be the ones that don't.

An IBM 945 is the same whether or not it comes in a machine with an Apple logo on it or a Dell logo.

Yeah it is. But Lenovo machines are actually similar in price to Apple machines. They also have different power supplies hard drives, USB controllers, Webcams, and hundreds of other parts. If you buy a machine with quality parts, you pay for it, whether that is an Apple or a Sony or a Lenovo.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[rsborg]

Apple MBP $1999
Dell XPS M1530 $1602
Dell has 50GB more hard drive space, higher capacity battery, and a fingerprint reader. Otherwise, as far as I can see, the specs are identical.

The first comparison doesn't count because discrete graphics is a huge upgrade (no graphics intensive gaming without it).

You fail to mention that:

1. OSX has better battery management than Windows, so "battery capacity" is subjective.
2. The quality of the hardware components are not identical
3. You don't mention which OS the Dell is configured with... I would put OSX somewhere between Vista Ultimate or the XP "Upgrade"... which probably adds some $$ to your dell comparisons.

.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sentry21]

You forgot my favorite:

No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame. If you go back and read the Slashdot article about the original iPod, more than half the comments are talking about how Apple will fail and go out of business, and there's no market for it, it sucks, it's too expensive, only Macheads will want them, only fanboys will buy them, and so on.

Suckers.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ChrisA90278]

"similarly powerful"? By you logic an old 1960's VW Bug is "similarly powerful" to a new BMW because both get you to work in the same amount of time.

There is something in the physical design that Apple gets right. One of them is the lack of fan noise and in the case of mini and imac the very low power consummed.

Why would anyone ever buy new car when they could pick up a "similarly powerful" for maybe $2K.

The answer is easy. They just like having nice stuff and for many people $10K or $20K more i not a big deal.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sentry21]

They give you everything you need up front because most people don't want to say 'Oh, does my computer have that? How do I get it? What do I need to install to buy it? How do I do that?'

The $10 they might save on not adding the firewire port would cost consumers between $30-80, plus installation at $100/hr for most users because they're too afraid to open their computers for fear of damaging something (which they would probably do).

I'm glad that every Mac I get has Firewire and USB. The port hardly costs them a reasonable amount to add, and it means that I know what my Mac can do, and what all future Macs can do. Unlike with Dell, I know I can buy hardware now for my iMac that will work with the next laptop I get; no more picking laptops based on which one has bluetooth and which one has firewire, and which one has both but doesn't cost a thousand dollars more than I want to spend.

There are great benefits in uniformity between product lines, because when someone asks me what kind of external hard drive to get, I only have to ask them what kind of computer they have ('Macbook', 'Power Mac', 'Powerbook', 'iMac') and sometimes how old it is, and I know what their system supports. Macbook? Great, I'll put together a firewire drive for you. iMac G3? A network share would probably be faster than USB 1.1, so let's grab a NAS; then when you finally replace your crappy old computer with a new one, you can share to both.

With a Dell, it's more along the lines of 'What kind of computer do you have? Dell laptop? Which model? What options? Did you get the bluetooth? Does it have firewire?' Consumers don't want to answer those questions.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sentry21]

While historically that's true, lately Apple has taken to doing quiet refreshes pretty much whenever. The new revised 8-core Mac Pro, for example, was released a week before the Macworld Expo. Why not wait a week? Well, why wait?

The huge upgrades tend to wait, sure, but basic speed increases are pretty common nowadays.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

Why get a headless iMac? I already have a screen, and it is nicer than what they sell in the iMac.

I also want some PCI slots to replace the (in my experience) flaky Firewire ports that Apple ships in its machines.

If they start complicating that with customizable machine at a mid-market price poiint, their costs will spiral internally, and drive up the cost of all their other systems. They sold mid/high-end desktops for years. My last 2 boxes were 1800-2000 Apple systems. Their cheapest machine with slots is now at $1000 more than that!

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[CogDissident]

The only reason for this is that Dell has an extra 50-80% markup for all their "gaming quality" systems. A lot of time you can find the same builds in their business-class section and they're mysteriously 1000$ cheaper, and the only thing they lack is a video card. Its not a fair comparison because of the dell markup to gaming-rigs only.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

Right, but this illustrates my point... that the Pro is too high-end. I don't WANT to spend $2700 plus upgrades over the next 5 years. I want to spend maybe $1800, like I did for a 68040 back in 1993, a G3 in 1998, and a G5 in 2004...

It seems that I still have a year or so on my G5 by my previous history, so it's not critical yet... but I'd really like a tower.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MBGMorden]

Indeed, there are no PC equivalents. Therefore Apple should just liscense out the OS and people should still buy the Mac Mini in droves because it's small, low power, and quiet.

OR, they may be afraid of the truth: that a huge number of consumers buy the Mini because it's the cheapest Mac and given the option would be a slightly larger, louder, but faster tower in a heartbeat?

It's weird how zealots will claim that Apple's hardware is the be-all and end-all of computing equipment but simultaneously declare that licensing OS X to third parties would destroy Apple.

The truth is that Apple makes a wonderful OS. Their hardware is stylish, overpriced, and has too many gaps in their lineup. Licensing OS X probably would result in a dramatic drop in Apple hardware sales simply because: Apple's hardware is not market competitive. On equal footing, with the same software, many fewer people would buy their machines.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Dana W]

Not really. OSx86 anyone? Its a full install, that works with a blank drive and a new machine. unlike a store bought Windows upgrade that will only install if it sees a previous version of the OS. In no way is it an "upgrade" OS disk in the present sense of the word. "Note, I have a Macbook Pro" though I want to build a Hackintosh at some point just for the fun of it.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

This is of course a false premise. I think I may have made my point badly.

My point was not the usual "Apple isn't overpriced" bit. My point is that when Apple decides to get into a market, they are price-competitive. You are 100% correct that Apple's lineup has holes in it, including for me. I've always bought their $1800-2000 desktop, and they don't sell one anymore.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

"You should look around at stuff in the ITX form factor."

I did look about 8 months ago. I tried to put together a system as small, quiet and with nearly equivalent features as a Mini. I couldn't do it at the same price point. Anything above 1Ghz and a fan is required. Heat seek cases were expensive. Adding a low profile CD/DVD ROM added extra bucks. And matching the size of the Mini was a challenge too.

I finally decided to get a used PPC version of the Mini on e-bay, I slapped OpenBSD on it and it is now doing its special-purpose task nice and quiet and I love the small foot-print.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ParanoidJanitor]

It depends on what you're going to use said small and quiet computer for. If it's just web browsing and other low-powered tasks, the damn small linux developers sell pre-installed computers about the size of a wii that are completely silent and all $200-$450. If it's something more high-powered, look for barebone systems with small form factors (Shuttle has some good stuff in the $500-$700 range.)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

'Tis true, but that's $50 closer to a "real" Mac, and it remains to be seen if a clone maker will take that tack.

I did a build-it-myself for my wife last time, as I've always done. But my days of spending 2 full days dealing with assembling, debugging, and loading software onto a new computer may have ended with the birth of my daughter :) Time is now more valuable than money...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sosarian]

You do know that generally speaking that three times as much drive surface passes the head of a 500G drive in the same amount of time as a 160 right?

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[CogDissident]

Thank you for taking my comment out of context. My comment was a reply to the fact that "their hardware could stand on it's own merit". That means taking fashion out of the conversation.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

Per Toms Hardware, The 8800GT OC (better version than is in the Dell) scored ~1950 on a normalized gaming score across multiple games. The 2600 Pro scored just under 1100. It's more than a few frames, but not nearly 4X. They're both mid-range components.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Man in Spandex]

Since you asked for it

The ThinkPad X300 (SSD) > MacBook Air with SSD

I don't even need to back this up because the info that's available everywhere and on several /. articles.

Yeah, that was too easy, I know..

Besides, before buying my T61, I considered Apple for a sec, but there weren't many options. Either a plastic MacBook with no videocard and expensive upgrades (like the "Superdrive"), or a $2000+ MacBookPro that burns your laps since the whole thing is a huge heatsink heating up at over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

I decided to go for the ThinkPad T61 which was about $1500 CAD total.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[nine-times]

Apple usually won't release a new design or new product unless it's at an event where Jobs is giving the keynote, but they're release updates to the systems (faster processors, bigger drives) in between.

Still, it might be true that they don't make changes to that stuff as often. On the other hand, it's not all bad. It means that they have somewhat more stable hardware configurations, which I'm sure simplifies support for Apple, and means that a given configuration will be better supported, crash less, etc. It kind of sucks when you buy hardware at the wrong time, and it becomes some obscure/weird piece that isn't really supported because it only existed for two months and only a handful exist.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

If you're worried about slots for adding replacement parts, that's what the warranty is for... I've had 27 different macs, and all I've ever needed to replace (short of electrical damage or a dropped laptop, or the occasional yanked power cord which apple has forever fixed) are HDDs, optical drives, and peripherals.

You can use an expresscard slot for firewire on most new macs now too. If you really want expandability, RAID, and other advanced features, if you can't do it externally, a Map Pro is likely cheaper. Don't be fooled by the $2400 sticker, you can configure one for as little as $1900...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

You can get a MAc Pro with 1 processor instead of 2 for $2000, less if you adjust other components, and even less if you buy from retailers other than Apple.com.

You still CAN get your $1800 pro configurable...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[sco_robinso]

"A $400 notebook? for anything beyond runnign XP home, cheap antivirus, and e-mail, there's no way. A Celeron notebook in that price range can barely handle Java apps without stuttering, faulters on You Tube, and runs out of resources scanning documents. I can't even imaging trying to open 8MP images and try even simple editing tasks on one, even under XP..."

Gee, my grand-parents do literally all of the above on 7 year old Celeron 2.4 w/ 1GB of RAM, cheap onboard graphics, and it runs just fine. Only an extra 512 of RAM put in it over the years. My old Celeron 667 laptop with 256 RAM handles all of that fine. It's 7 years old. Both machines are well below what a new "$400 Celeron" laptop could do.

Need I remind you that in most home-user tasks, the processor typically sits idle 99% of the time, even old +/- 1Ghz procs. Last time I checked, casual photo editing, the odd scan, the odd email, and internet browsing doesn't push most processors beyond even 25%. With the exception of perhaps the odd render of a home movie into DVD format, or gaming, a cheap PC can do pretty average home user tasks substantially as well as machine with a bigger hard drive and a faster proc.

Remember, Celeron's are the same as their big-brother P3, P4, C2D brethern minus some cache and a slower FSB. Unless you're running apps that take advantage of Cache and Bus speed like games or heavier photo/video rendering, a Celeron will do the trick just as well. A $1500 C2D based laptop isn't going to run Office, IE7, all that much better than a cheapo $500 celeron based machine ($50 RAM upgrade aside). No Aero maybe, but that's just eye candy.

YouTube stuttering? Wow. My old PII-266 w/ 256RAM runs YouTube videos, DVD's, and most multi-media content flawlessly. If you're buying a new, albeit cheap computer that causes YouTube to stutter, you've got issues my friend.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[bhtooefr]

I was under the impression that it was an artificial limitation that kept it from running on G4s that were slower than 867 MHz...

(But, it won't run on a G3, I know people have tried forcing it, and it didn't work.)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[bigstrat2003]

and have just as clean of a design. A rather unfair stipulation. Design is purely subjective, so you're essentially giving yourself a free rejection for anything, no matter how good.

Besides, if you're trying to match an iMac, it isn't hard to top the design. The G5 iMac design is a piece of shit, anything can beat that. Admittedly, it's hard to equal the other hardware designs Apple makes for their computers, but the iMacs blow.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mini me]

The boxed copy of OS X is an upgrade because it's impossible, legally speaking, for you to install it on any hardware that didn't already come with the "full" version of OS X. The hardware itself is the check that you have already purchased the "full" version of OS X. Just because Apple handles their upgrades differently than everyone else, doesn't mean it's not an upgrade.

Now, whether or not the "full" version of OS X is more expensive than the upgrade version is unknown to everyone except Apple themselves, but why wouldn't OS X be worth at least as much as Windows?

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mr_mischief]

If you really want an exclusive, high-end experience, go with a mid-to-high range SGI, IBM p-series, or any Sparc-based Sun. Maybe get a Tadpole laptop. Apple is far more commodity than those.

If you want something that works and runs the software you need or want to use, then figure out what that software is and buy one of the platforms it supports.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Skye16]

You're right, 1 hour of my time is nowhere near the 1000$ price difference. Not to mention the fact that I love putting it together - it's something I'd pay to do, actually, so it's not even a cost to me, it's an all round constant benefit.

Further, fuck you. Fuck you nine times you arrogant cum guzzling gutter slut prick. Go back to being a jackass.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[FictionPimp]

For one, I want the power of a imac, but I don't want the environmental damage of buying and tossing a perfectly good lcd screen every 3 or 4 years. I have a great 24inch lcd right now. Buying an imac puts that to waste. I can't sell it because what if I need a monitor at some point, like if a friend brings over a computer for me to work on? So I have a 800.00 paper weight and an imac. Not to mention my screen has better contrast ratio then the imac screen and from my experience in the store, looks a lot better too.

It's a waste. I headless imac should be a lot cheaper to make (engineering wise, and component wise) so it would also be cheaper. I tend to buy a new computer every 3 years. With apple, that is not going to happen. I spend 1000-1500 a computer. The imac I just built on the website out was 2200. To go to a mac pro, well now we are talking 3000.00. The mac pro is a waste, I do not need xeon processors, I do not need 8 cores. I need a nice core 2 duo machine with 2-4 gigs of ram 750gigs hard drive space and a nvidia 8800 or higher.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ahoehn]

I've been trying to get an Hackintosh install working, and that process has illuminated how integral apple's being in control of the hardware really is to the OS X experience.

Case in point: I've been trying to get my wireless card working. The first time I successfully booted into the OS, I noticed that I didn't have wireless and thought, "Where do I go to choose my wireless driver?"

The answer is, of course, you don't. You have an Airport, or you don't have wireless.

It's a simple example, but made me think about how different using OS X would be if it could be installed on any hardware. I don't know that different necessarily means worse, but substantially different.

All that aside, trying to get my hackintosh working reminds me of trying to install Linux 5 or 10 years ago: Poor documentation, arcane procedures and the answer to many driver problems is, "Go buy new hardware." Ahh the memories.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

I think your comparisons are fair, but there's a couple of points here:

1. Vista Home != Leopard. I think you need to add the $130 or $150 to upgrade Vista to Business or Ultimate to make that a fair comparison.

2. The Dell is a bigger laptop. It is half a pound heavier with the small battery, and is a wedge with 25% greater volume than the Apple machine. Size and weight are a HUGE factor in the mobile market.

Apple doesn't drop their prices... they just bump up the component specs. The only time you get "ripped off" is right before a refresh, which just happened.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Hatta]

It's a Dell. Of course it's going to be built like crap. Build your own, and it will be cheaper than either the Dell or the Mac, better put together than the Dell, and better suited to your needs than the Mac.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[qlayer2]

I just bought a Dell Vostro 1500 for $800 last month.

specs: Intel Core 2 Duo T7250 (2.0GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
Genuine Windows XP Home Edition
1 Year Basic Limited Warranty plus 1 Year Mail-in Service
15.4 in Wide Screen XGA+LCD Display w/TrueLife
2GB DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz, 2 DIMM
8X CD/DVD+RW Read and Burn CD and DVD
256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT
160GB 5400RPM Hard Drive
Dell Wireless 1395 802.11g Wi-Fi Internal Card
Integrated 2.0 mega pixel Web Camera
85 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery


Very close in specs to the MBP, slower and slightly smaller HD, 2ghz to 2.5ghz processor.

Plays games, watches movies, excellent battery life (4.5 hours as a dvd player with full screen brightness). Oh, and it triple boots OS X, windows, and slackware without a problem.

I had a g3 ibook, and it lasted a long time (got lucky with a good logic board), but I couldn't shell out $2-3k for a laptop and be pleased with the purchase. I couldn't take the dedicated card in the MB, so the MBP was my only legit choice, and it couldn't compare with the dell. I love my vostro, excellent build quality, good battery life, and getting it working with OS X was not a big problem, either. (Thanks insanely mac forums!) My only issue is the laptop doesn't sleep in OS X, everything else is functioning as it should.

I would by a licensed, legit copy of OS X to install. Apple can't/won't do it, they have never been about licensing software, and supporting multiple hardware configurations, and they aren't about to now.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ejasons]

It's important, when comparing prices, to pick machines in the same class. Don't just compare CPU/RAM/HDD specs. I have a precision workstation and it's built like a tank compared to the dimension line.

Okay, then what's the comparable Apple price for a headless system, with an (preferably upgradable) 8800GT graphics card, 3 PCI-Express slots, 4 DIMM slots, 750GB disk, and a lower-end quad-core (Q6600-level) Intel Core processor?

You could say that a Porsche is cheaper than a Hundai, as long as you restrict the class of automobiles to those in the Porsche's class...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Amiga Trombone]

I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt. If nothing else, they'd probably do themselves some good licensing OS X Server. Apple doesn't have much of a presence in the server market, and doesn't look very interested in being one. Why not license to an HP or IBM, and let companies that actually play in that space sell their server OS in the data center?

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Malc]

Not just Europe. I saved $500 before tax buying my 15" MBP in California instead of at home in Toronto. Then the taxes are 8 and a bit % in CA, versus 13% in ON. Vastly higher in most of Europe.

Memory though I bought here. $770 for 4GB from Apple, or $130 from the shop just around the corner from me.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

The first comparison doesn't count because discrete graphics is a huge upgrade (no graphics intensive gaming without it). It depends upon the game. I haven't seen too many graphics-intensive games for OS X. If gaming is really part of your end goal, then you realistically want to add in about $200 to the cost of the Mac in order to purchase Windows. If you want to game in a virtual machine (which is becoming more and more feasible with the new releases of VMWare Fusion) then you add in $70 or so for the cost of that.

But below, I discuss why it's silly to discuss software for this exercise. If you want to discuss software, please pay attention to what I said above. If you don't want to discuss software, the I'll ignore OS X and its features as a benefit. You aren't allowed to have it both ways.

You fail to mention that:
      1. OSX has better battery management than Windows, so "battery capacity" is subjective. Battary capacity is not subjective. Battery life might be considered subjective, but even then, it's not based upon opinion or individual bias (as the term subjective implies)--rather, battery life on identical hardware is quite objectively different depending upon the software in use.

And once we start talking about differences in software, we're throwing the entire argument out of the window, because it's like comparing apples to oranges. I'm a huge fan of OS X. It's great software. I can't use Windows Vista without cursing like a sailor, because it's not just user-unfriendly, it's user-hostile. So if you want to talk about software, we're talking about an argument that can't be resolved with, "Go configure a similarly spec'd Dell." It doesn't even make sense to suggest that one do that if you're including software in the discussion.

The point is not that Apple computers cost more, the point is that Apple hardware costs more. In some cases, it's not a lot more, and in some cases it is.

2. The quality of the hardware components are not identical Again, you're stepping outside of the bounds of the task presented. The quality is NEVER going to be identical, so when asking someone to "go configure a Dell with the same specs", you have to assume that this will be the case.

3. You don't mention which OS the Dell is configured with... I would put OSX somewhere between Vista Ultimate or the XP "Upgrade"... which probably adds some $$ to your dell comparisons. You got me there.
I put Home Premium on both machines. Upgrading from Home Premium to Ultimate is (iirc) around $150 which, incidentally, is close to the retail price for OS X (at $130.)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[stewbacca]

17% of that 30% discount comes right from the stupid Value Added Tax (In England, at least when I lived there last year). The other % points come from a weak dollar to the pound.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[kelnos]

For starters, comparing the MacBook Air to basically any other laptop on the market is useless, as there really isn't anything else like it.

Regarding other Apple hardware, I recently was curious and specced a Vaio to as close as possible to a MacBook of the same size, and guess what I found? The Vaio was a little bit more expensive. The HW differences were that the Vaio had an integrated cellular modem and fingerprint scanner, and the extra cost seemed to about match the addition of those features. So you can say an Apple MacBook is equivalent in price to a Sony Vaio with the same specs.

Now, of course, if you take a MacBook Pro and try to spec a Dell XPS laptop similarly, you'll end up with a *much* less expensive Dell laptop. But then I can take the mid-range MacBook, and configure a Dell XPS to the same specs, and you get a Dell that's only $70 cheaper than the Apple. Not really a big difference.

The "problem" with Apple's pricing is that they tend to not sell low-end models. The Mac Mini was really the first departure from this. Their "medium-end" MacBooks and iMacs seem to be decently competitive price-wise with other brands, and their high-end Mac Pro and MacBook Pro models are indeed more expensive than most other similarly-specced laptops out there.

But really, to each their own. Apple still designs some of the nicest hardware out there. I haven't seen a laptop from Sony, Dell, Asus, LG... well, *anyone* that I like aesthetically as much as an Apple laptop. You're free to think that's stupid, just as I'm free to think it's stupid to *not* care about how it looks. If I choose to "throw away" my money for something that looks a little nicer, that's my choice. Otherwise, are you suggesting that the same thing should matter to everyone, and the same things should be irrelevant to everyone?

As an aside, buying last-gen Apple hardware used can often give you a nice price drop, and the hardware is just as good as a new one, albeit slightly slower.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

Good to know... how? On the Apple store I could only get to $2400.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Eccles]

I tried to find your $600 Dell machine and I couldn't get it to match the Apple model.

techbargains.com "coupon" deal, Inspiron 530. The coupons are frequent enough a savvy shopper can wait for the one they want rather than paying list. (Apple doesn't have this or we could compare to their best deal.) I assembled the machine I wanted online, though I ended up going with an HP notebook machine with Blu-Ray.

Technically to match the MacPro, you need to match Dell's workstations

I don't want to match the Mac Pro, I want to match my needs. For the home user, how much difference does a Xeon make relative to a 6700? Not enough to justify busting the budget.

The iMac might fit a user's needs if we drop the Quad Core requirement, but 30" monitors are coming slowly closer to mainstream. I might be able to afford to upgrade my system unit now and replace my 22" monitor next year. And video cards are still advancing faster than other components, not to mention SLI being an upgrade option with PCs but not iMacs.

It's not the price (a small premium is more than justified), it's the holes in the Mac lineup. They apparently prefer pushing the high end (so anyone wanting more than an iMac has to go to a Power Mac) to enlarging their market share. It's their choice, and perhaps a smart one, but it has consequences.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Enrique1218]

Yes, the M1530 is cheaper and it is also consumer laptop. I can price the Precision M4300 and a similarly configured system is $1,967 (sale price-actually it is $2,200). Also, a Lenovo Thinkpad T61p also is $2,000 ($1,563 sale price). I can't tell you why there is a price disparity even within Dell. However, I would never consider a XPS laptop when looking for a reliable professional laptop. In fact, I have chose MBP for my job over Thinkpad and Precision notebook simply because of the reliability of OSX. I get paid to write code not play around with Windows Vista.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Divebus]

I just bought four of those "edge case" machines. If anyone starts talking about machine performance and price in the same breath, performance doesn't have anything to do with the $399 desktop which gets referenced. That's why I pulled that example out. Certainly, if you want cheap, get a commodity PC.

On your laptop example, the 17" Mac Book Pro is also an "edge case". I wouldn't buy one, either. Most people get the plain Mac Book for 30% the cost of that thing. Never buy RAM from Apple. Even they tell you that. That took the price up higher than it should have. Also, don't forget the bigger battery, optical audio I/O, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire 800 and Bluetooth. It's harder to compare when there isn't bolt-for-blot feature parity but those are things I use. Some of that isn't even an option on the Dell, but then the Dell has a Flash card reader. Woohoo. The Mac is also thinner and lighter than the Dell which is where the cost is going. Still not worth it for me.

Look at the Apple Refurb area. You can save $800 on that class of machine.

We had a closet full of Dell Inspirons which fell apart in under two years, some in 8 months. Yeah, we sent them in for service but they were never right. They're junk, frankly, and we abandoned them because they weren't worth it. We also have a bunch of 4-6 year old Macs which we're selling to staff because they still work.

Sure, you've got a cheaper PC listed alright but I wouldn't give it the time of day for it. Windows has become a useless slug.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

1. Vista Home != Leopard. I think you need to add the $130 or $150 to upgrade Vista to Business or Ultimate to make that a fair comparison. Upgrading to Business isn't a fair comparison, because Business doesn't include a lot of the features in Home Premium. Then again, the differences between Home Premium and Ultimate are fairly small, too.

But it doesn't make sense to compare software in this case. If you compare software, you can set an arbitrary price for "pre-installed OS X" to make up any difference in the cost of the notebooks.

I really just think that it's hilarious what people will come up with to try to justify the extra costs. Half a pound and a tiny reduction in size (the volume difference doesn't change the dimensions that much.) justifies $400?

Feel free to read through some of my other posts. I'm not an Apple hater. I like their products, and I'm typing this on an iMac 20" right now. I just don't think that the statement, "Apples don't cost THAT much more than comparable Dells," is a reasonable one.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Kynmore]

Apple could release it under a limited support or use at your own risk type environment. Say what hardware they will support, which would probably be near mirrors of their own hardware, and say anything else isn't supported. I could guarentee that mfg.'s would build to suit, and so would the home user going the custom route.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Knara]

Eh, I had one go inexplicably bad about 3 years ago.

ASUS and plain old straight-up no-frills Intel boards are the way to go for me these days.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[bledri]

What would be the harm then, to allow people to install OSX on 3rd party hardware, but without support..?

I think one could argue that's what they do...

I don't really believe that. I assume they don't want Mac OS X associated with all the issues that people would have and complain about. Loudly. Allowing unsupported use of Mac OS X is really a lose-lose for situation for Apple. If it works poorly, it tarnishes their image. If it works well it cuts into their real market, hardware.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Divebus]

Go to your Apple store, and tell me what product falls inbetween a MacPro & an iMac. Now, there's something everyone agrees on, AC - PC and Mac heads both point to the same hole in the spectrum. If Apple was as smart as they appear to be (not always, mind you) then they'd fill that hole with a mini tower with a couple expansion slots. Price it like the Mini or less and they'd sell like hotcakes.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

that's what the warranty is for... On both Macs, I didn't discover the flakiness until after the warranty was up. On the first it was after buying a 3rd party CD writer. It was a common problem, and I didn't mind springing for the $15 Firewire PCI card. On the second Mac it was a when I hooked up a 3rd party external drive. Simply wouldn't work, so I bought another cheap-o internal card and all was well. Later I put another 3rd party drive on the original bus and it seemed to work, but my Mac was very unstable with kernel panics every few days (after not having one for probably a year). I switched to the third-party card and all was well.

So I'm going to claim that Apple Firewire is not as good as cheap 3rd party cards :) No, I know that I just got unlucky, because the drives that I have are brand-name (Seagate and MacAlly), and people'd be screaming all over if it was a common flaw.

How do you get a Mac Pro for $1900? I could only get to $2400.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[AWhiteFlame]

No, that's not true. Design can be objective. We're not necessarily talking rounded corners, we're talking about material of case, dimensions of case, fan noise, etc. Things which can be measured.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

Yes, the M1530 is cheaper and it is also consumer laptop. And the justifications begin....

I own a Precision M70 now, and I've handled XPS notebooks. The build quality is pretty damned similar. Unless Dell's stepped up the quality in their more recent notebooks, I don't think that moving up to the M4300 is necessary to make a fair comparison.

The M4300, incidentally, includes a significantly different graphics card. Twice the video memory (which is more costly than system memory), but it renders for correctness instead of speed (making it more suitable for 3D design and less suitable for gaming than the card which comes in the XPS I quoted and the MBP.) You also can't configure the Dell with a 200GB hard drive unless you also bump up the speed to 7200 (and a free-fall sensor--does the Macs have this? Does it /really/ even do anything? It's a new one on me to see this on Dell's page.) The "sale price" is also pretty misleading. Although the actual numbers and percentages change, Dell notebooks are basically always "on sale." Apple notebooks never are, unless you're getting them from someone who's liquidating stock (you can get Dells this way too) or refurb (same with Dells.)

In fact, I have chose MBP for my job over Thinkpad and Precision notebook simply because of the reliability of OSX. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's not reasonable to discuss software in this debate. The post to which I replied asked that someone configure a Dell with similar specs and look at the price. Because OS X is artificially restricted from running on non-Apple computers, its inclusion in debates over whether Apple hardware is overpriced is really not reasonable. If it weren't artificially restricted, I would absolutely consider the fact that you get OS X "free" with the MBP to be a point in its favor.

--
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one Incidentally, I now have to wonder if you're capable of objectively discussing this issue.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[immcintosh]

Do pre-built (Dell and such) computers usually lack a firewire port? I admit I only build my own and don't pay attention to manufacturer computer, so I wouldn't know, but I find that odd considering it's been years since I've seen a motherboard without a standard firewire port right there on the back. I know my last two had them (not to mention multiple pin sets on the actual motherboard for adding more firewire ports as needed).

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

Just change the processor to the single mode and it's $2299. I did this a few weeks ago and I configged one for $1900. Looks like some options changed, possibly pending some big announcements coming in a few weeks?

Allways buy a 3 year warranty... If firewire was mission critical, and it was a 3 year old machine, i'd replace the whole machine if replacing the mainboard cost more than $100.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[dunkelfalke]

exactly. my notebook is 6 years old (hp omnibook 510). it is a bit slow but it handles youtube just fine and i can develop photos from my sigma sd9 well enough.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

They changed parts recently it appears. A couple of weeks ago I could do that. I simply changed the CPU to the single instead of the double now and it was $2299, not $2400.

You can get a refurb of the exact same machine for 1900. Refurn does NOT mean used, it means typically it had a ding or scratch, or maybe a bad HDD when it was tested, and it passed through manufacturing by hand to correct that. No big deal since 5% of all shipped systems have a DoA component, and since a refurb has the same exact warranty as a new machine, I have not BOUGHT a NEW mac in 6 years... it;s never done me wrong. They allways come in shiny new boxes and look perfect, except for the slightly different sticker on the box indicating b-stock.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Divebus]

I was under the impression that it was an artificial limitation that kept it from running on G4s that were slower than 867 MHz... True. I've put Leopard on G4s slower than 867MHz by using FireWire target mode. If you have a machine capable of installing Leopard, hook your target machine to it with FireWire and load it that way.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[IntlHarvester]

FW800 is pretty much only used for disk drives, and there its slower and more expensive and harder to buy than eSATA.

Basically FW800 sucks and there's no reason to use it unless you have legacy mac stuff.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

Not necesarilly so. It depends on how many platters and heads the disk has. Also, wether or not the device supprots SATA II and NCQ has a much bigger impact. Cache as well impacts performance (beyond 16MB doesn't seem to matter though). It;s not drive surface, but there are more bits going under the head in that amount of time though, you're right. In this case, even though the read speed might be higher in the Dell, the spin speed in the Mac should equalize the difference, combined with SATA 300 support.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[LaskoVortex]

Who isn't aware of the exorbitant prices that Apple charges for their hardware? Want another 2GB of ram? That'll be $200 please

The people who pay that can afford it. Personally, I buy all my memory upgrades at OWC. Its cheap and good memory. Disclaimer: I don't work for or have any financial interest in OWC.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[IntlHarvester]

The Xeon box he quoted is a precision workstation, for business not gaming.

Apple does indeed have very good prices if you need an 8 core desktop, but they've got nothing underneath that.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[UnknowingFool]

My point: A MacPro is a workstation. It is not a desktop. You can't compare it to a desktop on pricing alone because it isn't a valid comparison. Granted, Apple does not make a middle-range headless desktop. I have always though they should. For now they are content to clearly delineate the consumer market with the Mac mini and the professional market with the Mac Pro. I think it's more of a strategic move because they don't think they that compete in that middle market. The Mac mini has the form factor advantage and the MacPro has its advantages in its market. In the middle market, they can't really distinguish themselves from the pack.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

My mistake on Vista Home. I assumed it was "Basic", but it was Premium. In that case, they are comparable.

25% is a big difference in notebook size. Half a pound is also big, but is only 10% of the weight. If size wasn't that big of an issue, then why are you pricing out the high-end lightweights instead of MacBooks and Inspirons?

At the very least, I don't see why you would consider a 25% size difference inconsequential, yet you find a 20% cost difference to be important.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[stewbacca]

Why do I want multiple Firewire ports standard? I don't have a single thing that uses Firewire. If I did (and one port weren't sufficient), I can buy a PCI(e) or PCMCIA card.

I didn't get the gripe either. I DO have more than one item that uses Firewire (Digital Video Camera and audio recording gear..used to have three when the iPods were Firewire too). I have an 8 year old G4 iMac that has two firewire ports (I think? Man it's been a long time since I've even used it) and I've added multiple firewire cards to both of my PCs with no problem (less than $30, less than 5 minutes of my time).

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

Where are you getting these numbers? Can you provide a link?

OS X (non-server) only costs $130. It's only considered an upgrade because you aren't allowed to install it on non-Apple hardware, according to the EULA, and if you've purchased Apple hardware, you have a copy of Mac OS (ergo, you're upgrading.) In fact, Apple's store's main page for Leopard doesn't even have the word "upgrade" on it. I don't know where you're getting this idea.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[LaskoVortex]

If you're going to add $225 for retail copies of OS/X and iLife to your comparison, then you need to add $250 to your costs on the Apples, to cover the copy of Windows Vista that it doesn't come with.

No, you need to add $50, not $225, to the price of the Mac, because the dell is going to come with Vista Home Limited, or whatever the bottom of the line Vista is. Its not going to come with Vista Ultimate (or whatever the top of the line is) in a $700 machine.

It might be fair to quibble away the $79 for iLife, because it seems like it might be unnecessary for most people.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

I do not buy these systems, but unfortunately my clients (and if I don;t catch them sometimes family members) often do.

Under XP, youtube shouldn't stutter, even with moderate load on slow hardware. Old desktops like that do a lot better than cheap notebooks with 2400RPM single or dual drives with low cache and undersize RAM... get enough going to kick paging in, like opening a large image, working with a large video cache becuase of a slow internet connection, and trying to pass that through acive virus, spyware, and phishing scans?

It's better today than it was 2 years ago, and many of these systems, out of the box, can handle it as I said, but give them a year and see how their doing...

To put it this way, I have an XP box with AMD64 2.0GBz, 1GB or Ram, fast hard drives, and pretty stock software as a generic PC i let guests use. Its a good older gaming rig. My HP scanner REFUSES to scan an image over 300dpi. "Out of Resources" is the reason. I've tweaked everything and have 540MB of free Ram. 300dpi is OK, 600 is not. On a G4 iMac w/ only 512MB of Ram, a 5400RPM drive, and no dedicated video, I can scan at 2400DPI. PCs have MAJOR issues with low resource configurations. Placing that on top of a slow subsystem and you're going to get bad performance. Add vista and you're probably looking at 15 minute boot times.

Again, trust me, I have hundreds of clients in this city, mostly Small business. Every time I see a sub-$600 notebook, it never lasts 2 years before being replaced.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[torqer]

If you're just after tax savings... don't forget alberta. They only have the 5% GST and no provincial tax at all.

And with the USD and CND at nearly par... Don't forget to buy a Nissan 350z when you're down in the states. In the US they start at $28,500 ( http://www.nissanusa.com/z/ ) and in Canada just under $50,000. http://nissan.ca/vehicles/cars/350z/en/

And yes... they are a fully authorized import from the US (no modifications required). Just a $195 Border inspection.

List of importable vehicles found here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/VAFUS.pdf

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[CogDissident]

Its still got the same markup, though I should have said that it was their "top end" markup, not "gaming". The fact that they have an arbitrary markup still exists.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ActionDesignStudios]

The cheapest Dell with Ultimate as a configurable option is over $800... I bought a Dell Vostro last December that shipped with Windows Vista Ultimate (it's now dual-booting Linux/WinXP, however). My cost? $629. 1.8C2D, 120GB HD, 2GB RAM, Wireless/BT, and a dedicated nVidia graphics card sporting 128MB of VRAM.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[stewbacca]

Yeah, but a few posts up the guy makes a good point about the Dell XPS being $400 less than a MBP. Granted, my brother just bought the last of the last version of MBP for $1699, instead of $1999, but that's no longer an option.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[redxxx]

Meh, there is a massive amount of after market support for Volkswagens, and I can use the same one for decades and only change out that bits that need it. I can do what I want to it, and Volkswagen doesn't do too much to prevent that.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[stewbacca]

How often is faster+cheaper+larger available from someone else? Not very (for Core2Duo processors at least)? As of recently, the MBP seems to be the first mainstream product to bring the latest iteration of Intel chip to market.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

25% is a big difference in notebook size. It depends on what you mean by "size". If it's volume (like you suggested), keep in mind that that's 25% difference spread out amongst all three dimensions.

But when I went to actually go look, the numbers don't bear you out.

The Dell XPS M1530 has the following dimensions (according to Dell:

14.06" Width
0.93" Height
10.34" Depth

The Macbook Pro has the following dimensions (according to Apple:
14.1" Width
1" Height
9.6" Depth

Frankly, I was astonished by this. The Dell beats out the Apple in 2 of the dimensions, and loses by less than an inch in the third. That's not a 25% difference in volume. I'd go so far as to say that it's an insignificant difference in each dimension, and so the Mac can't gain any points there.

Half a pound is also big, but is only 10% of the weight. If we're being pedantic, the stock weights differ by 3.8 pounds. The larger battery on the Dell will increase this a bit, though. Weight is really only going to be a factor for smaller people, too. Larger people will probably barely be able to notice the difference. I'd call that maybe half-a-point in my new and arbitrary point system.

If size wasn't that big of an issue, then why are you pricing out the high-end lightweights instead of MacBooks and Inspirons? I don't know. I think that I picked the Macbook Pro because I want one :) And I picked that Dell because it was the second one I came to in the list that matched the screen size of the MBP (the first being the Inspiron, which I also compared to the MBP, but which lacks discrete graphics.)

At the very least, I don't see why you would consider a 25% size difference inconsequential, yet you find a 20% cost difference to be important. Well, as I said, the 25% size difference would be spread across three dimensions. If it was 25% smaller in each dimension, then I'd consider it pretty substantial. But moreover, being 25% smaller isn't going to have a lot of use cases. It's not going to be significantly easier to tote around. It's not going to fit in a lot of places where the larger one wouldn't. It doesn't add significant usability. $400 is (to me, at least) significant usability. I could buy lots of accessories for my notebook for that much. That's more than 10 iTunes TV show downloads. That's a bunch of DVDs which I can rip to watch on my notebook. That's 25-30 CDs. That's an iPod Touch plus some music from ITMS.

That's the problem with comparing percentages of non-like measurements. If the cost of the MBP was $100, I wouldn't consider 20% to be significant because I couldn't buy much with it. If the volume were 10 sq. ft., 25% might be pretty significant.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[drsmithy]

Come on Apple, put out a mid-tower priced around $800-$1,000 and they will sell like crazy.

That's the problem. A machine like that would slaughter higher margin Mac Pro sales.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[stewbacca]

Who buys third party RAM direct from the company selling the computer??? This markup is well-known in EVERY industry (ever price tires at a car dealership?), not just with Apple.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[WaroDaBeast]

The term 'bandwidth' isn't a synonym of the expression 'frames per second.'

Anyway, I cast a glance at tomshardware's charts, and that 8800GT OC has double the amount of FPS compared to the 2600XT. At 1280x1024.

Try to run say, COD4 at 1600x1200 and up with AA and AF enabled, and you'll see that the 8800 GT beats the 2600 Pro hands down.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[d34thm0nk3y]

The first paragraph from the article you link:

Mac Pro vs. Dell Precision: A price comparison (Updated) There's been a lot of baloney published online about the pricing of Apple's Mac Pro lately. I've had numerous emails from readers curious why I won't "admit" that the Mac Pro is not only competitive with a certain Dell workstation, but it's actually quite a bit cheaper. I think Apple's done a commendable job with the Mac Pro. But seriously, Apples are still more expensive than PCs across the board. They just are.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Omestes]

Valid, but ignoring subjective factors.

I generally like Apple design. Yes, it is mostly an aesthetic choice, but a MBP looks nice, while the Dells look... Ugly, but functional. I'm typing this on a HP which is roughly equivalent with a MBP, it has a row of crappy media keys which open their proprietary media player every three seconds since they respond to the softest touch. This is a case were design does start to matter, since it does effect my productivity. I would have paid some extra to have a better designed notebook.

Also OS X. Yes, you can put it on a PC, but with work and effort. OS X adds some value. How much is debatable, but it is clearly better than Vista (what isn't?).

Apple also has been known for their quality support. This has been flagging of late, but the conception is still there.

I would also pay more to NOT have a finger print reader. More ugly, obtrusive, and useless features are not a perk. Especially having it load more crappy software at boot.

Generally I would rather have a MPB over any comparative Windows notebook, even for $100-200 more. I would have gotten one if this thing wasn't $400 off.

Not trying to sound like a Mac fanboy, but a lot of value is completely subjective, and not reducible to base system stats.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[stewbacca]

Who knows what the "full" version costs. $129, because there is no difference. You pay the OS cost by having to buy Mac hardware to run the OS. Now, if they ever started allowing clones again, expect to see "full versions", "upgrade versions" and "Apple hardware" versions, each at various price points. As it stands now, there is one price ($129) for all one versions.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mini me]

It's still upgrade pricing. Just because the content on the DVD is identical is irrelevant. We have no idea how much Apple actually charges for the pre-installed "full" version of OS X, but it's probably more than $129.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[drsmithy]

First, go to the Dell web site and spec out a machine like the 8 core MacPro 3.2GHz. Apple Retail = $4,399. Dell T7400 = $6,338. (Don't forget the 512MB GeForce 8800 equivalent). Does the Dell have two independent 1.6 GHz busses or just one? I can't tell from the specs. The Mac Pro has two.

They have the same motherboard chipset (as does the cheaper T5400), so almost certainly yes (although the exact slot configuration might be different).

Once you account for the workstation-level graphics card and better warranty, the Dell Precisions and Mac Pros are essentially worth the same. Swings and roundabouts.

The Dell is a rat's nest.

I find that hard to believe. I haven't seen inside the specific model you're talking about, but even our regular old GX2xx machines have sliding drive brackets, pre-run, managed cabling, and are far from "rat's nests" - so I can't imagine a high-end Precision workstation is any less well made.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

I would also pay more to NOT have a finger print reader. More ugly, obtrusive, and useless features are not a perk. It was a free option when I priced the Dell. You can have it removed, and I don't think that not having it there leaves evidence of the removed feature (i.e. no panel that looks like it might have held a fingerprint reader at one time.)

By by the same token, Macbook Pros have features I'd rather not have. Who wants firewire these days? Ok, video editors, but I'm not one of those. Who wants iLife? Neither my wife nor I have used it in a little over 18 months of combined Mac use.

Not trying to sound like a Mac fanboy, but a lot of value is completely subjective, and not reducible to base system stats. Absolutely. But MightyYar thought that the base system stats were important enough, or else he wouldn't have posed the suggestion to configure the Dell in the first place.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[RiotingPacifist]

(no graphics intensive gaming without it) were talking about macs, it was enough to say no graphics intensive gaming

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[p0tat03]

You could say that a Porsche is cheaper than a Hundai, as long as you restrict the class of automobiles to those in the Porsche's class...

Of course you can. If Hyundai made sports cars and they turned out to be more expensive than Porsches, then I could certainly make that claim.

The converse is also true. Just because Porsche doesn't make cheap family sedans doesn't mean "Porsche is more expensive than Hyundai". The two exist in different markets, and the only worthwhile comparison is where their markets overlap. For Apple vs. the world this is generally in the high-end laptop, high-end desktop market.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[prockcore]

hey I commented in that story! Apparently g5s were hot!

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

You missed the wedge shape.

Dell is 1.38" at the other end, or 38% thicker than the Apple at the max, 15% average. People will notice this.

I also don't know what you want to use for size. Of course size is in three dimensions. Volume and weight are fair because they take away issues of shape, but the Apple is significantly smaller in two of the three dimensions if you'd rather do it that way.

That's the problem with comparing percentages of non-like measurements. I'd argue it's a problem comparing two dissimilar models of notebook. The moment we are talking tradeoffs, it becomes an opinion game.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Divebus]

The Dell is a rat's nest. I find that hard to believe. I'm going by the photos available on the Dell web site and looking inside the HP xw8600 workstations here compared to the Mac Pros here. The Dell is the raw sheet metal and a cable maze with parts jammed in everywhere. The Mac Pro is beautiful inside. It has the best access and ease of upgrade I've seen. The drive carriers (included) are fabulous.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[drsmithy]

Apple is a lot like Intel before AMD came along.

Intel was founded in 1968, AMD in 1969. They've been competing against - or working with - each other, for all intents and purposes, forever .

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Gilmoure]

Yup, that's where you save money with Macs; buy them with minimal amount RAM installed and then order your RAM from elsewhere.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Auckerman]

Apple is doing the same thing all other OEMs do: update current machines based of demand and inventory and introduce new machines when best possible. Apple has already updated the Macbook, Macbook Pro and iMac this year. All without any Steve Jobs announcement. New products come at conferences, usually Macworld, but not always. The electronics industry LOVES to annouce new products at conferences and conventions, because the press is there. Apple is no different. What causes frustration with Windows people is that with Mac, you only have ONE company doing the announcing, hence there is no overlap to make up for the timely gaps in the machines. If you put any Windows OEM under the same microscope as Apple, you end up being able to make the same observations about price problems in the product line.

Additionally, comparisons of price usually aren't even possible with Windows machines because of two things. Apple's love of putting nearly useless hardware in every Mac (Bluetooth, Video Camera, Wireless N, Gigabit networking) that do add value to the machine, but is either not needed or overkill for people's needs AND the inclusion of software that barebones machines just don't have (iLife).

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[prockcore]

"Just as clean of a design" is totally subjective.

I don't want "the world smallest desktop". The HP microtower takes up roughly the same space on my desk as a mini.

I'd be happy if Apple would spend less effort on making "the smallest" whatever and a little more effort on getting prices down. Stick the mini in a larger case, replace the anemic 4800 rpm drive with a decent desktop drive, and cut the price by $200.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

You missed the wedge shape. Oops, you're right, of course.

I also don't know what you want to use for size. Well, I thought that you were using flawed numbers. Sorry for the mistake.

I'd argue it's a problem comparing two dissimilar models of notebook. Please.

You asked why 20% cost was significant, but 25% volme wasn't. I answered that it was because we were talking about two different things.

I do think that comparing dissimilar models is difficult, but you were the one who suggested that someone compare a comparable Dell.

It went something like this:

Nursie: If someone else got in the game [of offering OS X], Apple would find themselves undercut.
You: Try configuring a comparable Dell. I think you'll change your mind.
Me: Here's a comparable Dell.
You: You can't compare that, because it's got different dimensions.

I'm sorry, but you're the one who posited that it was even possible to configure a comparable Dell, and implied that it would be similar in price to Apple's hardware (by saying that they were competitive to the point of sometimes being cheaper.) I can't find any Dells with the same dimensions as a Macbook Pro (though I'm open to discussing it if you find one--Dell's website is a bear to navigate.)

Put in this context, either a) the suggestion to build a Dell was a trap in order to later point out the features of Apple hardware that Dell does not offer, or b) you're backpedaling by using those extra features now that it's been pointed out that Dell comes out at 20% ($400 in this case) cheaper.

You're absolutely right that once you start talking about trading off features, it's purely opinion-based. But you're the one who suggested that it was even possible to compare them directly.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Dogtanian]

Its nice to call Apple and get a call center in the US, not in Bangalore India. Unless you're actually an Indian from Bangalore.

In which case, having your support inquiry routed to the US would probably suck. Those idiots can't even speak proper Hindi! :)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Blakey Rat]

If you're worried about slots for adding replacement parts, that's what the warranty is for... I've had 27 different macs, and all I've ever needed to replace (short of electrical damage or a dropped laptop, or the occasional yanked power cord which apple has forever fixed) are HDDs, optical drives, and peripherals.

I think he's worried about slots for increased ability. For instance, to add an advanced video card or sound card, something which is currently impossible on every Apple model except the $2800 Mac Pro. I added RAM, a Radeon 9800, and custom cooler for it to my G5 tower, for instance, which made a huge difference in the performance of the machine when it was a couple years old, and enabled me to hold-off on buying a new machine for much longer.

HDDs, optical drives, and peripherals anything can support, even a $500 dirt-bottom PC from Wal-Mart.

You can use an expresscard slot for firewire on most new macs now too. If you really want expandability, RAID, and other advanced features, if you can't do it externally, a Map Pro is likely cheaper.

BS. When I bought my Mac G5, I got a decent configuration (dual-1.8ghz) for $2100. That was the extreme, extreme high-end of what I'm willing to pay for a home machine, and I only plunked down the cash because I could upgrade it in the future and would therefore have a long lifetime. (It's now my media server, for example.) It was expensive for a desktop, but not out-of-consideration expensive.

Now the cheapest Mac Pro is $2800. A third more expensive, which now puts it quite clearly out-of-consideration for any home use (and most office use, for that matter!) It's now priced for "professionals" only, whoever that is.

Virtually every desktop computer over $600 (except some of Apple's models, or Shuttle-type form factors) does RAID and has expandability. And I don't know what "advanced features" the Mac Pro has that a $1000 Windows PC doesn't. I seriously doubt they're worth $1000, whatever they are.

Don't be fooled by the $2400 sticker, you can configure one for as little as $1900...

I just checked Apple's website. Mac Pro: From $2799. I don't know where you got your $1900 figure from. When I bought my G5, $1900 would buy the dirt-cheapest G5 Apple sold, now there's nothing in that form factor under $2800. Mac G5/Mac Pro prices have skyrocketed in the last few years as Apple retires affordable models in preference to models with more and more overkill. (I don't need 4 Xeon CPUs for my home computer, Apple.)

I had the same problem as the grandparent, I wanted to replace my G5 with another Mac, but Apple didn't make any models with the same featureset that I could afford to buy. I solved it by spending half as much on a Dell, and I've never been happier. Of course, the G5 pricing was marginal in the first place, and if I had it to do over again, I would have bought a Dell instead of it back then, too.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[prockcore]

Go with HP for the mini.

Here's my comparison: note, I bumped up the mini to meet the HP's minimums, i.e. you can't buy the HP with only 1 gig of ram, so I bumped the mini up to 2gigs. Still wasn't able to bump up the mini all the way to match the HP.

Here's the results:
Mini:
2.0 ghz core 2 duo
2 gigs of ram 667mhz
integrated intel gma 950
8x dvd burner
160 gb 5400 rpm drive
$949

HP s3400t:
2.4 ghz core 2 duo
2 gigs of ram 800mhz
dedicated 128 mb nvidia geforce 8400
16x dvd burner (with lightscribe)
320 gb 7200 rpm drive
$589.99

Apple doesn't have anything that can compete with HP on price and performance.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[snuf23]

Hell, I'd pay up to $1500 for a mini-tower with a 8800GTS Nvidia card, 4 DIMM slots, 2 PCIE slots and room for 2 internal hard drives. In particular if it supported an option for a single quad core CPU.
I hate built in monitors. I hate integrated video cards. I want more than one internal hard drive. I would be HAPPY to pay for the flexibility over the iMac and don't care about not having it bundled with a monitor.
The Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive. Xeons and fully buffered DIMMs are not necessary for most people using them. I've used them and they are nicely built computers but no way can I justify the cost especially when what you pay for does not give you additional performance in most situations (compare expensive DDR2 FBDIMMs to DD3 for example).

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ChrisA90278]

You are missing the point. The MBP is $1999 and even if the Dell were $500 it can't run Mac OS X so you might as well save the $495 and buy a 12 inch marble floor tile. The hunk of rock runs Mac OS X about as well as the Dell.

You have to stand WAY, WAY back and look at the whole big picture. You are (say) a photographer and you shoot sports and have a short dealine. You have 1,000 exposures on a CF memory card and you publisher wants you best 12 shots. How can you sort those 1,000 edit crop and send the best in a fixed amont of time?

For a lot of photographers the answer is to use Apple's "Aperture". So it it's Aperturer you need then the Dell and the floor tile are about the same. Neither are even an option.

Now let's do the same story about a guy who does video or designs web sites or or a scientest with data to sort through. All these people have jobs to do they don't look at the details of what's inside the guts of a computer they just see mac os x as helping them get there product done and out the door.

But then there are a few geeks who don't need a computers at all but mess with a PC is a hobby. they are the ones talking abut Brand X graphic card and frames persecond and the price of various types of RAM

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

No, sir, you are missing the point. Go back up a few posts to get some context:

If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=552648&cid=23402958

The point is that we're talking about non-Apple PC manufacturers installing OS X in the event that Apple were to license OS X for non-Apple hardware. For heaven's sake, the point of it all is right there in the subject line! The subtext is that Apple will never do this because then they'd only be able to sell computers to people who want "something shiny." Everyone else would flock to Dell now available in OS X!

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Enrique1218]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's not reasonable to discuss software in this debate.

Actually, discussing software is essential to this debate. First, Apple is not officially supporting OS X on anything but a Apple branded computer. So, as the article stated, the computer has to have part parity with a MBP otherwise the OS won't run right. Moreover, if there is an issue with the OS, one cannot turn to Apple or the computer manufacturer. In fact, with Dell, installing any OS other than Vista will void the warranty. I am pointing out for many people (like myself) quality is essential and simplistic price comparisons like the one you spew out are largely superficial.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mr_mischief]

That breaks the Apple experience the company wants you to have, and there's probably something in the EULA about that, too. It's certainly not supported.

That said, it's a cool trick, and I might just try it out.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[jedidiah]

...yeah, because everyone wants to take their nice pretty compact macs and start adding some butt ugly external devices too it.

Sorry but no thanks. My 2 minis were bought specifically because they don't look like some gawd awful reincarnation of an Atari 800.

If I were willing to put up with ugly, I could just get any random dirtcheap PC.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

Even if talking about software were relevant in general, it's not relevant in this case as we're discussing reasons why Apple will /not/ release OS X for non-Apple hardware. Please see one of the ancestor posts to mine:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=552648&cid=23402958

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[SilverBlade2k]

What Apple doesn't want is the same problems that plague the Windows world: 20 vendors for each type of hardware lead to billions of possible configurations, some hardware works good together and some doesn't but there is no way to know 100%. With that in mind, What Apple *could* do is *LIMIT* the licensing of OSX to dealers like Dell, Toshiba, Sony, etc and so that a person could only buy OSX on a PC through them. That way, Apple doesn't have to deal with the billions of configurations that a P.C could have, they only have to deal with the very limited amount of configurations that those companies offer.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[arminw]

....Apple hardware is NOT worth what it costs...

Did anyone hold a gun to your head or a knife to your throat and force you to buy a Mac? No? Well then why do you care if others ARE willing to spend whatever amount of money Apple asks for their goodies? You and others like you just want to have an Apple computer at Dell prices. I'd like a BMW at Honda Civic or Chevy prices. Too bad BMWs sell for so much. So I have to settle for a Honda or Chevy car and you settle for a Dell computer.

Apple makes a WHOLE computer, OS and all, unlike everybody else, which only makes half computers. If I were willing to work VERY hard, it might be possible to turn a Civic into a BMW, no? So, if you work very hard, your time being worth nothing anyway, you will probably, finally, at last, get Apple's OSX to run on your cheap-ass homemade box.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Enrique1218]

Do you really think that OS X on anything other than an Apple would be better than Vista? The whole integrated solution approach where Apple is both the OEM and the OS developer is gives OSX an edge over Vista. Vista's problems or OSX perceive superiority is not that Microsoft engineers are incompetent, but rather Apple engineer have to focus only on a small subset of hardware. Moreover, Apple as hardware seller choses the premium route and puts a lot more effort in designing their computers. PC OEM selling OSX would have serious issues. OEM would want freedom to select from a wider variety of hardware to meet their price points. OSX as the reviews points out will have issue when a PC deviates from what Apple sells. I think Apple playing the microsoft role would get us another Microsoft.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[stewbacca]

It is my understanding that what you are calling an upgrade can be (and is) used for a full install on any Mac. Therefore, there is no such thing as an upgrade version and a completely different "full" version. I don't see how a "full" version can be anything other than $129, since you can go to an Apple store and buy OSX for $129, bring it home, and install it on any Mac in your house, even if you format the drive first and it sees no previous version installed. I have been wrong in the past, but I'm pretty certain on this one (since I've done roughly that which I describe at least a dozen times since version 10.0)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[dopefish7590]

My primary machine is a 4 year old Dell notebook. It plays Youtube just fine, handles Java, scans, prints, and edits photos (using Gimp) like a champ. (It doesn't run OS X, due to a lack of CPU instructions (no SSE3, though I hear that there's a patch to get that working.) *sigh* My laptop is a 7 year old iBook with a 500 MHz Processor and 192 MB of RAM. It is currently running OSX Tiger just fine and plays Youtube just fine also. Either you bought a really crappy laptop in 2004 or you are overestimating the requirements for Mac OSX.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[toddestan]

Ok, Where can I buy a PC that is as small and quiet as a Mac Mini or Apple TV?

There is currently, no such equivalent.

That's probably why he said "similarly powerful". The Mac Mini is pretty underpowered, you can pretty easily put together something that will run as fast or faster for $300 with a generic parts.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[arminw]

....On equal footing, with the same software....

But that's the whole point. A computer is determined by its software AND it hardware. When the two are integrated, such as in Apples products, the sum is greater than its parts. That's why Apple makes better computers. They make the WHOLE system, not only half of it. If they were foolish enough to one again license out their software, they'd be in the same boat as MS. They'd have to support who knows how many different hardware designs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[arminw]

....If it's ugly and it works, stick it under your desk ....

The problem is that I have such an ugly PC under my desk. Unfortunately, it it is also ugly to the ears by making a lot of noise. Now that I have Windows on my Macbook, running virtually under OSX, that noisy abortion sees virtually no more use.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mosch]

If you're going to claim you've proved your point, first you should prove it.

MBP $2800
HP $1300

MBP Dimensions 1.0h x 15.4w x 10.4d
HP Dimensions 1.57h x 15.16w x 11.65d

MBP Weight: 6.8lbs
HP Weight: 7.7lbs, 8.2lbs (dual lamp) - weight varies

MBP CPU: 2.5Ghz C2D
HP CPU: 1.83Ghz C2D

So it's true... for about half the price of a Mac you can buy a computer that's a hell of a lot bulkier than a mac, and is heavier and slower.

Please retry your rant with some actual comparable products, where you value not just the size of the screen, but all the other dimensions as well. Give me com comparables for the Mini, the 24" iMac, the MBP and the Mac Pro. They must actually be comparable or better.

Until then, all you're proving is that if you define "comparable" to mean "larger and crappier", that comparable products are cheaper.

As it stands, you're akin to an arrogant kid who looks at an Infiniti or a BMW and says "you know my 4 year old Honda Civic is a better deal, you got ripped off."

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[toddestan]

I'm going with the parent here. I've had enough "workstation class" PCs apart to know how they put them together. Dell knows these people aren't going to put up with something that's hard to work with and upgrade. I'm sure the Mac Pro is prettier, but the Dell surely comes apart in a similar fashion and is just as easy to upgrade.

Besides, while the Mac Pro may be easy to disassemble and upgrade, only Apple would build a machine where you have to remove the LCD screen in order to get to the insides (the current iMac).

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[iamhigh]

I like how no fanbois have a reply to that.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[arminw]

.....Otherwise, as far as I can see, the specs are identical....

There are many design features of Apple computers that don't show up on spec sheets. Mag-safe connectors, back-lit keyboards, guaranteed reliable sleep and wake, no malware and crap-ware, easy to remove programs since there is no stupid, arcane registry or uninstall program needed, lighter, thinner, stronger over all design. Dells just have that overall impression of cheapness whereas Apple products give the immediate impression of quality. Even the packaging of a new Apple products reflect this attention to detail. Also, Apple service and support is tops in the whole computer industry.

Apple is not for those whose first and often only consideration is price, but for those who do appreciate quality not evident in a raw spec sheet and are willing to pay a little extra for such quality.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[toddestan]

Not according to any reviews I've ever found. For example, this month's Popular Mechanics comparison pits a PC and a Mac at the exact same price, and the Mac blows it away.

That might be because they compared one pricy, all-in-one machine to another pricy, all-in-one machine. It wouldn't be hard to build a tower that can beat both of those machines for that kind of money.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[baeksu]

At least in Korea, you can get many very small (20 cm to a side, 5 cm thick) and quiet boxes that either run VIA or support Intel chips. External power supply, so only the CPU has a cooling fan. Should be rather quiet.

Boxes cost about $100 to $200 bucks. Once you throw in a stick of RAM and a harddisk, price should be around $250 maximum.

Of course, you can also get them in other colors than white, so they might be unsuitable for conformists...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mosch]

Also, Apple tends to offer form factors that others don't. Like the 17" MBP which is still only 1" thick.

Nearly every Apple product is *significantly* smaller than the majority of PC competitors (and is usually priced very similarly to the few PC competitors that have the same spec and form factor)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

I do think that comparing dissimilar models is difficult, but you were the one who suggested that someone compare a comparable Dell. Yes, but I'm claiming that they aren't really all that comparable, because whether the size and weight reduction is worth it or not is a conversation doomed to opinion.

The last time I looked, the only places where Dell and Apple had any serious overlap was on the MacBook and the Pro.

If you compare the MacBook to the XPS M1330, you have a very close comparison. The weight difference is almost 9% in Dell's favor, but the size advantage seems to go 6.7% towards the MacBook, though the wedge shape again makes this difficult. Getting them as close as possible, I came out with $1203 for the Dell and $1099 for the Apple.

Or you could compare the XPS One, which competes directly with the iMac 20". These two systems start within $100 of one another (in Apple's favor).

And I won't even get into the Mac Pro, which is much cheaper than the Dell workstations... I started configuring a Dell but stopped after the Dell broke the $1000 barrier... what's the point? :)

All I said is that Apple's prices tend to be competitive, and if you look at their entire product line, as I just did, you will see that is pretty much true. Even if the MacBook Pro was very comparable to the Dell, it would be somewhat of an outlier in their product line. I could not compare the Mini, as Dell offers no such beast.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[LuisAnaya]

I went to the Mini-ITX route myself. Although my system is not very small, about 1/2 of a pizza box, the price ended up being about the same as a Mac Mini (give and take). The EPIA-M that I got has no 3D acceleration and although the performance is adequate, it's certainly not fast.

With that learned, I would buy a cheap big clunker (i. e. the 200 dollars WalMart system) rather that go through the Mini-ITX route, or just buy a used Mac Mini.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Eil]

A counterpoint to this is when I bought a 15" Lenovo Thinkpad T61 last winter for around $1300. The equivalent MacBook Pro started at $2500. The only advantage that the MacBook Pro had over the Thinkpad is that it came with a built-in camera and was somewhat thinner. Since I was going to run Linux on whichever I bought, the Thinkpad was an easy choice.

Now that I've been using it for awhile, I don't regret the decision in the least. People say the quality of Mac hardware can't be beat. I beg to differ: My Thinkpad looks great, has a very nice screen, the hardware is quality kit, the keyboard is solid, and I have both a touchpad and a nipple pointer with a middle mouse button. (This thing even has four Mini PCI Express slots under the keyboard, only one of which is being used.) Even the support is better: If something on it breaks within the first year, I don't have to take it anywhere, Lenovo will send an empty postage-paid box to ship it away for free repair. This is not a special warranty program either, this is standard.

No, there isn't a Thinkpad to match every available portable Apple machine, but in many cases, a Thinkpad is really a better deal overall unless you really want to pay that extra thousand dollars for ability to run OS X.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

A lot of the nice things about OS X is specifically with design choices, not apparent quality. Windows has been fairly stable for a while now, but the interface is just awful.

Regardless, Apple could license OS X only for use with specific (tested) combinations of hardware. But they'll never do that, for the reasons listed in this thread.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

The requirements to run OS X on Intel requires a processor which supports the SSE3 instruction set. My notebook (and indeed, many notebooks from 2004) don't support the SSE3 instruction set. Therefore, my laptop will not run OS X (even fixed to emulate EFI and report that it's running on Apple hardware).

There's a third-party patch to get it working without SSE3, and I suspect that if I used this, it would work fine. However I haven't tried that.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

Reread the ancestor posts.

a) The guy I replied to said that we should configure a comparable Dell. If he didn't think that it was reasonable to compare a Dell to a Mac, he shouldn't have done that.

b) The guy he responded to was talking about vendors putting OS X on non-Apple hardware, so any discussion about the value of OS X over Windows are immediately irrelevant. In this discussion, we're talking about OS X on that Dell.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[atraintocry]

IIRC, Apple did have an official clone program, and it very nearly drove them out of business.

Of course they could always go back to the licensing program, which might provide a higher volume of sales, but at lower margins. But why bother? What they're doing now is working, and they're much healthier now as a company than when the PowerPCs were cutting into their hardware sales. I don't mean to say that ending the clone program saved them, but all of their past attempts to be more like MS got them into deeper and deeper trouble.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[eldepeche]

I don't know what kind of dollars you're talking about, but in the US, Leopard costs $129 for a single license or $199 for 5.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Hes Nikke]

the 1.7 GHz celleron M notebook i got off craigs list* for $150 with a shot battery and failing hard drive handled YouTube just fine before it's hard drive finally died. Then i got a real computer. :) Yay 2.2 GHz C2D macbook for $1000! (refurb) :D

*it was an experimental upgrade from an iBook, i wanted to see if i could get osx86 to work on it... i think i'll get a new HD and try again! :D

I dunno why, but this poem just spilled out of me O_o

I'm A Mac OS old timer
Through good times (System 6)
I've used a Mac
Through better times (System 7)
I've used a Mac
Through Darker times (System 7.5 - Mac OS 8.6)
I've used a Mac
Through More Better times (Mac OS 9)
I've used a Mac
And Through HOLY SHIT GO APPLE! (Mac OS X - present)
I've always used a Mac
I'll use Windows and Linux if I have to
But I'll always* prefer a Mac
I'll administrate Window and Linux if I have to
But I'll always* prefer a Mac
I'll program for The web* and Linux if I have to
But I'll always* prefer a Mac

*Guarantee not guaranteed, Linux may win me over yet, especially if GNUStep goes somewhere...
**Sucks for windows! :P

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[DECS]

"It's weird how zealots will claim that Apple's hardware is the be-all and end-all of computing equipment but simultaneously declare that licensing OS X to third parties would destroy Apple"

It's less weird when you realize that the reason Apple sells premium hardware is BECAUSE it is subsidizing the development of its own OS and software. Apple sells Mac OS X upgrades for less than Windows, and iLife/iWork are considerably less than their equivalents. Apple make nice software, but sells it as a premium on top of nice hardware.

If Apple sold cheap hardware, or lined up cheap hardware licensees, or sold OS X at retail, it would have to change from a hardware-centric model to a software-centric one. It's easy to sell desirable hardware; it's hard to sell software. People don't see value in software, and refuse to pay for it unless DRM prevents them from stealing it. That's why there's no healthy mobile software market, why Microsoft has to laden DRM and activation into Windows (because piracy of Windows no longer supports its interests), and why Apple doesn't sell Mac OS X for use on non-Apple hardware.

When you consider that Apple brings in half the revenue of Microsoft despite selling 5% of the number of copies, it helps clarify that yes, the software business is high margin, but it's also a hard sell, particularly if you happen to lack an established monopoly. Nobody else has been able to sell a commercial desktop OS, so why think Apple can? The community can't even successfully give Linux away on the desktop in any self-supporting sort of way. Obviously, this desktop software sales business is hard to crack into, particularly with a heavily armed monopolist in the way.

From Vista to Zune: Why Microsoft Can't Sell to Consumers

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[arminw]

....we should configure a comparable Dell....

That's the whole problem; there is no comparable Dell, since Dell and all the others make only half of a computer, whereas Apple makes an integrated whole system. The fact that some hackers are going to a huge amount of trouble just to run Apple's vastly superior OSX, speaks volumes about the quality of an integrated approach that is the hallmark of every modern manufactured product, EXCEPT most computers.

Where do you by a car without a transmission or an engine, having to install these yourself? Cars come with permanent seat belts and airbags. Users don't have to pay extra to have these safety devices in their cars. Why do users have to pay extra to install anti-malware software and then pay forever to in effect RENT the computer equivalent of seat belts, air bags and strong locks that prevent the doors from flying open in a crash?

Good manufacturers generally make the critical parts of a product themselves or at least ensure that their suppliers are held to their own high standards of quality. Which PC maker has ever DARED to hold MS to any sort of standard of high quality or reliability. They all cow-tow to the likes Bill Gates and Ballmer and meekly accept the insecure, bug infested crap software MS shovels their way. Then, to make matters worse these computer makers add hard to get rid of trial garbage software that makes their products suck even more.

It is beyond my understanding why it is that computer and software makers get away with practices and so called EULAs that would get a manufacturer of any other modern good sued into oblivion or have every good government come down on such purveyors of crap like a ton of bricks. Apple isn't perfect, but their integrated, functional products are surely a lot closer to what manufacturers of other modern goods produce.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mfnickster]

That's probably why he said "similarly powerful". The Mac Mini is pretty underpowered, you can pretty easily put together something that will run as fast or faster for $300 with a generic parts.

...

That might be because they compared one pricy, all-in-one machine to another pricy, all-in-one machine. It wouldn't be hard to build a tower that can beat both of those machines for that kind of money.

Apples and oranges (pardon the expression). You can't compare an integrated pre-configured machine with a build-it-yourself Frankenputer on price.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Dana W]

The correct statement is why would windows be so much more?

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mjwx]

- integrated webcam

Some do some don't, if you don't use a web cam you don't have to pay for it.

- standard AND optical audio output AND input

Same deal, you can get it if you want. The bog standard MacBooks don't come with this as well so it isn't standard.

- bluetooth
- gigabit ethernet
- built in microphone
- firewire

What rock have you been hiding under. These things have been standard for years. Infact you have to look harder to find laptops without them. Some manufactures were putting in bluetooth and GigE before Apple. You wont find a laptop built this decade without a microphone and every notebook has a mini IEEE1394 connector (not that they are that popular)

- 802.11n

Been available on Dell's from day one. Were pricey at first but now even the cheapest Dell can have N for about $20 AU more (if it hasn't already been thrown in).

- ~five hour battery life

If you believe the marketing I have a bridge to sell you (it has a 5 hour battery life too). When being used for work (or having the screen turned on) a standard 13" Mac book does not last as long as a 15" dell with a 6 Cell battery.

- IR support with remote included free

Ahhh, the wonder of choice, yes you can have a remote included, or you can get one after you buy a laptop. Also you Apple does not give you a remote for "free" you pay for it weather directly as a line item on your receipt or as part of a package. BTW, Apple remotes are pretty limited as to what they can do, for my media centre I'd require one with more than 6 buttons.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[tingeber]

Apple has a big hole in their lineup, IMHO. That is the mid-sized tower... basically a headless iMac. Apple should just sell one They would never do that because they're afraid that a large part of high-end, high-margin Mac Pro buyers would then switch to low-margin mid-range, thus lowering Apple's margin profits.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Nazlfrag]

Sure it sucks that Apple don't adjust prices, but there is nothing to do about it. Except, of course, to install onto 3rd party hardware.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[dufachi]

Only thing is, using the car analogy, it'd be like you can only drive the BMV on the Interstate (Main-stream office applications) and not on the sideroads (typical PC gaming).

I'd happily buy a Mac as soon as I can do what I currently do completely within the confines of MacOSX and not have to use emulation/virtualization and a Windows license.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Weedlekin]

"17" silent-ish HP laptop : Eur 1000
17" PowerBook : Eur 2800"

1. Apple don't sell PowerBooks anymore, and the MacBook Pro 17" costs 2067 Euros + VAT.

2. HP's domestic portables are unmitigated crap that prove there's a lot more to a laptop than paper specifications. Their business machines (the ones that come with Windows Vista Business by default) are much better, but they cost significantly more -- around 1700 Euros + VAT for 17" laptops with a similar spec to the MacBook Pro 17", and you end up a larger, heavier machine that has a significantly smaller hard-disk, a slightly slower CPU, no keyboard illumination or motion sensors, a smaller touch-pad, and a plastic rather than aluminium case (it does however have a higher resolution display than the default Apple one).

The actual difference for hardware of similar quality and roughly equivalent specs from HP (each has advantages over the other in certain areas) is therefore around 350 Euros, which buys a slightly lighter, smaller laptop with motion and light sensors, an illuminated keyboard, a bigger touch pad, a mag-safe PSU connector, and a metal case.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

The cheapest pro is $2249. A refurb is $1900. (Refurb does not mean used). Refurbs come with the same warranty, and actually, since they have all been hand scrutinized, typically have higher reliability than new systems. I have not bought anything but a refurb for years.

Why not lease it? You can't afford that much now, but over 2 years, if you bought a Pro, all you'd have to add is a better graphics card, maybe some RAM. No CPU upgrades for you for YEARS with a 8 core Xeon...

If you're into swapping graphics cars anyway, then you're a gamer, and need a PC to go side by side with your mac like I have... Until at least 75% of the top 50 games are released for mac at the same time as windows, I'll have a PC around... Others into high detail rendering, audio production, high res photoshop, etc, you need a different type of vid card, one for CAD, that can't play most games anyway... All of those people need the power of the Pro.

Find me someone willing to spend an extra $400 premium on a iMac, just to be able to play games and I'll show you someone who could buy a $600 cheaper mac and get a $1000 gaming PC for the same price...

Also, the vid card in the iMac is changeable. There have been 4 different graphics cards relesed so far for the current generation. All you have to do is buy the part and swap it in. No you can't use a retial card, you have to buy one specifically for the iMac, but it's better than nothing. We expect the 3000 series to make a showing in June.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Bohabo]

"Most People" buying a machine today work with digital photos, have a camcorder, want to be able to burn DVDs, want to play music while working, want to keep a web browser, e-mail, and at least 1 other application running.

My $300 laptop dual-booting XP and Debian with 1 gig of ram and a Celeron does all of this just fine.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

....we should configure a comparable Dell....

That's the whole problem; there is no comparable Dell, since Dell and all the others make only half of a computer, whereas Apple makes an integrated whole system. If you read for context, you'll see that the person asked us to configure a Dell with comparable hardware. The point was that Dell's hardware is cheaper than Apple's hardware. One of the ancestors posited that if Apple allowed OS X to be installed by other OEMs, that they'd be undercut with the prices.

Let me distill the time line.

Nursie: If big name manufacturers put OS X on their computers, Apple wouldn't sell nearly as many because they'd be undercut in price.

MightyYar: I think you'll change your opinion if you go configure a comparable Dell.

Me: Hey look, comparable Dell hardware costs $400 less. If Apple really did license OS X to Dell, they'd be undercut.

Everyone else: You don't get it! OS X is what makes Apple so awesome! You can't compare a Dell with Windows to a Mac with OS X.

Me: You missed the point. Go reread the thread.

Everyone else: You still don't get it!!

Me: Why do I even bother?

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[krunk7]

It's weird how zealots will claim that Apple's hardware is the be-all and end-all of computing equipment but simultaneously declare that licensing OS X to third parties would destroy Apple.

I do not claim this. The core hardware in an Apple machine is exactly the same as that in pc. What I claim is that people jump on the "comparing pintos to Mercedes" bandwagon. Just because their both cars do not make them the same.

If pc's with truly comparable specifications are compared, the apple products are quite competitive. No, a single processor C2D is *not* the same as a dual quad core Xeon tower. If your complaint is Apple does not make the product you want, fine. But this is more akin to complaining about the lack of a 10k BMW model then claiming that BMW's are overpriced compared to Toyota.

And this is just comparing raw specs. Have you actually looked into the cost of a solid aluminum, high quality tower case? They can easily reach over 350 dollars alone before they begin to compare with the quality in a Mac Pro case design.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[arminw]

....it'd be like you can only drive the BMV....

No, it be more like I can't or would not want to use the BMW to haul manure or rocks or whatever else is usually carried on a dump truck.

If you want to play games and merely be entertained get a PC. If you want to do productive, especially, creative work, get a Mac. If you simply want to PLAY content, a PC is great. An X-BOX or PS3 is even better for that and a lot cheaper. Most productively creative people making content use Macs, because Macs are better tools for doing that.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MBGMorden]

I understand that. But what I'm saying is that if people are truly buying them for those features, then licensing OS X would not hurt them. What I'm saying though, is that if OS X being available on 3rd party hardware drastically reduced their hardware sales (as many suggest it would), then it's clear that the market didn't really want what they're selling.

Example: Mac Pro is available with Xeon Processor, ECC RAM, aluminum case, 8 cores, etc, etc. 200 people buy it (numbers reduced to keep scale on a perceivable level).

Now, if OS X gets licensed, and now only 30 people buy that Mac Pro, but 300 people buy a Dell with Core2 Duo processors, regular steel/plastic case, regular RAM, etc.

That situation (which is pretty close to what most Mac fans claim will happen if Apple was foolish enough to license OS X), shows that the cheaper machine without the fancy options stole many sales of the Apple branded machine.

That situation would show that most people don't WANT those features that Apple pats itself on the back for including. They simply put up with them and pay extra for them because it's their only choice if they want OS X.

To extend your car analogy, lets say BMW's were the only cars that could drive in Texas or California (there's some magical reason that makes this so). They keep their product line. When they announce record sales do you think it'd be because of that limitation or because they're luxury cars? My bet is if Kia figured out that magic trick to drive in those states, a lot of customers would buy those instead. It had nothing to do with the car itself but rather what it could do.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Blimey85]

The problem with Apple opening things up is that suddenly they'll need to support a lot more hardware. Sure they could say it's legal to run it on anything but we are only supporting our own hardware, but too many people would run it on el cheapo machines and it would run like crap. Then OS X would start to have the same rep as Windows. As it is, Apple gets to control both sides - hardware and software. That makes it considerably easier to have a reliable system that just works.

IMO the iPod is not a superior piece of hardware. Not talking about the Touch but the other ones. I have a small Sony mp3 player that is about the size of a stick of gum. Has a screen on it, several buttons, and a twisty top that lets me change songs or albums. It works great and has a 55 hour battery life. Apple makes nothing that compares. Sony quit making these because they couldn't sell very many. Apple has cornered the market because they offer a full circle buying experience. You have your hardware (iPod), your software (iTunes), and the content (music from iTunes Store). Nobody thus far has been able to really compete with that. You don't need to buy Apple hardware to use the software or the content, yet people are still buying the crap out of iPods even though they cost more and there are better alternatives out there.

It's the same with their computers. If I want to run OS X and have a trouble free experience, I'm going to do it with Apple hardware because it's the shortest route to a happy experience. MOST consumers don't want to buy a computer and then install the operating system and do this and that and the other thing. They want something that just works and Apple provides that, which is why their market share has been growing considerably since Steve came back.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[arminw]

...You don't get it! OS X is what makes Apple so awesome....

OSX by itself doesn't make Macs awesome. It's the total integration as a complete SYSTEM, hardware and software. Apple doesn't care to compete directly with MS. They build complete, integrated, products, such as computers, music players, cell phones and other finished plug and play electronic devices. The software, such as OSX is just happens to be an integral part of these clever gadgets, just as much as the processors or other components. Why should they sell one of their custom components to their competitors?

Apple is an electronic hardware manufacturer and MS is a software maker. MS is to computer makers, what Bosch is to car makers. Bosch supplies certain parts which car makers then build into their products. A precision Bosch made fuel injection pump, by itself, doesn't make a particular car that has one an awesome product. Apple doesn't sell computer parts to other computer makers.

Comparing their products is rather pointless. If Dell or any of the other hardware makers wanted to write their own super-duper, cool OS and have an integrated whole computer, like Apple has, there is nobody who would prevent them from doing that.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Blakey Rat]

Ok, it's obvious you're so much in love with Apple products that you're simply not seeing the forest for the trees here.

The cheapest pro is $2249. A refurb is $1900. (Refurb does not mean used). Refurbs come with the same warranty, and actually, since they have all been hand scrutinized, typically have higher reliability than new systems. I have not bought anything but a refurb for years.

That's great, but:
1) Apple's web site says it's $2800. I'm not making this up: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&node=home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro&sf=wHF2F2PHCCCX72KDY
I have no idea where you're getting your prices from (admittedly I didn't look at refurbs, but your 'new' price is way off-base also.), but Apple says they cost a minimum of $2800.

2) $1900 is *still* far too expensive for a home desktop computer, by about $500. It's completely out of my price range, but of course I'm also not a computer snob willing to pay a full grand more to run OS X instead of Windows Vista like you, apparently, are. If you were using it to run Photoshop at a successful business, it might be a different situation, but for home use it's completely out-of-the-question.

3) Refurb doesn't mean "used," it usually means "defective, but we think we might have fixed the defective part maybe." That's worse than used.

Why not lease it? You can't afford that much now, but over 2 years, if you bought a Pro, all you'd have to add is a better graphics card, maybe some RAM. No CPU upgrades for you for YEARS with a 8 core Xeon...

Why would I lease a $2800 Mac when I could buy a $1200 Dell that does everything I need? I don't like entering into debt agreements for trivial things.

I don't need an 8-core Xeon. I don't need a 1-core Xeon. A normal 2.whatever ghz Core Duo, the kind of CPU that comes in that $1200 Dell, is more than sufficient for all of my computer needs. I can't even imagine a task which would require an 8-core Xeon in a home machine.

If you're into swapping graphics cars anyway, then you're a gamer, and need a PC to go side by side with your mac like I have...

Or I could do everything on the PC and save $2800. So far all I've learned about you is that you love to throw money in the trash, by signing up for crazy-expensive lease programs and owning twice as many computers as you actually need.

For the record, I'm not much of a gamer and the games I do play are on Xbox 360. I play WOW every so often, in spurts of a couple months each before I get bored, but you can run WOW on pretty low-end hardware at this point.

Since Vista and OS X both use the video card for standard window rendering, you can give your computer performance a noticeable boost by upgrading to a video card with more memory, even if you never play video games. It really did give new life to my G5 by replacing the video card.

Until at least 75% of the top 50 games are released for mac at the same time as windows, I'll have a PC around...

75% of the top 50 games are released to Xbox (well, ok, maybe exaggerating some), and it only costs $400. Again, all I've learned about you is that you love to throw money in the trash. Also, you hate using a single period to end a sentence.

Others into high detail rendering, audio production, high res photoshop, etc, you need a different type of vid card, one for CAD, that can't play most games anyway... All of those people need the power of the Pro.

Possibly, but:
1) The cheap Pro comes with crappy video anyway, a Radeon 2600xt. So those professionals will still need to pay more to upgrade the video.

2) I'm not talking about professional use in the first place, I'm talking about home use. If you can justify $2800 for a "professional" computer for your business, then knock you

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[aliquis]

That don't change how Apple price their machines and adjust the prices over time.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I've complained about Apple pricing before, but since I've just purchased a MacBook... [engage fanboyism..]

... they are expensive. But the hardware is good, the design is very good, and the software is fantastic. I think they do represent good value for money provided you value all the things that are good about Apple (the things I mentioned). So, not the best product for all users/occasions, but certainly good overall.

Oh, and the reason for my posting here; I purchased my MacBook on 1st May and I paid £734 (inc. VAT) for a black MacBook. But it's the previous one (1GB RAM, 160GB HD, 2.2GHz processor)... but since the specs are pretty similar to an entry level white MacBook, and since the price was similar, it seemed like a good deal to me.**

So despite the fact that Apple don't change the price of their products over time, perhaps they do lower costs to dealers?

**for reference, the official Apple UK lists prices for *current* MacBooks are (from memory) £699 for the entry level white MacBook and £949 for a black MacBook.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Chang]

I've only called twice in 5 years but I'm pretty sure I was speaking to people in Canada both times, eh?

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[sisaac]

Your Macbook Pro price is off (on the high end) by $500. Certainly more than you quote for the Dell, but still, try to get your numbers right. And from what I see, the graphics card is the same (NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256MB) in the MBP and the Dell.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[bandmassa]

If you don't want to use a mac, that's fine, don't use one, but take a chill pill and let those of us who want to do so in peace, there's no need to get all troll about it. The extra dough isn't for a working webcam, it's for a better integrated package with better integration across the bundled software. It's extra money for the "whole widget" experience. If you'd rather buy something cheaper and it serves you, cool, I'm happy for you, genuinely happy for you. You don't need to be abusive of other people for their preference, grow up.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[toddestan]

Apples and oranges (pardon the expression). You can't compare an integrated pre-configured machine with a build-it-yourself Frankenputer on price.

And why not? Most people don't buy the Mac Mini because it's a small, integrated computer. They buy it because it's the $600 Mac. Besides, if you don't want a Frankencomputer Dell or eMachines or Gateway will gladly put together a computer for you for around $300 that, for the most part, will be standard interchangable parts.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[beetle496]

Better graphics card, and way cheaper at Dell.

My three very favorite things about my Ti and Al PowerBooks: (1) The backlit keyboard, (2) ability to swap batteries while it is asleep (does the MBP do this?), (3) the relatively low weight. So unless you can account for that, you are IMHO comparing Apples and oranges. But if you look at the current iBook:

• MacBook 13.3-inch glossy widescreen TFT display (1280 by 800)
• 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
• 250GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm ($100 upgrade)
• SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
• 2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB

$1,399, plus you get that sweet MagSafe power cord, Gigabit Ethernet (instead of 100), Mini-DVI (instead of VGA), FireWire, 802.11n (instead of g), and BlueTooth. All at just 5 lbs including the ruggedized construction.

Please pick a smaller display for the Dell and run the numbers again and let us know how it goes. And if the Dell has features I do not give it credit for, please correct me about that too!

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[xrayspx]

Dear crazy man,

At the time that I paid $2800 for my quad core 2.66Ghz Mac Pro, the reason I bought it was because the cost of an HP workstation matched part-for-part was $4000. I can put more RAM in the Mac, and it will take more disk than the HP I was sizing. Plus, the silly thing is damn near silent.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[kiwipeso]

In NZ, you can get the ASUS eee laptop for $500. It runs linux, or for $600, Win XP.
However, I got a new ACER laptop for NZ$1200. Runs Vista home prem, like half the speed of my old G5 1.8Ghz iMac with 10.4.11
It's a AMD X64 Dual Core 1.9Ghz with 2 gig ram, 160 gig HD, 256MB dedicated card with 256 MB stolen from main ram and a DVD DL writer.
I should note that NZ $1200 is about US$800. Oh, it also came with MS office 2007 home.
I got it mainly because I need a portable that's affordable and it runs Java quicker than the intel laptops at the same price do.
Plus, I like 15" widescreen more than 14" widescreen.

Now, if someone could tell me how vista turned off the anti-virus in norton internet security 2008?
I'm used to running macs, so this is the first time I've used anti-virus software.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[CountBrass]

No sure doggerel really counts as poetry.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Abjifyicious]

I realize this post thread is long since dead, but I only just noticed your reply, so here's my response:

Please do your research before you declare that I'm wrong. The "bog standard MacBooks" do indeed come with the audio features I described.

Furthermore, my overall point still stands if you would actually check the facts. For the sake of comparison I'll look at the Dell M1330 XPS laptop, since that has a similar screen size and specs as the MacBook. If you actually go on the Dell site and customize it to match the specs the midrange MacBook model, the price is almost exactly the same (the Dell is slightly more pricey, actually). It does NOT come with bluetooth or gigabit standard as you claim all modern PCs do. Yes, 802.11n is cheap, but it still costs extra and all the little things add up. The actual battery life of laptops is always debatable, but regardless you can customize the M1330 to have the same watt-hour battery as a MacBook if you're willing to pay extra.

Even customizing it as closely as possible, there are still some features like the gigabit ethernet that you cannot even get on the Dell. Then again, you can't get a memory card reader on the MacBook, so it all about balances out.

Before you try and argue with someone about something like this, you really, really should check the numbers first.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Marc_Gafni]

JUST GET A MAC. - Marc Gafni

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[konohitowa]

Where can I buy a PC that is as small and quiet as a Mac Mini or Apple TV? ... For now, I will stick to my Ubuntu running AppleTV. It has digital audio and video out, and casts [sic] $250.
But if you have a suggestion, go ahead.

Okay, I'll bite. 17" silent-ish HP laptop : Eur 1000

Wow. I guess the dollar has gotten suddenly stronger. 'Cause it appears that 1000 Euro is equivalent to 250 USD.

MacOS on PCs...

[TofuMatt]

MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool, and a neat experiment, but I think for most folks, it's not very appealing.

I'm sure the crowd of people who feel the need to upgrade their computer every 5 seconds but like MacOS X otherwise might dig this. I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[Zero__Kelvin]

"MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool"

... as opposed to Windows for Microwaves, which keeps your food very cool ;-)

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[UnknowingFool]

But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

That's not a very can-do attitude. We should aim to put OS X and Linux on everything including granola bars! Turn in your geek card. I label you as not-a-team player. :P

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[Anonymous Coward]

"MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool"

... as opposed to Windows for Microwaves, which keeps your food very cool ;-) Don't forget that Windows for Microwaves brings a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[AndrewNeo]

"What smells like blue?"

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[jbarr]

...it's very cool, and a neat experiment, but I think for most folks, it's not very appealing.

Actually, I am looking for a very practical reason to do so: I would like to try my hand at developing an application for the iPhone/iPod Touch using Apple's SDK, however, doing so requires a machine running Leopard. This means that at minimum, I must invest at least $500-$600 for a Mac Mini to do development. The problem is that there is no facility to "evaluate" the development environment without actually installing it on an Apple platform--which I do not have.

OK, I do realize that to make money, you typically must spend money, and a modest investment in a Mac Mini could bring a larger payback if I develop something that is successful. But in this case, being able to "test out" the SDK on a PC would give me that opportunity to evaluate it. And if I decide that it is worth my time and money, then, I'll happily invest in an Apple platform. In fact, I'd actively promote the SDK and the platform. But if it doesn't suit my needs, then I won't wast any more time or money.

Yes, there is a potential legal issue in this, but is this really that different from downloading a cracked version of an application to evaluate it with the full intention of purchasing the application if it proves to be what I'm looking for?

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[FictionPimp]

Exactly. I've thought about doing it a few times. But I realized if I wanted to work to make my computer function I'd just rebuild my gentoo box.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[naibas]

I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Apple made the decision that if they can't control the user experience, then they don't want to sell it. That decision is not inherently good or bad, but allowing anyone to run MacOSX on any hardware would mean loss of that control.

If you look at Microsoft, they cannot guarantee the user experience. Any hardware producer can produce a buggy product with buggy drivers, or a product with conflicts when combined with some other product, etc, and if a consumer ends up with problems, either because they built a system with conflicting hardware, or, more likely, they bought a cheap computer that someone else built with conflicting hardware, they are likely to blame Windows.

Sure, you can still get that with Apple, but with the huge variety of hardware available for Windows, it is far more likely that someone will find two pieces that don't like each other. Plus Apple doesn't let you buy your own motherboards and power supplies, for example, both of which can cause all kinds of exotic problems.

And Microsoft really wants to try to gain some of the control that Apple has, but when they do stuff like try to enforce signed drivers, it makes the enthusiasts unhappy, because it is seen as a freedom that is being taken away. From Microsoft's point of view, they are trying to ensure a pleasant user experience.

Apple has avoided most all of that by just making all the (important) hardware themselves. I imagine their compatibility testing labs are infinitely smaller than Microsoft's. And unless Apple revisits that decision (which seems unlikely as long as Steve Jobs has anything to say about it), they will not market (or probably even license) Mac OSX as an OS that can be bought and installed on off the shelf hardware.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[maxume]

In the DNA of everything.

(I'll stick with my evolved DNA, you try Linux. Watch out for vendor customizations.)

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[Firehed]

As a former hardware-obsessive-type now using Macs, I sort of agree. I've long since given up that approach with computers since it's too expensive, too time-consuming and too frustrating. However, I still can't justify getting the cheaper iMac as compared to a Mac Pro since having a single internal hard drive that's effectively inaccessible (any access involving suction cups, dozens of assorted weird screws and a lint-free cloth is more than I'd like to deal with for a hard drive upgrade). I have no plans to upgrade the hardware every other week like I used to, but I burn through too much space to deal with that level of pain with a hard drive upgrade and the premium for an Apple drive upgrade is insane. I know why they do it and from a business perspective it makes perfect sense, but it's one of the biggest things that's stopped me giving them two grand for a nice 24" iMac months ago.

And again with the headless Mac that's probably never going to happen. I want one and would happily pay for it... something with half the specs of a Pro, etc. But I know why Apple doesn't license OS X for PC hardware and agree with their decision. I used OSX86 on a Thinkpad for the best part of a year, and while I preferred the hardware to my MBP, the weird quirks like no wireless, audio, or standby were a huge pain in the ass - and that was for a reasonably well-supported system. I'd rather Apple focus on perfecting the OS than futzing with weird drivers for a million hardware combinations.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[value_added]

MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool, and a neat experiment, but I think for most folks, it's not very appealing.

I disagree.

You're making an unjustified assumption that everyone who buys a Mac buys it because of Apple hardware per se, and not because of OS X. If the hardware is fully supported, then the hardware is fully supported. Period. Mixing in other issues won't change that fact. And while I'll agree that Apple's hardware is top-notch, it bears pointing out that so is lots of other hardware, hardware whose design doesn't include clear Lexan or otherwise adorned with logos of common fruits.

If the idea of running OS X is blasphemous, so be it. Most of us have no interest in joining a church, and do just fine in a less than perfect world. When I bought my Thinkpad, I didn't ask IBM's blessing to install FreeBSD, nor did I ask for support. I just paid my money and walked away happy.

I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick.

How is that degenerating? The issue has been fair game and perfectly relevent since Apple went the Intel route. And if you put aside all the handwavy issues of user experience, inferences related to Steve Job's personality and preferences, similarly personal notions of whether or not Apple is a "hardware" company, or arm-chair analysis of present and past business strategies, it's an issue that's still unresolved.

Put another way, the only facts here are the absence of them.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[dawnsnow]

I think Apple should license their OS one way or another. For American people, they don't care whether Apple dominate whole personal computer business or not. But for other parts of World, it doesn't make sense that they have to pay one US company for the OS AND the Computer. There're many PC vendors throughout the World. And most PC profit will be kept within their countries. But not so much if everyone has to buy Apple computer.

I think at least, Apple could start 'OS X Compatible' sticker program, so they can get some cut for clone PC and license their OS.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[mini me]

For me, OS X on the PC has some appeal for one simple reason: Nobody around here will fix Macs. If my PC breaks I can drop into any one of the numerous local computer shops. When my Powerbook has problems (and it's had a fair number of problems!) I'm looking at six hours on the road.

I like the Apple hardware/software combination and am willing to pay a premium for it, but the difficulty in getting things fixed is a concern to me. One that would be alleviated by using a generic PC.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the joke about the only product Microsoft may release that doesn't suck: a vacuum cleaner.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[alcmaeon]

I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick.

I agree. Plus I don't see any point in discussing why Apple should repeat a marketing mistake it made over a decade ago and has finally recovered from.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[jedidiah]

I have Mac hardware that's too good at what it does in it's particular niche
to be burdened with MacOS. I'd love to be able to take my install disks and
install on some other machine or even in a VM.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[shmlco]

"... but I burn through too much space to deal with that level of pain with a hard drive upgrade ..."

So? I bought a 24" iMac with a 500GB drive and then upgraded the RAM to 4GB. And not everything has to be on the internal drive. In fact, I also have two 2TB WD drives daisy-chained to it via FW-800.

That's 4.5TB. How much space do you need?

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[hexadecimate]

... as opposed to Windows for Microwaves, which keeps your food very cool ;-)

There you go again, snatching all the low-hanging fruit. ;-)

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[hotfireball]

why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!

Two reasons why not:

• Apple hardware is one of the best and has very reasonable price. In some cases you can get PC cheaper and faster, but overall quality for Apple hardware is still one of the topmost. E.g. if you want to assemble something similar to 24" iMac with e.g. Dell, then you will get the same thing around $200-$300 USD more expensive than Apple.
• To support zillion crappy low-quality hardware? No, thanks. It is a nightmare that will turn Apple to be a shitty Microsoft-like quality. Apple still has tons of unresolved issues in current environment.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[specific]

Windows for microwaves just enables you watch your food spin.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[demallien2]

No, the issue has been resolved - and the answer is Linux.

Microsoft has discovered that it's really really hard to compete against free. There's a reason they are sucking back large losses on hardware projects such as XBox 360 and Zune - they want out of the software-only business, because they forsee a day when Linux is able to truly compete head-on, feature for feature with Windows. On the other hand, you can't open-source hardware manufacturing.

Apple have also seen this, which is why they won't be putting themselves in the position of having to compete solely on software. Hence, no clones, because Apple wants hardware revenues. they simply use their great software as a way of enticing you to buy the hardware.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[Count Fenring]

Nah... Windows For MicrowavesTM has a BSoS (Blue Screen of Sterility).

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[oblivionboy]

How was this in any way flamebait?

But if your time has no value...

[Anonymous Coward]

...why not just stick with Windows?

Re:But if your time has no value...

[rainhill]

Why is this funny?

Legality?

[actionbastard]

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

Doing any of this is in violation of the EULA. Do they really believe someone who does this is going to 'buy' a copy of the OS?
How naive.

Re:Legality?

[somersault]

I would. Only if it was for a desktop though, I'm quite happy with the quality of Apple's laptops for everything I use it for, even with their apparently poor thermal paste application.. if I was going to do any more serious gaming on this laptop I'd probably be better off taking it apart and sorting the cooling out.

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

Personally, I don't recognize EULAs as legitimate contracts. If they want me to enter into a contract, then they need to negotiate it with me PRE-SALE!

I do, however, recognize their copyright. So I'll buy a copy to respect copyright, and then install it wherever I damn well please.

That said, I'm not above copyright infringement either. The RIAA will not see a penny of my money.

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this post you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (âBOGUS AGREEMENTSâ) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

That ought to hold up in court, eh?

Re:Legality?

[adpsimpson]

Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries.

Enforcing EULAS does not.

Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so. However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

Oh, I most certainly do. While the case law on EULAs is all over the map, I can't find a single case of a single user of software getting successfully sued for breach of an EULA.

So, if they could even find out that I had broken the EULA, it almost certainly wouldn't be worth their time to try and sue me for breach of contract - especially given the likely payout.

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

Just because it is inconvenient for them to negotiate a contract does not mean that traditional contract law should be discarded. If they choose to sell things by phone, the nuances of licensing then become THEIR problem. I'm not even going to read their EULA, let alone abide by it.

I'm certainly not going to pack up and ship a whole computer back because they decide to change the terms post-sale.

Re:Legality?

[Sandbags]

They did negotiate it with you. It's posted on their web site for all to view, and the package mentions the address on the outside of the box. Inside the box, you have a seal to break confirming your acceptance of the EULA and again a reference for where to read it before you break the seal. If you buy it, open it, but DON'T break the seal, it can be returned to the vendor (but not the retailer typically) for a full refund. this return right is guaranteed by law. Once you break the EULA seal on the CD/DVD case inside the box, you've by the letter of the law agreed to it.

Did you not notice the big red STOP sign saying "By opening this package you are agreeing the the ..."

Apple's EULA, other than being required to use Apple hardware, is one of the most generous in the industry. They'll even ALLOW you to install it on more than 1 system, up to 5, if you promise not to use more than 1 at a time. I took good advantage of this at my father's house since he has a mini in the living room, an iMac on his desk, and a MacBook for travel, yet he's the only one who would be using them, and would not do so all at once, so he got 1 copy of 10.5, 1 copy of iLife 08, and apple support HELPED HIM install it on each machine....

Re:Legality?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Personally, I don't recognize EULAs as legitimate contracts. If they want me to enter into a contract, then they need to negotiate it with me PRE-SALE!

Legally I find EULAs to be very questionable. However, if EULAs are ever made illegitimate, all it will do is make it harder for Mac users. Apple will switch to a different, legal method of tying their hardware and software, one that is probably more annoying.

I do, however, recognize their copyright. So I'll buy a copy to respect copyright, and then install it wherever I damn well please.

I'm not sure you are understanding how copyright works. Buying a DVD with OS X on it does not necessarily give you the right to make an additional copy of the OS on your computer's hardware. Only Apple has that right to make a copy and if you want to make use of it, legally, there is a lot of support for you needing some sort of a license from Apple. If they don't give you one, your purchase is pretty useless.

That said, I'm not above copyright infringement either. The RIAA will not see a penny of my money.

I'm the last one to defend the RIAA. I have no problem if you want to go find them, burn down their houses, blow up their cars, and force them to eat their own feet. That said, it hurts the RIAA more to simply not listen to music that they hold copyrights for and instead support independent music. It is harder to find good indy music since it is less widely marketed, but their is plenty of it that is better than most of the tripe the RIAA is peddling.

That ought to hold up in court, eh?

No. I don't need permission to read a post you published. I need permission to make a copy of it... except in the instance of fair use, such as quoting your post in a post of my own, where your copyright is specifically limited by law. In the case of Apple's license, there is a real exchange. The licensee (you) is granted the right to copy the OS onto one Apple branded computer and the licensor(Apple) is given money and the promise that you will not take certain actions.

EULAs are messed up and our copyright needs serious reform, but if you plan to argue against the principals you should probably do a little more research to better understand the real problems.

Re:Legality?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries. Enforcing EULAS does not.

EULAs have some history of prosecution both successful and not. Be careful of which state or country you are in unless you have millions for a legal defense.

Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so.

Ahh, but copyright law does limit what you can do with software you have bought, specifically, if you can make a copy of it on your computer's hard drive (for example). There is a very strong legal case for needing a license of some sort in order to make such a copy and sans agreeing with their EULA, making copies is arguably illegal.

However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.

"Pirating" commercial software is simply making a copy without permission from the copyright holder. It is called copyright infringement. Apple selling you a Mac OS X install DVD does not implicitly grant you the right to copy that DVD and more than Adobe selling you a Photoshop install DVD grants you the right to make copies of it and give them to your friends. They are both (arguably) copyright infringement.

When you buy an Apple computer, it comes pre-installed, so there is not any issue of making a copy that could be a violation, but neither does that mean you can install it on other Macs or generic hardware, since those are no different from photocopying a book you bought (something illegal since the 70's sans fair use clauses). Now there are real arguments for personal copies and it is more complex if you buy a retail OS X DVD without a computer given that it may fall afoul other laws for Apple to restrict you in that regard (although this has never been upheld by the courts).

In short, just because you buy copyrighted material, does not mean you can make copies of it and any such action is very questionable legally, unless you have a specific license from the copyright holder.

Re:Legality?

[Sandbags]

It is legally enforcable under the Uniform Code of Commerce (mentioned in the Constitution itself) as a contract UNLESS some law excludes a particular statement or term of that contract, and via seperation clause, the entire contract would not be void, only that caluse or subsection or statement.

Unless there is a specific law outlawing that conract term, by opening the seal on the DVD saying "by opening this you agree to the EULA" or by clicking accept the first time you power a machine on, you ARE legally bound to it. This HAS been held up in court, and you can get the SAME punishment as piracy for illegal USE of software you legally own. This is most commonly challenged when companies use "not for commercial use" software releases for profiet generating business, but it has held in other aspects as well, including Adobe and AutoDesk which both successfully sued to forbid you from using their software dongle on any PC other than the one serielised and registered. (if that PC died, you had to relicence their software on a new one) This also applies to antivirus software, which can legaly be used ONLY on the first PC it's installed on.

Re:Legality?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

They did negotiate it with you. [...] Did you not notice the big red STOP sign saying "By opening this package you are agreeing the the ..."

The key word here is Negotiate. In a negotiation, both sides have a chance to argue back and forth about terms in the contract, price agreed and so on. In contract law this sort of negotiation has to happen, not just "take it or send it back".

Rich.

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

Did you not notice the big red STOP sign saying "By opening this package you are agreeing the the ..." That is presented AFTER the sale. The sale is the contract. If they agreed to the sale without even presenting me with the EULA, then it is invalid.

Re:Legality?

[Sandbags]

Actually, the website listing the EULA is printed on the outside of the box. Also, it's on their website. It's common knowledge that software is licensed, and every license has terms. Your failure to read before purchase is your own fault, not theirs. Your right to refuse the license and get your money back is protected, at least until you break the internal seal or click accept.

Re:Legality?

[Sandbags]

Negotiate may have been the wrong term there. impose is more correct. Either way, you can still refuse the license and send it back for a full refund, even if you didn't take the time to go online and read the EULA before making your purchase. The "argument" is called supply and demand. If you don't like their terms, don't buy it... If they don't sell enoguh, they'll change terms or lower the price. Seems like right now, not a lot of that happening...

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

I'm not sure you are understanding how copyright works. Buying a DVD with OS X on it does not necessarily give you the right to make an additional copy of the OS on your computer's hardware. Are you sure about that? I would think that this would fall under "fair use". After all, what value does a disc full of software have if you can't load it onto your machine... especially when the seller has helpfully included this installer thing to make it easy for you.

Remember that you are also making a copy of music when you play a CD, as the bits are read off of the CD and into the buffer. Also, it seems as though format shifting is considered fair use, though I don't think that this has been tested.

If they don't give you one, your purchase is pretty useless. This would violate the common law tradition of "implied warranty" or "warranty of fitness". I can't sell you a car, and then you find out that I've locked the gas cap and demand something else from you after the purchase is completed.

That said, it hurts the RIAA more to simply not listen to music that they hold copyrights for and instead support independent music. Sometimes I get that itch and I am but a weak human. :) Also, I share it all with my friends, so they aren't buying it either. My goal is to not have ANY of my friends buy their crap.

I need permission to make a copy of it... But you copied it from Slashdot's servers to your own cache and a bunch of routers in between. You made at least one copy to your framebuffer. You shouldn't have read my post if you didn't agree. :) Yes, it's an asinine bit of text - but the argument is very similar to an EULA... I'm putting arbitrary restrictions on you even though there is no justification for doing so. If I didn't want you to read my post I wouldn't have posted it for you to read. If Apple didn't want me to run their software, they wouldn't have sold it to me. Common sense.

Re:Legality?

[bnenning]

Buying a DVD with OS X on it does not necessarily give you the right to make an additional copy of the OS on your computer's hardware. Only Apple has that right to make a copy and if you want to make use of it, legally, there is a lot of support for you needing some sort of a license from Apple.

Nope, 17 USC 117. You don't need a license to run software any more than you need a license to make a "copy" of the words in a book in your retina.

Re:Legality?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Are you sure about that? I would think that this would fall under "fair use".

Fair use is vague, but in the general case, no it would not. Maybe if you were using it for demonstrating how such things are copied in a public school.

Remember that you are also making a copy of music when you play a CD, as the bits are read off of the CD and into the buffer. Also, it seems as though format shifting is considered fair use, though I don't think that this has been tested.

This one at least passes one of the big 4 of fair use, in its effect upon the market. The law so far has been pretty good with precedent here that such "ephemeral" copies were acceptable, although a few judges have weighed in on the other side claiming even those constitute copyright violation.

This would violate the common law tradition of "implied warranty" or "warranty of fitness".

Indeed it does and possibly fall afoul of a number of laws on the books. This has, however, been poorly tested in the courts with them going both ways on it.

But you copied it from Slashdot's servers to your own cache and a bunch of routers in between.

I didn't. The network operators did. They are protected by their (pseudo) common carrier status.

You made at least one copy to your framebuffer.

Again, an ephemeral copy. as per the example above. It goes away in short order (or becomes invisible to the average users anyway).

You shouldn't have read my post if you didn't agree. :) Yes, it's an asinine bit of text - but the argument is very similar to an EULA...

It is similar, but not the same in the fundamental way that you were trying to restrict viewing, instead of copying... and the forms of copying that took place inherently have been pretty well established to be legal or have concretely been established so.

I'm putting arbitrary restrictions on you even though there is no justification for doing so.

Except in the case of the EULA, they do have a legal right, copyright granted by the government. and it is presented before the infringement takes place.

If I didn't want you to read my post I wouldn't have posted it for you to read. If Apple didn't want me to run their software, they wouldn't have sold it to me. Common sense.

Except Apple only wants you to make copies in specific circumstances and the law grants them that right, or possibly does depending upon how the courts end up o the issue of EULAs. The practical take away is, unless you have a lot of money for a legal defense, you'd be an idiot to think you have no chance of being prosecuted if you ignore the EULA and Apple is going to tie their OS and hardware, so if they ever do lose on the EULA issue they'll just change their means of restriction to some less user friendly. Heck, all they have to do is put a waring on the outside of the box, or stop selling disks retail and only sell upgrades as a Web service.

Re:Legality?

[mr_mischief]

Breaking the EULA for something you paid money for is not the same as making a copy of some software you didn't buy. Disagreeing with Apple and breaking their one-sided "contract" is not the same as violating their copyright. If you buy it, they're the ones who distributed the copy and you're just using it other than as they wish.

Re:Legality?

[mr_mischief]

Step 1: Buy it shrink wrapped from Circuit City or Best Buy

Step 2: Read the EULA

Step 3: Try to return the opened software package to the store where you bought it

Step 4: Get turned away by the store employees, because software companies bitched about copyright infringement when consumers could return software that had been opened.

Step 5: Return home with software you tried to return to fulfill your requirement under the EULA, only to be denied that possibility.

Step 6: Use the software anyway.

Step 7: Find a way to get the software vendor to sue you for breach.

Step 8: Countersue, as their reseller did not honor the contract allowing you to return the software.

Step 9: Probably lose the suit, but make a lot of publicity.

Step 10: Sell your movie rights.

Step 11: Deposit check that's almost worth your legal fees and hassle!

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

A contract printed on the outside of the box is a different kettle of fish, now isn't it?

Too bad I can purchase it from Amazon without being presented with the contract, isn't it? That means it isn't a condition of sale.

Your right to refuse the license and get your money back is protected, at least until you break the internal seal or click accept. What right is this? I have the right to return something that doesn't work under common law. Implied warranty and all that. A little sticker doesn't change years of common law. Even if case law were clearly in favor of the EULA, that still doesn't make a post-sale contract correct... just legal.

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

you'd be an idiot to think you have no chance of being prosecuted if you ignore the EULA Prosecuted is probably the wrong word. Litigated against. Criminal law is not relevant here.

So they sue. For the cost of violating a contract? Okay, here's your $90 back. Have a nice day. Maybe they can prove that they lost the entire profit on a computer... hard to prove but maybe. Okay, here's the $200 that I saved on a computer that you don't even sell a competitor to.

Where's my risk? Note that I'm not a business susceptible to the crazy software police. Has any individual ever been sued based on an EULA? Not that I can find.

Re:Legality?

[torstenvl]

Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries. Enforcing EULAS does not. O RLY? You've researched the law in all the Western countries and can make a quantitative statement like "most"?

EULAs have a solid history of enforcement in the U.S. See, e.g., ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).

Re:Legality?

[Sandbags]

Amzon might not give you the EULA, but is is considered by the courts that it is in fact common knowledge that software is licensed, and that licensces have terms. You should know there is a licence, and should you go looking, it's on Apple's website in it's complete text, and by phone if you don't have a computer yet or access to one, you can request a printed copy be mailed to you. Failure to read it is not their fault, due dillegence of publication has been met.

Of cource common law protects you, bet even more so, the code of commerce does as well. The idea is that if you have not broken the seal, you can get your money back. If you have, you can't. Simple enough. You have 3 opportunities to read said license: 1) because of common knowledge you should seek it out where is is easily found and free to review. 2) when you read the bottom of the box and the product statement, before opening the box, there's information about where to find the EULA, and 3) on the DVD seal inside the box.

If you missed all 3, you'r ignorant, and deserve to be denied a refund.

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

Um, that case you linked is not a single user of software being sued, it's a guy who was effectively reselling the data from another company.

But I'm sure that you are doing very well in your first year at Anonymous Law School.

Re:Legality?

[stewbacca]

I deleted something off my wife's MacBook and reinstalled it using my iMac install disks because I couldn't find the MacBook disk. Sue me or send me to jail? I've also lent my disks to other Mac users who did something stupid like format their OSX partition when setting up bootcamp (back in beta days). Since you have to have a Mac to use the OS, I don't think Apple cares one bit how you use the install disks.

Re:Legality?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

He already owns the computer at the time that agreement seal is presented. I wonder what would happen if I sold you a car and then later on put a sticker on it that said "by removing this sticker you agree to pay X $10,000. If you do not agree, sell your car."

If courts uphold this whether its your car or your computer it is obviously a travesty of justice and common sense...

Re:Legality?

[The Bean]

Don't bother re-applying the thermal paste, it won't make a difference.

Just up the fan RPM and call it a day.

Re:Legality?

[somersault]

Thanks, I already got a fan control plugin shortly after getting the Mac actually, though I have left it in its default state for Windows, it seems to be higher there anyway.

Hmm okay after reading about someone else who did clean up his thermal paste, he didn't really notice any difference - after he realised that he'd disconnected the temp sensor which was causing the fans to go on full blast and cool it down a lot! Thanks again :)

Re:Legality?

[Sandbags]

Well, it would be kinda hard to drive it off the lot without seeing that, and since the vehicle had not left the lot yet, you have the right to destroy the sale documents and return the car for a 100% refund.

Of course, since there WAS a contract SIGNED when you bougth the car, you're protected for additional clauses and costs.

Not the best analogy.

Never mind the buying part...

[mr_da3m0n]

Because even if you pay for it, the EULA forbids you from legally running it on non-apple branded hardware.

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

Re:Never mind the buying part...

[adpsimpson]

Pirating software has been successfully prosecuted as a crime in most courts in the world.

Breaking EULA's has not.

One is blatantly illegal, the other is doing something that a company you bought something off would rather you didn't do, so has told you is against the undisclosed 'contract' you 'agreed to' when you 'bought' the software.

Re:Never mind the buying part...

[dfm3]

Because even if you pay for it, the EULA forbids you from legally running it on non-apple branded hardware. That's what the Apple stickers that come with your iPod are for...

Re:Never mind the buying part...

[nawcom]

I question what non-apple branded hardware is. Intel makes the processor. Asus and Quanta make the cases. Broadcom makes the wireless cards. What part is apple branded? And is it apple branded because it says Apple Computer on it? I could to that to my Dell laptop anyday. (And since it currently uses Leopard, as soon as they enforce that policy, I'll be printing out some Apple stickers.)

Re:Never mind the buying part...

[imuffin]

The EULA says:

License Uses and Restrictions. A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

Apple-labeled? Does anyone else think that's up for interpretation?

I went there

[tripmine]

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard." Oh, I thought about it...

Re:I went there

[mkiwi]

Just get the Leopard

Re:I went there

[peipas]

Not only that, but is it even possible to purchase a legitimate copy of OS X for use on a PC? Certainly there are provisions in the licensing agreement dictating where it can be installed, meaning you would be in just as much violation whether or not you shelled out the cash.

Re:I went there

[gimple]

Again with the modding as "troll." I think maybe the mod needs a hug. (Hopefully, they are out of mod points by modding all these as "troll.")

Re:I went there

[hansamurai]

It's kind of like breathing, you don't think about it until someone brings it up.

By the way, you are now breathing manually.

Re:I went there

[Corwn of Amber]

And the Safari for Windows EULA forbids you TO INSTALL IT ON NON-APPLE HARDWARE.

The one they've been pushing bundled with an iTunes update.

EULAs don't mean shit and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. Even those who write them.

so STFU

Re:I went there

[pknoll]

And the Safari for Windows EULA forbids you TO INSTALL IT ON NON-APPLE HARDWARE.
That's incorrect. You can read the Safari Software License Agreement here:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/SafariWindows.pdf

Re:I went there

[Koiu Lpoi]

You are now imagining your mother naked manually.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[Ahlee]

Indeed. You're not legal if you buy a copy of Leopard. It shouldn't let you sleep any better, as you're still breaking the law.

Yada yada mid size tower, yada yada I want to upgrade. Yada yada I can build XYZ for ABC less than what Apple charges.

Tough. At the end of the day to be legit you've gotta pony up the cash for the MacPro, accept the non-upgradability of the iMac or Mac Mini, or not run the software. /me waits for the obligatory "or buy a Mac laptop!" reply, so to reply to you before you reply: you missed the point. Entirely.

Where is the charm?

[jkrise]

For the hobbyist and the experimenter, PC hardware is far cheaper than a license of Leopard. No charm in getting pricey OSX apps and software working on a commodity piece of hardware.

Re:Where is the charm?

[drinkypoo]

No charm in getting pricey OSX apps and software working on a commodity piece of hardware.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just want access to iLife and maybe later FCP. There's really nothing else all that compelling that I can't run on Linux. But, I want to run it in a virtual machine. And until I have a free VM with emulation of an OpenGL/T&L video card, I'm not interested anyway. By which time probably jahshaka will be worth using :D

It's not technical at all-

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Step 1: Visit your local friendly torrent site and find "leo4all.v2"
Step 2: download and burn onto dvd
Step 3: Use Intel hardware. SATA for hard drive if you wish, but use IDE for the DVD rom
Step 4: let the "leo4all.v2" do the rest.
Step 5: there is no step 5

I first started with AMD hardware, and had endless issues (no surprise really, AMD isn't fully supported by OS X) but the switch to intel hardware went much more smoothly.

The system I used was a D945GNT board, with an off-the-shelf nVidia 7300GT. OS X picked up everything but the sound (still working on why, claims it's suported) and for the fisrt time ever, I've had the pleasure of playing with OS X on fast hardware.

Total box cost set me back ~300$ US. Not bad...(mind you, the board and CPU were used)

Apple updates worked fine, as did other software updates, so kudos to the OSX86.org crew for their outstanding work.

Re:It's not technical at all-

[Viol8]

"OS X picked up everything but the sound "

Oh is that all? Meh , I hated listening to those pesky mp3's and watching silent videos on youtube is sooo much more fun.

Re:It's not technical at all-

[Life2Short]

"Total box cost set me back ~300$ US. Not bad...(mind you, the board and CPU were used)." Fun hack, but in the end you have a used machine that runs OS X with no sound for ~ $300. For the same money and less time you could have bought a used Mac with sound and a screen and no worries about software upgrades.

Re:It's not technical at all-

[Lumpy]

leo4all v3 is already out and fixes a LOT of issues.

get that instead.

Hint leo4allv3 leo4all.v3 leo4all v3

Re:It's not technical at all-

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I didn't put it in the main post, because I thought it was not relevant, but this was done for testing purposes only. In other words, to see how hard it was to do...the answer is, not that hard at all.

I don't have OS X on the box anymore (now playing with linux) but I believe my points still stand. If I were to keep it as a OS X box, then yes, I would purchase the OS outright

Re:It's not technical at all-

[Chris Acheson]

Yeah, he could be struck by lightning too. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

Re:It's not technical at all-

[Chris Acheson]

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. And yes, you are entitled to disobey this baseless legal fiction. Information is not property and will never be property, no matter what the legislators decree.

Re:It's not technical at all-

[CaptScarlet22]

Troll perhaps...

But the truth is a tough pill to swallow....

Re:It's not technical at all-

[Chris Acheson]

That's awfully presumptuous of you. Imaginary property propaganda is "The Truth", now?

Don't think about it?

[b96miata]

Fuck that, I'm thinking about it, right now.

Not gonna do it, since all I use my PC at home for these days is playing games (old ones, the only ones it can run very well), and I don't think MS has released Rise of Nations for OSX yet.

Still, I'll think about it all I want.

Re:Don't think about it?

[gimple]

Geez, who pissed in the mod's corn flakes. This comment is hilarious! (Okay, not hilarious, but funny.)

Re:Don't think about it?

[sammy baby]

Fuck that, I'm thinking about it, right now.

  Not gonna do it, since all I use my PC at home for these days is playing games (old ones, the only ones it can run very well), and I don't think MS has released Rise of Nations for OSX yet.

Still, I'll think about it all I want. Wrong. But continue to think - or not think - about it as much as you like. I support free thinking that way.

Re:Don't think about it?

[nawcom]

Before people claim that they can't run certain games off of OS X, do your research. Just like Rise of Nations, someone thought Team Fortress 2 doesn't run on OS X. It has run on OS X via Crossover Office, for months. http://www.tuaw.com/2008/04/17/tuaw-hands-on-with-crossover-games/

Re:Don't think about it?

[snuf23]

I don't know if you were serious or not but Rise of Nations has been out on Mac for a long time:

Rise of Nations for Mac

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[somersault]

Not if you put an apple sticker on your PC!

Re:Weird summary

[aliquis]

Yeah, to begin with I can't see how this can be "news", it have been possible for so long and it improve all the time. One don't need to be one of the most powerful power users, if one already have the right hardware one don't have to be more powerful than being able to install Windows or whatever Linux distribution. It's not hard.

Also I don't know if one can really consider oneself a nerd if one haven't run some Linux dist, installed OS X just because one can, run some other architecture than x86 and small things like that.

Paradox

[jbeaupre]

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

So buy Leopard before you even consider ever using it? Now that's marketing!

way ahead of you

[naibas]

I'm currently browsing slashdot in Firefox running in OSX 10.5.2 on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe board with an Intel Q6600 Quad 2.4Ghz proc, 4GB RAM, and a DigiRack 002 Pro Tools LE rig. And yes, I have legally purchased my copy of Leopard (I was worried they wouldn't sell stand alone retail copies, since it normally comes with the hardware, but NewEgg had 'em, so now I do).

It definitely takes a lot of tweaks to get right. For example, if my Apple brand USB keyboard is plugged directly into the USB ports on the back of the motherboard, then the machine will not properly wake from sleep. I had to run the keyboard first through a Belkin 7 port hub. That one took me a couple of (frustrating) days (including buying a second video card to rule that out) to figure out.

The Pro Tools/DigiRack had previously only been run through Windows, and although it installed and recognized the hardware OK, I was having problems with playback and crashes until I went back and did even more BIOS tweaking (I think disabling SpeedStep was the key, although I also turned off everything else I could find that said it might automatically throttle the CPU or RAM). Now even that seems to be running smoothly.

Summary: not for the faint of heart, and it could break with any Apple software update, but when it works, it is brilliant.

Re:way ahead of you

[fastest fascist]

How much money did you save, compared to buying an equivalent mac system? I take it you feel it was enough to be worth the trouble?

Re:way ahead of you

[hyperz69]

This is one of the best boards for someone looking to build there first Mac Pro like machine. Works VERY Well... Thought the old Gigabyte GA-945GCMX-S2 works well.. though it uses the 945 chipset so less powerful, but it fits well into a Thermaltake Lanbox, and always wows people! Very easy to get working.

Re:way ahead of you

[naibas]

I spent $850. A similarly equiped Mac Pro is $2800.

Now, I already had the hard drive and optical drive, so to get something comparable to the Mac Pro, there's another $120 for a 320GB 7200RPM SATA drive and a decent DVD burner. Also, that $850 includes $110 for Leopard (which the morally ambiguous may find optional). Plus, I like my computers silent, so that $850 includes a Ninja Copper heatsink and a nice quiet Antec case and quiet, modular power supply.

Also, that's a 2.4GHz Quad, while the Mac has a 2.8Ghz Quad. And my video card is a cheap nVidia 7300 GT 256MB, vs whatever the Mac Pro comes with by default.

Regardless, I guess that's a savings of $2800 - $850 - $120 = $1930, which is pretty sweet.

A couple weeks ago, I tried out a MacMini at an Apple store, and one of the staff there used a Mac for music, and warned me that I would run out of power too quickly with the mini. He actually suggested I find someone with a college ID and order a student priced iMac online instead. After that, and a bit of googling around, I decided it was worth it to try making my own. And the challenge definitely made it more appealing...

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[MightyYar]

You're breaking the EULA Wooooah, nooooos! I'm breaking the non-negotiated post-sale meaningless contract!

Running OS X with Emulation on Linux?

[Couzin2000]

Has anyone tried to run OS X on, say, Ubuntu Linux with VirtualBox running? So far I've managed to install and run Linux itself, Windows XP SP2, and I have a good feeling about Vista (even though I hate the thing and wouldn't use it). I'd love to hear about whoever has managed to install it and/or get pointers towards the propers sites where the info on how to do this is stored. Also - does running OSX "virtually" infringe upon the OSX EULA? Since it's not "technically" running on a PC, but in a VIRTUAL PC...

Re:Running OS X with Emulation on Linux?

[njcoder]

I tried VirtualBox 1.6 with the Kalyway iso I found. Couldn't get it to boot. I wanted to play around with OSX because I heard a lot of good things about apple's laptops.

Re:Running OS X with Emulation on Linux?

[QBasicer]

I tried a copy of tiger for VMWare. It was very slow, and the sound was horrible, and pretty much unusable, plus it wouldn't Sync my iPod (boo). To be fair, it was over a USB2.0 connection to an external harddrive hosted on NTFS-3g (I didn't have 11 gigs available on my ext3 partition)

Re:Popular Choices

[snib]

I used to run Kalyway 10.5.1 on my Dell Inspiron e1505 - it all ran pretty flawlessly. Some hardware drivers had to be hacked, and I couldn't get my video card to run at a native resolution.

But it was only a couple weeks before I got tired of it. IMO, part of the charm of a Mac is... y'know... the actual Mac.

Anyway, I used this guide for Dell Centrino Duo laptops, and other posts on the same site are extremely helpful if you're really interested in trying Mac OS X on a PC. Check the "OSx86" section, and especially this thread.

Market drivers

[low profile]

The usual argument for wanting MacOS X on PCs is that it will foster wider adoption. Most organizations look for multiple sources when buying computers so Apple, being single source, gets locked out of many purchase decisions. But if you look at it from an OS level, most are buying single source anyway. Windows is M$, even Linux will lock you in to a certain extent to a distro once you add in all the applications needed to support a business. I prefer Apple HW with the OS. Apple is comming back with this strategy. Focus needs to be kept on maintaining the real value propositions: "it just works"; "less overhead to achieve secure operation", "pleasing to work with" ...

Re:Market drivers

[cobaltnova]

As for "lock in," at least *nix TRIES to be standard: POSIX. Also, same goes for distributions of Linux: LSB.

As I don't do any cross-platform development, I can't comment on the result, only the visible intention.

Think about XP SP3 for a second

[goombah99]

I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt. Microsoft just had an XP SP3 disaster when on some machines with AMD based motherboards the system would endlessly reboot. I have no doubt MS did test this on AMD processors. The problem was that some motherboard makers and vendors improperly used both the intel and amd power management kernel mods simultaneoulsy. This did not show up for 10 years, and SP3.

Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.

What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.

  Not only does no one claim responsibility but they really can't because they don't control it all like apple.

So you pay a tad more for a pleasant experience. Savvy apple folks know which things to buy from apple and which to do themselves. e.g. don't buy apple memory upgrades, but perhaps it may be worth it to buy an apple WiFi (since the system will then handle all the firmware updates for you, and things like optical audio, remote disk mounting over the WiFi will all happen magically and reliably).

As for this latest EFI spoof. Apple, as evidenced by the lack of DRM on their OS and the vulnerable DRM on itunes, tries to use the speedbump model for DRM rather than the Steel Vault model. Any time people start abusing one of their DRMs they tend to issue some new software update that goofs up the current way of gaming the system. Basically a nuiscance which at some point becomes not worth dealing with for the majority of people.

I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Lonewolf666]

I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.

I agree about the 5 years, but for a different reason:
Considering how much progress in user-friendliness Linux has made in that time, I guess it will catch up to the Mac OS X of today in another five years. So either Apple has something new and shiny by then, or cracking OS X will be pointless for most purposes.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[UnknowingFool]

What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.

Many businesses including Apple have recognized the benefits of simplicity. From a manufacturing view, Apple only offers 4 desktop PC models and 4 laptop models. Southwest Airlines only flies 1 kind of airplane, etc. Many of PC issues come from the fact that there are a kajillion variations of hardware. Just recently, Apple seemingly offered sympathy and poked fun at PC for this.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[snl2587]

Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.

I wouldn't exactly call AMD mutt-hardware...

Interestingly, the hardware control Apple exercises that you say is a good thing is exactly what bothers me with Apple. I know people hate hearing this, but I feel like Apple's operating systems are a cop-out. Sure, everything looks nice and just works...because they spent several months working on a single piece of hardware (which is often no longer on the bleeding edge). And the support is likely no more than a series of kludges, just like in Microsoft and Linux operating systems. Where's the ability to use brand-new hardware? Where's the ability to make whatever modifications you wish to the computer and then simply download a driver for it (easily, I mean)?

Yes, I know Linux often has trouble supporting new hardware, but that's simply the nature of open-source: things take time. But Linux is also free. Apple is proprietary and expensive, and Microsoft is able to support a vast array of hardware and Windows compared to Mac's tiny amount (partially because the vendors are biased towards Microsoft in making drivers, but I don't see Apple encouraging them for the above reasons).

Given all this, I don't understand why people insist on hacking the Mac for use on PCs. Why not use Linux? Even on bizarre hardware this would give a more pleasant experience.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Firehed]

Maybe. I'm all for Linux and agree that it's seen a lot of improvement, but it still has a long way to go and I'd sooner go back to Windows than switch to Linux. Having said that, Linux's rate of improvement does seem higher than that of the other OSs so catching up feature-wise isn't implausible. The big issue is that most geeks favor functions over form (and fail to realize that all the great features they added in are inaccessible by most), so they've done very little to innovate on the user experience front. I'm pretty sure that, for instance, Linux was the first to implement virtual desktops, but Apple nailed the GUI wrapper that really makes them useful. Neither could really exist without the other.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[krakelohm]

I don't think the parent poster was calling AMD mutt hardware. I think they were trying to convey the point that you hit on as well, Apple is able to create a much better solution by sticking with hardware they specifically know. I think it is kinda known that you can A. have the latest and greatest, with some issues that rise up or B. stick with the 'good enough for 90% out there' that is more stable.

As a tech and long time mac user I see both sides of the coin. It would be nice to run x,y,and z on my mac at home, but then let me tell you it is so nice to be able to come home and fire up the computer knowing it is just going to work, period.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Knara]

I dunno, I think it has a lot to do with the technical aptitude of the user. My home-built box "just works" because I know exactly what is in it. The only reason I have an iMac is for Logic Pro, to be honest.

So there you have it, I only use Macs because they have software I can't get on Windows.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[kawdyr]

Yes, Apple cares about the user experience, but in terms of economics they are keeping the OS exclusive to their computers to maintain high prices on their hardware. It's brilliant - lure the end-user with what they really want (a simple, hip, sexy interface/OS etc) and then force them not to cherry-pick commodity hardware. The margins they make on their systems makes this whole trick very lucrative.

Of course, if they ever gain enough market share to have real market power, I would argue this is against anti-trust laws in the US. But while they remain a niche competitor, I'm sure this is legally OK, EULA problems non-withstanding (and of course, technically obnoxious / frustrating).

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[porcupine8]

So either Apple has something new and shiny by then

Oh yeah, no way THAT'S going to happen.

You don't think an Intel Mac running 10.5 has no advantages over a PowerPC running 10.2? You think a Linux box that's the equivalent of the latter would be able to seriously compete with the former?

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Interestingly, the hardware control Apple exercises that you say is a good thing is exactly what bothers me with Apple. I know people hate hearing this, but I feel like Apple's operating systems are a cop-out. Sure, everything looks nice and just works...because they spent several months working on a single piece of hardware (which is often no longer on the bleeding edge).

The average user doesn't care why it just works, they just care that it does.

Where's the ability to use brand-new hardware? Where's the ability to make whatever modifications you wish to the computer and then simply download a driver for it (easily, I mean)?

For the most part, this is up to third parties. If third parties write drivers for their new hardware (whatever it is) than it will work, regardless of the OS.

Yes, I know Linux often has trouble supporting new hardware, but that's simply the nature of open-source: things take time.

Actually I disagree. Linux has little market share and that is why they have driver problems. You don't honestly think Microsoft writes all the drivers to make all the hardware in the world work do you? They don't have to. The hardware makers write the Windows drivers because otherwise they don't have a market for their devices. They'll do whatever it takes, including altering the hardware itself to make it run on Windows. It is the state of the OS market that keeps them from doing the same for Linux, not the fact that it is OSS. Apple is somewhere in between. They have more market share and more hardware vendors write drivers for them, and Apple supports a limited amount of hardware themselves (like Linux does).

Given all this, I don't understand why people insist on hacking the Mac for use on PCs. Why not use Linux?

I use Linux and OS X on the desktop daily and so have significant experience with both. The reason a lot of people prefer OS X is because it is simply better at certain tasks than Linux is. Some of this is because of the state of the industry (market share) and some of it is because of real features that work on OS X and don't on Linux. Basically people want to run OS X and don't mind hacking a lot to get it to work. If they wanted the most pleasant experience (as in the least work to do) they'd probably just buy a Mac instead of hacking because of the time and effort required. Some people like hacking things to get them working. Some people already have hardware, but don't want to go back to Linux after having become accustomed to OS X, so they look for a way to make it happen.

Please note, the number of people who hack generic hardware to run OS X is tiny. There will always be a tiny number of people that do something different and impractical.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[NemosomeN]

Meanwhile it's actually a video card problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.

FTFY On an aside, where do we report slashcode bugs?

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[boyko.at.netqos]

Indeed. I've got a MacBook Pro as my main computer, and an AMD dual-core 4200+ computer in my living room running Windows.

Yet, I prefer Linux as far as the user experience goes. But I don't even have a Linux partition. Why?

It's the apps.

I'm a documentary director so I got the MacBook Pro because I can use it as a monitor and I can use Final Cut Pro. Sony Vegas for windows is good, FCP is better. To date, there is no native GNU/Linux solution that matches the power, stability, and functionality of Final Cut Pro. It has saved me time and energy and has produced some amazing footage. I bought an entire computer and operating system simply for the functionality - FCP, for me, is the Mac killer app.

But I'd rather run FCP on Linux, if I could.

What about that Windows PC? Well, if you must know, I'm addicted to PC games. Half Life 2, Oblivion - waiting for Fallout 3... I'd rather play them in Linux, but WINE performance and stability isn't acceptable yet. There, games are the killer app.

Now, if I wasn't a gamer, and I wasn't a movie maker, I would absolutely love to use GNU/Linux as my only OS. If I need to run a Windows program, I don't mind doing it in virtualization.

The problem is that games typically don't work, or don't work well, in virtualized environments. Neither does video editing software (which is why I have no desire to run a virtualized MacOSX - what am I going to use it for if it renders video at a turtle's pace?)

GNU/Linux is at a strange place in it's adoption cycle, and this is a real concern: By the time you are savvy enough with computers to think outside of the marketing and go with Linux as an easy, usable operating system that does everything a beginning user does - you're no longer a beginning user and probably have some application - productivity, gaming, whatever - for which there is no Linux equivalent.

So long as the GIMP remains substandard compared to Photoshop (with poor typography support, bad CYMK profiles, etc.) you won't see graphic artists considering Linux. So long as Cinelerra remains substandard compared to Sony Vegas and FCP (with poor stability, complex user interface, no 24p support) you won't get the video guys. So long as gaming continues to be a hassle on Linux, you won't get the gamers.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that all of these problems - all of them - can be solved simply through software development - the one thing the GNU/Linux community is extremely strong at. If you want to work towards GNU/Linux adoption, work on developing GIMP or Cinelerra. Get together a group of buddies and work to tackle problems as a team.

I wish I was a programmer but I lack the skill. I know where I would focus my efforts.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Sandbags]

Apple's hardware is quite often released AHEAD of other vendors. They are intel's best customer after all. They may not use the super high performance Core Quad Extremes, but if you're into that price class, they just decided "fuck it" and use only Xeons, which blow away the quads in performance and compete with them in price.

Almost every single peripheral sold on the market can be used with a Mac. The only limitation the mid-range systems have is a lack of being able to replace the 3D controller card, but since other than a few games available like WoW, Mac's are not intended for them. Case and point, I have a high performance gaming rig sitting under my desk, about $2000 in custom parts and overclocking, and it has an AWESOME framerate. To use it that way and keep it stable, it's stipped down to do nothing BUT run games. I do all my other work on the Mac, which by the way using Synergy uses the same keyboard and mouse without KVM or remote desktop. I like the OS on the mac better (not to mention I trust its security more).

If you think using Debian, Ubontu, or some other linux vaiant is "more pleasant" than using OS X and it's software, then frind, we need to have an intervention, and seriously discuss your over-use of narcotics... I'm not only a Windows admin and Mac user, but I also maintain 6 flavors of unix, linux, and novel. Little in Linux impresses me other than it's security and it's reliabiltiy as a server platform. It's good enough for web and e-mail, or as a database portal if your software is compatible, but for music, video, games, colloaboration, even productivity? no... Linux is beklow Windows in my expert opinion.

Apple may be proprietary, but if you read up, check the specs, actually look at price/performance/component comparrisons, Apple costs LESS every time than Dell. Apple supports almost every device on the market. In fact, there are netire lines of cameras and camcorders that ONLY support OS X. There are Music devices that only support OS X. Sure, every tiny little cheap shit, knock off clone nitch device doens't work on a mac, but most of those devices are already built in, and we don't need em. Find me a printer, camera, hard disk, USB drive, cell phone, PDA, or other common device on the market that doesn't work with a mac and I'll be impressed. in fact, on a Mac, a VERY large portion of those devices DON'T EVEN NEED A DRIVER!!! their OS is proprietary, but their platform is open source, and if it works in Linux or Windows, it's VERY easy to compile a driver for Mac, if one is even needed. The only device I've seen recently that didn't have Mac software was a USB remote control rocket launcher desk toy. (I found a shell script hack that makes it work online though).

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[ACMENEWSLLC]

>>Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.

The why do Mac's lock up in Front Row when playing music and power savings mode kicks in? It's completely reproducible over and over again. This requires me to reboot the Mac hard to get it back.

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=7155550

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[krakelohm]

I agree it does have to do with the technical prowess of the user, but again 90% of the people out there just push the power button and wiggle the mouse.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[goombah99]

Maybe you should report the bug to them and contact them. Anyone can have aproblem. Macs are not problem free. The difference is you know who to blame and who to report the bug to.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[jedidiah]

ppppffffft

The "gui wrapper" to make them useful? Those features have been in Unix desktops pretty much as long as Linux has been around.

Of the UI elements that Unix has been historically prone to foul up, this isn't one of them.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[jedidiah]

Well... if it were so obvious what the advantages were then you should have no problem enumerating them.

Except for speed, I wouldn't think there is much reason not to run the older PPC Mac.

Isn't a longer useful lifespan supposed to be one of them mythical advantages of Macs?

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[jedidiah]

> let me tell you it is so nice to be able to come home and fire up the computer knowing it is just going to work, period.

That is why I switched from Microsoft to desktop Unix.

Timesharing operating systems are the very definition of "just going to work".

They keep on chugging along for decades.

Changes can be a bitch but that's not just a Unix problem. Even NT got bit by this (nevermind Apple).

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[jedidiah]

The family PCs that run Windows are problems because Windows is designed to pander
to idiots and not "say no". So all manner of vile things end up running on your
Windows desktops run by the sort of end user that Microsoft likes to pander to.

It's not even a technical problem as much as it is a cultural problem.

The end users refuse to follow your advice and be more discriminating about
where they surf to and what plugins they install. So they inevitably end up
with a re-infested PC in short order.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Chrontius]

Dell 1100 laser. Won't work without hacked Samsung (IIRC) drivers, and I don't call that compatibility. Full disclosure, I own a Macbook Pro.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Knara]

Well, the user is frequently the weakest part of the security chain. I've said more than once that if OS X was the majority operating system, it'd have similar malware problems to Windows XP, because its always possible to socially engineer a user into typing their password to install something they've been convinced they want. (In this sense, the need to type in an admin password for an OS X user is little different than the need to hit "OK" for a UAC prompt)

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[evil_aar0n]

Apple's OS is _not_ expensive. I bought the 5-user pack for $199, which breaks down to $40 per seat. That's hardly expensive. It also includes _everything_ in the OS, unlike Windows, which has how many versions, lately?

If you're comparing $40 to $0 for Linux, don't forget the "opportunity cost" for Linux: my 70-year old mother can install software on her Mac by herself. I'd really hate to see her try "ftp the software from the source; open a shell; cd to the download location; make; make test; make install" - that's assuming that all required libraries are in place. And that's _after_ she's had to install Linux and customize it on her machine.

Nope, that $40 is like "insurance": it lets me, and other Mac users rest assured that it will "just work" in most cases. For that kind of peace-of-mind, $40 is reasonable.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[carpe_noctem]

I wish I was a programmer but I lack the skill. I know where I would focus my efforts.

Ahh, you have thus identified the chief advantage of linux: software development.

Let's face it... linux is good in the server world, and for coders. If you're a gamer, musician, designer, whatever; then linux will feel very limited. But, if your only goal in life is to write software on a system for other people to write software, then it's really nice.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[mr_mischief]

GNU/Linux is at a strange place in it's adoption cycle, and this is a real concern: By the time you are savvy enough with computers to think outside of the marketing and go with Linux as an easy, usable operating system that does everything a beginning user does - you're no longer a beginning user and probably have some application - productivity, gaming, whatever - for which there is no Linux equivalent. As a long-time Linux user, mostly for its traditional core roles as a server and personal development workstation, I must say this is one of the most reasonable arguments against Linux I've seen.

I do quite a bit of work in the GIMP, Skencil, Inkscape, Scribus, and K3d, and I'll admit they're not Photoshop, Quark, and Bryce. They're not nearly as far behind the curve as the video tools, though. Cinelerra is certainly no FCP, or even Final Cut Express. I tend to use Avid's free trial edition on Windows, which is actually enough for my simple needs. I'd love to see Avid or Apple put out their even entry-level stuff on Linux.

It looks like Avid is looking for a Principal Software Engineer" for C/C++ on Linux, so hopefully that'll signal the starter's pistol for the great Linux NLVE race.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[nine-times]

Sure, everything looks nice and just works...because they spent several months working on a single piece of hardware (which is often no longer on the bleeding edge).

Yeah, like that outdated hardware used in the Macbook Air. I'm sure Dell and HP and your average homebrew system had the same chipsets for 6 months before the MBA came out!</sarcasm>

Where's the ability to make whatever modifications you wish to the computer and then simply download a driver for it (easily, I mean)?

I understand that there are some people for whom that's a highly desirable thing. I used to be one of them when I was younger, but then I got a job doing helpdesk support and saw tons of retarded problems coming from various homebrew systems. Sure, sometimes you get get a great system. And sometimes you get a series of hardware/driver conflicts that cause endless headaches. Unless you're actually doing something weird where a pre-built system won't do the job, you'll often save yourself a lot of hassle-- along with time and money-- if you just buy a Dell/Apple/HP system in a standard configuration.

Given all this, I don't understand why people insist on hacking the Mac for use on PCs. Why not use Linux? Even on bizarre hardware this would give a more pleasant experience.

I agree with you here though. If you want to use OSX, the smart thing is to ignore the option of hacking it to run on a generic PC and buy a Mac. If you have a generic PC, you'll probably get a better (and more stable) experience from running a good Linux distro. Either option has some advantages/disadvantages, and similar feature sets.

However, if an Apple machine fits your needs and budget, they're worth looking into because they give you the option of running OSX, Linux, and/or Windows without much hassle.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[porcupine8]

Of course you'd run it. I have an eMac at home. But would you buy one today? Some people who are mostly focused on cost would, but many people would not. I'm not convinced it would be a serious competitor in the marketplace as suggested.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Sandbags]

Um, that's because it's NOT a Dell Printer, but a Samsung printer in a Dell chassis. The Samsung ML 1210 drivers work flawlessly with that printer. Compaq did the same thing with their laser line 10 years ago, they were all Cannon printers, part for part, except the sticker on the front. They were also the exact same unit as the Apple LaswerWriters...

The PCL and PS languages shared by these printers are very similar. CUPS Linux drivers can also drive this printer. Laser printers use very generic driver subsystems, and don't have complicated options like all-in-ones do. Dell releases Mac drivers for most of their stuff, the rest either works on built in Mac drivers, Samsung, Cannon, HP, or Xerox drivers. Functionality is 100%. If Dell actually made their OWN printers instead of shoveling someone elses technology but substituting their own weaker warranty process and sub-standard support helpdesk, then they would have more drivers available. Some of "Dell's" printers have either only a XP or only a Vista driver as well, so even windows folks have to "hack" their driver to make it work...

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[joshtheitguy]

What about that Windows PC? Well, if you must know, I'm addicted to PC games. Half Life 2, Oblivion - waiting for Fallout 3... I'd rather play them in Linux, but WINE performance and stability isn't acceptable yet. There, games are the killer app. Now, if I wasn't a gamer, and I wasn't a movie maker, I would absolutely love to use GNU/Linux as my only OS. If I need to run a Windows program, I don't mind doing it in virtualization. The problem is that games typically don't work, or don't work well, in virtualized environments. Neither does video editing software (which is why I have no desire to run a virtualized MacOSX - what am I going to use it for if it renders video at a turtle's pace?) GNU/Linux is at a strange place in it's adoption cycle, and this is a real concern: By the time you are savvy enough with computers to think outside of the marketing and go with Linux as an easy, usable operating system that does everything a beginning user does - you're no longer a beginning user and probably have some application - productivity, gaming, whatever - for which there is no Linux equivalent. I know exactly how you feel, I can't get enough of Half Life, Crysis, Bioshock etc. I would love to run Kubuntu on my home desktop but it is not going to happen until the day games work as well or better on Linux. Kubuntu is great for my laptop because I don't game with it and if I'm not using a computer for gaming there is NO reason to run windows.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[stewbacca]

Savvy apple folks know which things to buy from apple and which to do themselves. e.g. don't buy apple memory upgrades, but perhaps it may be worth it to buy an apple WiFi (since the system will then handle all the firmware updates for you, and things like optical audio, remote disk mounting over the WiFi will all happen magically and reliably). I found myself having to defend my choice in purchasing an Apple Airport Extreme wireless router recently. Just as you state, the extra $100 is worth the lack of hassles and the 5-minute (max) setup time with zero down-time in the past 6 months. I guess some people (cheap ones) get excited about $40 D-Link and Netgear routers, but after my second Netgear (rented from the cable company) burned up in three months time, I figured I could "splurge" for some quality, and the it-just-works factor.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[stewbacca]

Just a small correction--you can actually upgrade the video card in the iMacs, it just isn't a very fun (or pretty) task. I've seen plenty of how-to sites that walk you through how to get to the card and replace it on the white Intel iMacs (maybe the silver ones you can't, I don't know though).

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Hatta]

Ohhh debian is so much better than OSX. The command line is such an afterthought in OSX. If I want to listen to music or watch a video in linux, I don't even have to take my hands off the keyboard. OSX doesn't even have virtual desktops (no Expose does not count). There's no central repository for software in OSX. Sure there's Fink, but it's tacked on, and not nearly as expansive as apt. Gaming? I don't have nearly enough time to play the 20 years worth of games available to me through MAME, Dosbox, Mednafen, etc. Collaboration? It's trivial to set up a jabber server, or use someone elses. Productivity? It's so much more convenient to use LaTeX, R, Gnuplot, Inkscape, EMBOSS, and everything else I do for work under linux than any other OS.

Not that OS X sucks. It's a good general purpose OS. But if you know what you want, and how to set it up, debian is far superior.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[atraintocry]

My suspicions are:

(a) people who are dual-booting OSX on PC hardware probably have a partition set aside for linux as well. They're doing it for the nerd-factor above all else.
(b) the majority of people doing this are not going out and buying a copy of Leopard in order to stay legit. So they're not looking at it from a cost perspective or even a "merits of open source" perspective. They're just trying it out and having some fun.

Would I deploy a hacked OS in a place of business? Hell no. Would I even feel comfortable doing it for a friend? Again, no way. I'd only get blamed when it inevitably broke. So I think this is just a case of people looking for something to do.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[4D6963]

The good news is that all of these problems - all of them - can be solved simply through software development - the one thing the GNU/Linux community is extremely strong at.

History proves it wrong. Sure, the FOSS community can do lots of things, type lots of lines of code. But because there's a difference between a huge company with millions of dollars and carefully selected professionals who all work on a project at least 40 hours a week and a semi-anarchic group of people with limited means, time, and dare I say vision, there's only so much you can do.

"Groups of buddies" as you put it cannot even envision how to catch up with the competing team of high salary highly qualified professionals. FOSS development teams tend to be made of proverbial jacks of all trades, and design decisions tend to be made by committees with little foresight or vision.

If you want to work towards GNU/Linux adoption, work on developing GIMP or Cinelerra

You know what it sounds like? Communism. Yeah sure, I'm gonna make the world a better place by working my arse off for nothing to try to make GIMP be about as good as the capitalist rival Photoshop 3.0 (yes, not CS3, 3.0, the one from 15 years ago or so)

I am a programmer and as such I think I have better things to do with my skills and imagination than work hard like a nerd version of Boxer the horse so that "we" can get an image-editing equivalent of a wind mill. Why should I bother trying to make a project that will never be even remotely as good as the other program it desperately tries to be when I can make something new and original and that I find much more exciting?

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Nazlfrag]

It also includes _everything_ in the OS, unlike Windows, which has how many versions, lately? When you said OSX before, did you mean Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger or Leopard? (sorry couldn't resist)

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Sandbags]

Uh, a full Korn implementatin is in OS X. They hide the link to the shell since 98% of users never need it, but it's there in the system applications folder. Put it on your launch bar.... Apple not only supports traditional scripting, but also Applescript, which is a far more powerful language.

You can control most things in mac with the keyboard, either through the shell directly, or through keystrokes and shortcuts. Just because you don;t know the comands does not mean they're not there.

Mame was avaialble on Mac way back when I had OS 7.4... We can play every MAME game as well, and a whole bunch, you CAN'T play under Linux.

I wasn't talking about communication collaboration, I was talking about group document or project collaboration, through servers. It can be done in Linux, but requires everyone else to have Linux. On a Mac you can collaborate with other mac and windows users through Office. Greanted, not the BEST productivity application, but it's integration into servers and desktops to tie together a large group working on a single project is unmatched by any other app my company has ever researched.

90% of users have NO IDEA how to set up a Linux box, let alone how to find half of what you mentioned. If you're talking about interface superiority, you're talking about productivity and ease of use. Having to teach someone how to open a shell and compile a kernel to add a driver is NOT acceptable.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Hatta]

Sure the shell is there, but it's not as convenient to use as on linux. IIRC they use the BSD userland, yech.

When I'm talking about interface superiority, I'm talking about what works best for me. The best interface isn't the one that appeals to the lowest common denominator. The best interface is the one I'm most comfortable in; the one that caters to MY needs. Debian does that better than any other OS I've tried.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[mzs]

Except it does not work too well for Apple as well. I had a 6500 a long time back and eventually with some OS 8.x the built-in sub woofer and various audio outs stopped working right. It all just started working like in every other computer, plug something in and everything else goes silent. For a while I was able to copy back older versions of certain files but even that stopped working. So they did not test this in QA.

Recently the WOMP (wake on lan) stopped working reliably on my eMac with the install of Leopard. It works fine when I boot 10.4. Again Apple QA did not catch this.

With an old iMac, I stopped having the ability to watch DVDs when I went to OS X. I ended-up selling that one because of that issue alone.

With my G3 iBook, I was unable to burn CDs after an upgrade. Then suddenly after another software update, the feature came back.

So basically Apple stops being very careful with the older hardware and you see issues like this eventually somewhere in the 3-5 years range.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[boyko.at.netqos]

The difference between animal-farm style "communism" and free-software style "communism" is that unlike Boxer, you can choose not to work on the windmill if you don't think the windmill is worth it. If no one thinks the windmill is worth it, it won't get developed.

I think I was trying to make the case that the windmill is worth it.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Nicolay77]

I can make and sell closed source software for OSX, with a single binary that runs on all recent versions.

I can't do that in Linux and probably never will. So I don't develop anything for Linux.

I'm sure a lot of software developers (that make a living writing code) agree with me.

iGroundhogDay

[SimonGhent]

Here we go...

posts as follows:

"Apple won't release Mac OS because they can't tightly control the hardware"

"That doesn't matter, it's down to the device drivers"

".. but will it run Linux"

"The Mac Book Air doesn't have a removable battery so it's shit"

"Why would you want to run OS-X, the earth is only 3,000 years old"

Well some us would upgrade if given the chance

[Shivetya]

but seeing that only one manufacturer holds the keys to the kingdom and they are slower than shit and don't seem to listen to a lot of the forums what choice will we have other than by going this route. In fact I think the primary reason most of us didn't consider this route is because it was too difficult compared to just putting up with the hardware Apple allowed us to buy.

I am in the camp of needing a Mac Pro for expandability but not wanting one that seems to just exist to list every top end product standard Intel has in its books; yes I see the current Mac Pro as nothing more than a buzzword monster - features included because they sounded good not because they were needed. As such I and those of us on various Mac Forums have been clamoring for a "Mini Mac Pro". Something that uses similar processors and memory of iMacs/Minis but has expansion slots and room for more drives.

Its a big market. There are people sitting on G4s because the cost of moving up is prohibitive. If it takes a new resurgence in clone makers to rattle Apple's cage then I am all for it. If someone delivers a proven working solution then to hell with Apple.

As I mentioned at the start, the real reason most of us didn't go this route is because it was more time consuming than and "annoying" than just putting up with whatever we were allowed to buy. Since the process is getting more "ironed out" and practically turn key I expect a few of us to jump at the opportunity.

Just like we scream that MS has no right to dictate this and that we should hold Apple to that same standard. When they were the little guy we justified it because we could be smug about it deeming pc quality as too low for us. Now that we use the same exact hardware there isn't a real excuse, least one that holds up to any scrutiny.

When did form forever displace function at Apple. Can they get back to function please. Make the "Pro" line all about function - form means little to us, we just want it to work.

Re:Well some us would upgrade if given the chance

[kmelton]

Just like we scream that MS has no right to dictate this and that we should hold Apple to that same standard. When they were the little guy we justified it because we could be smug about it deeming pc quality as too low for us. Now that we use the same exact hardware there isn't a real excuse, least one that holds up to any scrutiny. Perhaps "we" are the problem. If "we" are displeased because we can not hold Apple to the same standard that "we" hold Microsoft, maybe our standard is flawed. Vendors don't owe us. If we don't like the quality of a product or it doesn't meet our needs, JUST DON'T BUY IT. Don't complain because you feel that because you used the previous models, you should get your say about the new models. At the same time Apple was updating the hardware for commonality with PC systems, they were following more standards to improve software compatibility. If you aren't happy with the company's products, feel free to move to another vendor.

but seeing that only one manufacturer holds the keys to the kingdom and they are slower than shit and don't seem to listen to a lot of the forums what choice will we have other than by going this route.

When did form forever displace function at Apple. Can they get back to function please. Make the "Pro" line all about function - form means little to us, we just want it to work. I'm always amazed at people that feel that vendors like Apple should be reading everything that they post anonymously in some blog or forum and jumping on every word. They don't owe us anything. They make the products that they think will sell well in the marketplace and deliver the overall user experience that they feel people will want. Since we purchase their products, they must have been delivering that pretty well, otherwise we'd have switched to something else a long time ago. If you aren't one of those users, then look elsewhere for your products. Apple develops a packaged OS/Hardware bundle, that's the way it has always been (except for that brief and foolish experiment with cloning). Apple is a hardware company first. As one of their Systems Engineers once put it to me, "we deliver operating systems in shiny metal boxes." I understand that many of us have investments in the Apple platform and may not like a particular model or even the general direction, but we are not forced to buy them. Stick with your current model or switch to a platform that accommodates you. Just don't expect the world to standup and take notice every time you post your thoughts on a forum somewhere.

Re:Well some us would upgrade if given the chance

[shmlco]

'Make the "Pro" line all about function..."

And just what about a dual quad-core Mac Pro ISN'T functional?

"...form means little to us, we just want it to work."

And just who is "us"? Speak for yourself. I, personally, want my tools to work AND be a pleasure to use.

BTW, have you checked out the "reburbished" section of the online Apple store? One can often find Mac Pros for reduced prices that don't "list every top end product standard Intel has in its books".

Then again, people who buy Mac Pros are doing professional photo editing and management, or producing a film using Final Cut, or something else that demands all of the performance they can get.

Re:Well some us would upgrade if given the chance

[snuf23]

"or something else that demands all of the performance they can get."

Too bad the Mac Pro uses DDR2 FBDIMMs considering that performance wise they have been surpassed for quite some time.

Re:Well some us would upgrade if given the chance

[Mspangler]

"There are people sitting on G4s because the cost of moving up is prohibitive."

That's me. My 2002 Quicksilver is still going fine. And the video card has been upgraded, and there is also a USB 2 card (machine only shipped with USB 1) and a SATA card to run the two new >120 GB hard drives. So yes I do use the slots.

The Pro also pulls 12 amps according to the tech specs, and I don't have 9 extra amps on this circuit. I could hotwire it into the 240 V air-conditioner circuit, but that seems like overkill.

So, Apple, either put Expresscard slots in the iMac, or come up with a minitower. And if you wait too much longer, Ubuntu will dump you right off of my desk. If I'm going to run an OpenOffice variant anyway, why not? And OSX taught me not to fear the command line.

Re:EFI emulation

[Pentahex]

EFI emulation is not a full emulation. It only emulates the bios to allow Leopard to boot without modified files.

guid disk activation

[vossman77]

man, I tried this on like 3 different machines with both the Kalyway and iatkos. After much hassle, it would even start to boot. I am glad for this write up because now I think it was the disk activation thing. Ugh. Now got to try it all over again.

The Problem With Unsupported Hardware

[Ohio Calvinist]

Disclaimer: I am a Apple user.

The problem with running an operating system (or application software) on an un-blessed platform is that in a real-world environment (e.g. anything not in your home) is that when a patch the next minor update comes along, it is more apt to cause problems (in particular, strange undocumented problems). For instance, if you could get HP-UX to run on competitor hardware, more power to you, but when it breaks, you've got really very minimal recourse and are on your own to get it working again. The same thing goes for Wine... if you run an application, the next incremental change could cause a performance hit, or make the application not run at all, and you'll have significantly less recourse to get it fixed (e.g. ISV knowledge base, community, etc...).

I've seen OS X running on a PC and it seemed to work good enough but you could never rely on it in a corprate environment, and I wouldn't want to give a box like this to my mom because when it breaks, you're really on your own to get it running.

This is a problem when the manufacturer says "We're really sorry, but we didn't certify $PRODUCT (or $OS) for that hardware so support is on a best-effort basis", and it is a even bigger problem when the manufacturer (like Apple) is tempted to, or outright promises to do whatever it can to make the product fail on unsupported configurations.

In any situation, it is nice about being able to tell my boss "I called Dell, a new mobo is on the way" rather than explaining why *my* design failed, or why to save a few grand in licensing or new hardware or plain novelty, I took production down for 3 days. It is fine for your own personal rig, but beyond that, doesn't seem worth it beyond that.

Re:The Problem With Unsupported Hardware

[maxume]

"Blessed" is just such a terrible way to describe the relationship between Apple, OS X and Apple hardware. It describes it, but the connotation is awful.

Re:The Problem With Unsupported Hardware

[megaditto]

man bless

I can has torrent, plz?

[pla]

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

...Because, of course, the sort of people who would try this in the first place tend to strongly believe in honoring copyrights and EULAs, right?

Anyway, why would I give Apple any more respect than Microsoft in that regard? ;-)

Re:I can has torrent, plz?

[bsDaemon]

If you hate MS, why do you want their products? What is it about MacOS X that you want so badly that you HAVE TO HAVE yet won't pay for?

OS X is just FreeBSD with enhanced Obj-C APIs and a fancy GUI. Unless you're super attached to a pirated copy of Photoshop, I fail to see what cool shit you're missing out on that you can't get from Compiz on Linux or BSD...

especially since it seems that the hardware list is even more restrictive for this little project.

Re:I can has torrent, plz?

[pla]

If you hate MS, why do you want their products?

I also hate the IRS yet like decent roads; hate Pfizer yet appreciate antibiotics (when I need them); hate (having to) work yet enjoy disposeable income; hate car exhaust and high fuel prices yet like mobility. I could go on.

As for Apple... I don't really want OS-X. I really only want to run it (on a PC) because Steve won't let me.

And as for Microsoft... I don't really want XP either - But let me know how the Linux version of TurboTax worked for ya this year.

Re:I can has torrent, plz?

[bsDaemon]

I just used the online H&R block thing and was done in 20 minutes...

Re:Popular Choices

[aliquis]

I saw the "Please support the uphuck.DVD project by paypal." on the webpages. I really hate all those begs for donations, as I did with Jaz ones for his Mac Pro.

If I/"you" are going to support someone why on earth would you support the pirates / people who don't develop it instead of the developers? It's like donating $20 to the pirate bay for each CD album you download, it doesn't make sense at all. If I'm going to pay I will do so to Apple thank you.

And in the case of Jaz he said he needed the mac pro so it could help with getting future releases done, some people was affraid he would stop make DVDs but no, that wasn't going to happen... But well, then he got it and so much for more disk images from him =P

Not that he was obligated to make any, but I guess some people may feel fooled. (I appologise if he's still active within the community and still makes things possible.)

Anyway I've always said I could see myself paying 4000 sek or so for OS X and something which worked, thought I didn't wanted to pay 20.000 sek for a whole mac. But then in the end I got this Macbook Pro because I'd better do what I say. Sure a Dell Vostro would had been cheaper and does similair things, but I wouldn't support Apple then would I? And the price difference wasn't enormous.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[Nursie]

EULA's aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Which is no paper at all.

Any experience?

[BlackPignouf]

I plan to buy some mini-ITX like desktop (http://linitx.com/viewproduct.php?prodid=12065) soon, and would love to try OSX86 on it.

I doubt it would work with this example (VIA processor), but does someone have any experience with a small desktop that works out of the box with OSX86?

Mac OS Server

[akatsukix]

Anyone run Server this way?

Re:Mac OS Server

[Spencerian]

It should work fine since the differences between OS X client and Server are similar.

That is, if you happen to have $500 to $1000 to blow away. Legal issues aside, Mac OS X Server isn't something you can get from a friend. Unlike OS X client, OS X Server requires a serial number and, as noted, is pricey.

And why would one run OS X Server when a Linux server distribution is free, tested, generally supported and available. Besides, one would likely take LESS time to tweak a Linux server on supported hardware than any OS X installation on supported hardware.

Surprisingly, no one seems to have brought up the prime reason why you'll not likely see OS X for generic PCs.

Repeat after me:

Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple leverages low-cost or free software to sell all hardware.

iTunes is free because it makes using an iPod and the iTunes store a breeze. Mac OS X client is low in cost and works as it does because Apple spent a lot of time and money to ensure you're getting your bang for the buck in a computer you buy from them.

Microsoft sells software. Others leverage Microsoft to sell their hardware. Microsoft doesn't always make the best hardware, nor do they read consumer needs very well (not to be confused with business customers). Zunes don't sell, for instance.

When Microsoft makes crappy software, the whole PC industry suffers a bit.

And Apple just counts its cash reserves since they don't compete in most areas that Microsoft tends to. There is happy crossover with, say, Office 2008 for Mac, but generally Apple and Microsoft are different worlds. When Apple makes a good product, third parties dive in to complement the experience with accessories and the like. Crappy products in the Apple world today get bad press fast.

Re:Mac OS Server

[nawcom]

It should work fine since the differences between OS X client and Server are similar.

How are the differences between 2 things be similar to each other? Doesn't that eliminate the differences when the differences are similar to the similarities in the difference between the two? Just wondering.

Re:Mac OS Server

[MistrBlank]

It may be low cost/free software for us, but rest assured it costs Apple a lot of money to develop, test and support things like iTunes, MacOSX, Safari, etc. It's no wonder they subsidize it with hardware costs.

Re:Mac OS Server

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple is a hardware company."

Wrong, just so wrong. If the Cupertino elite were only hardware based then why I am being bombarded with the notion that a Mac is just so much easier to use? When the company is a dictatorship for the controlling interface, then it is the software that the end user sees - not the hardware. Apple only controls what they use for the overlaying structure, which in turn provides some of their much vaunted stability (only due to their stranglehold).

(please don't mod troll - serious response)

Re:Mac OS Server

[k2enemy]

Repeat after me:

Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company. I think you are about six or seven years behind.

I hate to use marketing buzzwords, but repeat after me:

Apple is a total experience company.
Apple is a total experience company.

Re:Mac OS Server

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Surprisingly, no one seems to have brought up the prime reason why you'll not likely see OS X for generic PCs. Repeat after me: Apple is a hardware company.

Apple used to be a computer hardware company. They branched out and now sell significant amounts of pro software, music players, and smart phones.

They could change their revenue models and sell their OS without tying it to their OS. Mind you it would be economic suicide so long as MS holds a monopoly on desktop OS's, but they could do it. I would argue, in fact, they'd be pretty much forced to do it if the OS market were restored to a free, capitalist market.

Still, right now Apple develops OS X to profit on complete computer systems including hardware and software. If they can't tie them, their OS development is just an expense with no profit involved.

And Apple just counts its cash reserves since they don't compete in most areas that Microsoft tends to. There is happy crossover with, say, Office 2008 for Mac, but generally Apple and Microsoft are different worlds.

Actually, Apple is a threat to MS, chipping away at their desktop OS install base, as well as several other key MS technologies. Apple, on the other hand, is very much affected by what MS makes, since they can use any market they enter to lock out Apple users, thus reducing Apple's sales. That is why Apple entered the portable music player business in the first place. In order to survive they must commit to entering every market MS threatens to monopolize, or find partners who will and who cannot be bought out by MS. It is a very precarious place for Apple and a situation no other company wants to place itself in. Apple would never have willingly entered it, but already had competing products when MS took over and was unwilling to abandon those markets.

Re:Mac OS Server

[UnknowingFool]

Legal issues aside, Mac OS X Server isn't something you can get from a friend. Unlike OS X client, OS X Server requires a serial number and, as noted, is pricey. . . . And why would one run OS X Server when a Linux server distribution is free, tested, generally supported and available. Besides, one would likely take LESS time to tweak a Linux server on supported hardware than any OS X installation on supported hardware.

Yes you can get Linux for free, and it'll perform fine. But you aren't comparing apples to apples. You are comparing community-supported software with enterprise software. OS X Leopard server is a certified Unix server with unlimited client licensing for $1000. It's about the same pricing as Redhat Enterprise and better than Sun Solaris or IBM AIX or HP-UX.

Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple leverages low-cost or free software to sell all hardware.

Apple makes lots of software. On the commercial side, I think Peter Jackson, the Cohen brothers, and Clint Eastwood would disagree with you that Apple makes only hardware. They all have used Final Cut in their films. And that is just the film industry. Logic Studio is used by the audio industry. Aperture is used by professional photographers.

Re:Mac OS Server

[Spencerian]

Apple does make software, of course, but they don't not make their profit from software. Their hardware earns their main dollars by far.

Re:Mac OS Server

[Spencerian]

As the Mac is still the lynchpin that holds much of their products together by way of sales, for Apple to unleach OS X would destroy Mac sales and erode the reason why many buy one Apple product and continue to another. Besides, OS X's design works because Apple designs the hardware. Using OS X in any other way just likely introduces the same issues we have in Windows.

Re:Mac OS Server

[Spencerian]

Another way to say it, as Jobs did, is

Apple is a single-widget company.

And it's worked well for them so far.

Re:Mac OS Server

[Spencerian]

You are correct, sir.

Mac OS X Server includes expanded file, print, web, mail and other network tools over OS X client. Structurally, they are very similar in comparison to the bloat of Vista versus Windows Server 2008.

Re:Mac OS Server

[marklar1]

What????

The "Apple is a hardware company" is sooooo 80s and 90s...

its right up there with sayings like macs are for education and art.

After the initial purchase people are on the hook for OS upgrades $130/yr. or two.

iLife: $79 .Mac: $99

Not to mention Aperture, Final Cut (express), QuickTime Pro, iWork, etc., And believe me, if it weren't for the hardware and music sales, they'd be stickin' to us for another $30/year there too.

You add those up for a couple years after the purchase of hardware and see how that adds up.

Gone are the days of the Mac w/ unlimited system and accessory updates.

Safari was a necessity to take a chip out of MS's hand w/ dependence on IE. And it is great that it ended up being the part of the engine for iTunes and iPhone use Safari/WebKit engine.

Re:Mac OS Server

[UnknowingFool]

I would say that they don't make a lot of profit from their software sales but they must make some profit. Last quarter they made $628 million from software sales. They didn't break down the cost of that division but considering that total operating expenses for the company were $1.15 billion, most likely they made a decent profit. By far they make more money on hardware, but that doesn't mean that they don't make money on software.

Re:Mac OS Server

[mgblst]

The funny thing is that although Apple is a hardware company, and Microsoft is a software company, Apple produces better software that Microsoft.

Re:Mac OS Server

[Spencerian]

I wouldn't disagree with you there, especially in the area of "How to create and maintain an operating system with legacy support while not ticking off developers or end-users with cruft and confusing procedures."

Re:Purchasing OSX

[Corwn of Amber]

YFI - You can't install that one on a PC.

Try again?

Re:Popular Choices

[Corwn of Amber]

Greetings! Using Kalyway since 10.4.8. Had no luck using ToH. Now running Kalyway 10.51 upgraded to 10.5.2.

(how was that off-topic, too?)

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[wass]

Right, and since Larry Leadfoot tends to drive faster than the legal speed limit, he may as well just steal his next automobile instead of purchasing it, seeing as he already broke the law regarding speed limit.

No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS X?
No thanks.

No proprietary software.

I rather run Ubuntu;
* http://www.ubuntu.com/

I can use Mac4Lin theme;
* http://sourceforge.net/projects/mac4lin/

Don't mess with Jobs

[tekman94]

When ol' Steve finds out about this he is gonna be mad. (less money for them)

what about older hardware?

[yanyan]

Has anybody gotten osx86 running on older hardware, like, say a Pentium 3-class machine?

Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old g4

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old g4's and g5 stared at lower price then the $2200 mac pro does.

The mini is over priced for it's hardware and the older g4 one cost $100 less with a real video card And $599.00 for 1gb of ram and DVD / CDRW what a joke and you have to add $200 to get a
DVD / RW and you still only have 1gb of ram and it's hard to open up next to a real desktop.

The imac are ok but the built in screen is not that good and it's hard to open up and only has room for 1 hd unlike the new dell AIO that can hold 2 and is a lot easier to get in to.

But a system at $1,199.00 with only 1GB memory and ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory is not that good of a price.

Apple needs to be more open to ATI and nvdia video cards in the mac pro and a real desktop as a big number of them use the same video chips and they only have 1 driver set for a lot of cards.

The mac pro at $2200 is over kill for a lot of users and the hardware is over the top with alot of higher costs from sever / workstation parts that are not needed.

Most office uses need a desktop with desktop parts and desktop ram not a over priced laptop in a small case with out screen that you need to force open.

Depends on jusrisdiction and circumstances

[Lonewolf666]

In Germany, for instance, EULAs would be considered "general terms and conditions". Those only are binding if the customer had a reasonable opportunity to review them before buying. So

-if you buy some boxed software and are presented with the EULA on installation, I'm pretts sure it is unenforceable.

-if you download the software from the internet and the EULA was only one click away, I guess a German court would find the EULA enforcable.

For anything in between, I recommend asking a lawyer ;-)

And Why Does Photoshop Care?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Even Adobe Photoshop, which queries a Mac to verify its authenticity,

And why does Photoshop even care if the Mac is genuine?

Re:And Why Does Photoshop Care?

[immcintosh]

I don't think that follows. You seem to be operating on the mistaken assumption that in this case non-genuine equates to pirated, which is just not the case. What we are ostensibly talking about here are legitimate Apple "clones" (and yes I think the EULA is worth a little less than the paper it's printed on), on which one should very well expect to legitimately use Photoshop.

Re:And Why Does Photoshop Care?

[toddestan]

It's still an interesting move. Say tomorrow, Apple decided to sell OSX for generic PCs, like people here have been speculating about for a while. Legit copies of Photoshop aren't going to run on these computers, and people are going to be mad at Adobe because of this. Perhaps Adobe knows something we don't?

Check your laws

[flyingfsck]

That EULA is not necessarily legal in your state. For one, many states forbid 'tied selling', others interpret the transaction as a sale, which gives you full ownership rights. So, mostly Apple just tries to scare people and if you are timid enough to be scared, then so be it...

Could apple determine which machines are illegal?

[HockeyPuck]

If a program crashes in OSX, I often get a popup about sending a report to Apple. Could apple datamine this database and determine which machines are on unsupported hardware? ..food for thought...

Violating the EULA

[Nom du Keyboard]

So ZDNet had just publicly confessed to the mother of all EULA violations, and done so to the most litigious of computer companies. Just what do they think is going to protect them from a massive lawsuit?

Re:Violating the EULA

[argent]

Freedom of the press, baybee.

Re:Violating the EULA

[nawcom]

So ZDNet had just publicly confessed to the mother of all EULA violations, and done so to the most litigious of computer companies. Just what do they think is going to protect them from a massive lawsuit? Because they purchased a legal copy of Leopard.

breaking EULAs is hardly anything at all. If my laptop has an ASUS case, a broadcom wireless card, an intel processor, and a realtek sound card, does it make it an Apple laptop, or an ASUS laptop? All the parts are made from the same company. No, Apple does not make their own hardware; they're all third party, specifically the ones I listed. They just have cute little apple logos stuck on em :)

Re:Violating the EULA

[Trojan35]

Because the media loves Apple again, and Apple won't try and change that.

Re:Violating the EULA

[Koiu Lpoi]

A history of non-negotiated post-sale contracts not being held up in court?

Re:Violating the EULA

[ChrisA90278]

protect them from a massive lawsuit?

Apple's fear of loosing. Apple has never gone after anyone who has put Mac OS X on a PC. Even that company who is seling Mac OS on PCs through their web site. I'm sure the reason is the they just might loose. The EULA is a contract. In order for a contract to be valid BOTH parties have to agree to it. Could you imagine otherwise? Contracts that only one side has to agree with binding on an un-willing party. That's worse than silly. So Back to the EULA. Have to even tried to decline one and then get you money back? Just try to get you money back. "How can a contract that you can't decline be valid?" Apple does not want that question to go before a judge. For years now they wan't taken anyone to courtover this.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[jvkjvk]

And what law says that I can't install Leopard on a Dell?

Oh, I get it, you're saying that the EULA is the law. Well, sorry to disabuse you of that notion but that portion of the EULA is probably not enforceable (that means it's not the law!). Even if it is enforceable, it's up to a judge to decide that, as well as whether you are breaking the law when breaking the clause.

So, at this point you cannot say someone who installs Leopard on a Dell is breaking the law or that they are not legal. It is just factually incorrect until a court case has been resolved about this (and even then, it would only be against the law in the jurisdiction of that court!).

Anybody want to buy a ...

[crmarvin42]

Pipe Dream?

Linux will never catch on with the majority of users because it's too hard to keep every thing straight (HW and SW compatibilities). Ubuntu et al. have made a lot of progress in this but ultimately the personality of Linux fans gets in the way causing the inevitable forking of a distro and confusion among users that are just not interested in following the politics that inevitably swirl around collaborative, community-based projects.

Re:Anybody want to buy a ...

[mr_mischief]

Hardware/software compatibilities?

What hardware support does Apple have that RedHat and Canonical don't? They specifically have a narrow range of supported hardware approved by Apple. You'd have a much harder time finding hardware to stick into a Mandriva, Ubuntu, Debian, RedHat, Fedora, or Mint system that doesn't have drivers than you would sticking random hardware into a Mac under OS X.

Most of the software you need is available from the repository under mainstream Linux distros. Most other things have an installer, an RPM or DEB package, or a tar.gz archive with installation instructions a third grader could follow available elsewhere. Try getting half of that software running on OS X. Sure, there's a better shrink wrapped software market for OS X, but check out project announcements on Freshmeat sometime. There's plenty of software for most people that runs on Linux.

Re:Anybody want to buy a ...

[crmarvin42]

but people have to take the initiative to figure it out and that's where linux fails. Not in technology or capability, but the laziness of potential users.

I have a theory (for what it's worth) that the current generation of "techie's" are to computers what the "Greatest Generation" was to automobiles. Both are capable of pulling things completely apart and re-building it better because of their knowledge of the underlying technology. However later generations lacked/will lack that ability because the technology had/will grow beyond was is easily learned on ones own by a large percentage of the population. People could learn fairly easily how to be surprisingly proficient with computer but the technology has matured to the point where people just expect it to work or to be able to pay someone else to make sure it works and not be bothered with it unless it is their bread and butter.

Re:Anybody want to buy a ...

[mr_mischief]

Much of the software new users need is easy to pick up, but there are some confusing differences when moving from similar apps on other OSes.

I think your car tinkering analogy has actually been an ongoing process for many years now. Hardly anybody wires up their own motherboards any longer. Nobody implements their own storage devices. There are some stubborn hardware hackers, but they're few and far between compared to general PC users.

Software has started to follow the same trend. It used to be that to know how to use a computer meant to know how to alter the boot sequence, how to issue commands at a CLI, how to do administrative tasks, and how to mess with configuration files. Now, everything is a wizard, even on Linux. Some OSes still let you get "under the hood", but more and more people who use computers don't do that.

The biggest difference probably isn't that the complexity has gone past the point that people don't care. It's that the time and money involved in doing everything down to the bare semiconductors just isn't feasible at all. Combine that with the fact that the tinkerers (in cars and computers, just like any other tinkering hobby) are the enthusiastic few, and are the early adopters of new toys.

By the time the auto was a sensible investment in terms of reliability, ease of use, and retail price for those who considered it a tool and not a major hobby expenditure, the common drivers started to join the car ownership club. It's the same with PCs. The easier, cheaper, and more reliable they get, the more people are going to get them that aren't interested in the fiddly bits. There aren't necessarily any fewer people fiddling with them as toys, but that group has become progressively smaller as a percentage of users.

Re:Well some us would upgrade if given the chaCUBE

[Nom du Keyboard]

When did form forever displace function at Apple.

I think about the time The Cube came out.

Why does Apple hate our freedom?

[Subm]

From the article:

> However, Apple's licence agreement does state that Mac OS X should only be installed on Apple hardware...

Free software's freedom zero (from fsf.org):

> The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

For those of us into free software because of the freedom part, it sounds like Apple is having a hard time even getting to the starting line.

Re:Why does Apple hate our freedom?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

For those of us into free software because of the freedom part, it sounds like Apple is having a hard time even getting to the starting line.

Apple, like most big software producers, creates both free and open software as well as closed software. Their OS itself is not free, nor would it be a good way for them to profit if it was. A lot of the individual components of it (Darwin) are free though and you can install them anywhere you want.

It would have been a very interesting move if Apple had created and released OS X under the GPL. It sure would have been a significant blow to MS's monopoly. That said, developing OS X costs Apple a lot of money and that money has to come from somewhere. I'd like to think they'd still be doing well (maybe even better) with hardware sales and support and that OS X would have brought even more advancement to OS innovation via contributions and improvements from the OSS community as well as new hardware companies who could use it as well. That said, I'm not convinced that would be the case. Apple may well be dead had they tried it and we'd all have one less option and MS would have 97% of the market instead of 90%, giving them just that much more power to break Linux with incompatibilities.

Anyway, arguing Apple is not even near the starting line for free software is very misguided. They are not exclusively a free software company (as we might wish in pipe dreams) but they are a big contributor to free software and the primary supporter of several important projects like WebKit and CUPS.

Looks, walks, and quacks like a sale of a copy

[tepples]

You're breaking the EULA, so you're stealing the software anyway. Who says the EULA on a consumer product is binding? If it looks, walks, and quacks like a sale of a copy, it's a sale of a copy. At least to me, the sale of a copy of Mac OS X 10.5 to the end user looks a lot more like SoftMan v. Adobe than like Step-Saver v. Wyse.

Re:Could apple determine which machines are illega

[nawcom]

With EFI emulation the computer is identified as a MacPro. So I doubt they are going to use that to "arrest" people. Ienough thinking about food, I want to eat the real thing!!!ARGGHGHEEFFGRUMBLEEEDSDF

There is no such thing as a 'legit' Leopard . . .

[fuzzylollipop]

There is no such thing as a 'legal'/'legit' copy of Leopard running on non-Apple hardware, read the EULA people.

re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[King_TJ]

It's pretty obvious you've got a strong dislike for Apple -- and I have to think it goes beyond a simple, logical comparison of system specs for the money.

I've used quite a few HP laptops, and frankly, I'd never be caught using another one, if I could help it. I'd gladly pay a premium for the Apple-branded notebook, vs. dealing with what comes with an HP purchase.

1. Unless things are different in other countries, Apple tech. support is WORLDS better than HP in the USA. When I contact HP, I typically have to wait about 48 hours for an email response from some 1st. level technician who just quotes obvious nonsense from a checklist. Why email, and not phone? Because calling HP results in over an hour wait time on hold, as a rule, only to wind up with another clueless response.

2. Apple is far more conscious of "design" than HP. Apple notebooks have a bare minimum of plastic doors, sliding trays, and the like which tend to break/snap off. Even the CD or DVD drives on them are slot-loading, so you don't have a big drive tray sliding out the side of your notebook, requiring extra free space around it and potentially breaking. The 17" Macbook Pro and Powerbook before it were thinner and lighter-weight than anything 17" HP had to offer, too. And don't forget Apple's "mag-safe" AC adapter. That's one more great idea, especially when I see how many HP and other laptops are out of service due to loose/broken AC power jacks!

3. OS X, in my opinion, is a FAR less trouble-prone environment to use, day-to-day, than anything else offered for PCs. I can't run a legal and officially-supported OS X environment on non-Apple hardware right now. So essentially, even if Apple hardware costs me a premium, I understand that paying it helps support and subsidize further OS X development and improvement -- and to me, that's a good place for my money to go.

Get a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard

[nurb432]

And a Mac to go along with it as remember you cant run OSX on non Apple hardware,legally.

Re:Get a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard

[tygt]

The use of "Legal" here is interesting.

Is there a law on the books stating that violating the EULA is a criminal act?

If not, it's not a legal issue as much as a contractual one.

Re:Get a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard

[nurb432]

One can debate if a EULA is a valid contract, but contracts as an entity are a legal issue.

It doesn't have to be criminal to be a legal issue.

Advantages of Mac mini

[tepples]

I've seen OS X running on a PC and it seemed to work good enough but you could never rely on it in a corprate environment

In a corporate environment, uniformity of hardware and lack of 3D gaming performance are advantages of the Mac mini computer.

As I see it, the big reason that people are so obsessed with running Mac OS X on commodity PCs is to fill the gap in Apple's product line between Mac mini and Mac Pro. But Mac mini is perfect for administrative employees, and creative professionals could make good use of the power of a Mac Pro. What would make a product in that gap useful to someone in a corporate environment?

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[gobbo]

Right, and since Larry Leadfoot tends to drive faster than the legal speed limit, he may as well just steal his next automobile instead of purchasing it, seeing as he already broke the law regarding speed limit. Oh come on, that's just asinine. Speed limits are safety regulations encoded in public law. EULA`s are private contracts--imposed in varying degrees of fairness under an imbalance of power.

Environmental case for mid-range Mac tower

[dwalsh]

A desktop Mac, between the mini and the pro would have another benefit: Displays become obsolete much more slowly than computers themselves (if at all), so all those iMacs lead to chucking away good LCDs prematurely.

Probably a lot of people here are like me

[weierstrass]

When I build my own computers (from generic parts) they have a lot lower failure rate than most machines that have been assembled by a COMPANY.

(And they have a lot less thermal compound on them than the MacBook Pro.)

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[Trashman]

Indeed. You're not legal if you buy a copy of Leopard. It shouldn't let you sleep any better, as you're still breaking the law. You need to be more precise. Installing a paid-for copy of leopard on non-apple HW *is not* breaking any law. AFAIK, There's no law on the books anywhere that that says this particular action is illegal. At worse, you are breaking the EULA which is simply a contract; Which is a civil matter. The worst that could happen is that apple extracts some kind of payment from you if they can somehow prove to a judge that they lost money from you breaking the terms of the Eula.

If it was against the law to install Mac OS on non-apple HW, then some Law enforcement agency somewhere could bust you for it. And likely will not happen.

What about running OS X in a virtual machine?

[Dekortage]

You can run Windows in VMWare on a Mac intel system. Can you run Mac OS X in VMWare on a Windows system? Could you spoof the EFI, etc., within the virtual machine?

I have no idea if this is even feasible, or desirable... just curious.

Re:What about running OS X in a virtual machine?

[th3rmite]

I once had MacOS 10.4 running in VMWare PLayer on a Celeron budget notebook. It is possible, but it was slow as hell and took a lot of tinkering to get it up and running.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[db32]

You are forgetting a few things. You have the motion sensor piece that everyone was turning into Apple Light Sabers. I have also seen this used as a type of motion alarm so that you can turn your back on your MBP and it will scream if someone tries to move it.

You also forgot the light sensor that can see how dark it is in the room and adjust the screen and keyboard backlight to adjust for it.

Then there is the fact that they keyboard even has a backlight that shines through the letters rather than squinting and trying to read the cheap painted keys by the light of your LCD. Then there is the part where your paint won't wear off your keyboard because they didn't use paint to label your keys.

Oh yeah...you also forgot the physical construction of the thing is both lightweight and stronger than the typical laptop. Most of those plasticy crap lids you can put slight torque on the corners or press on the back and see the LCD distort. This tells you that if you tap the stupid lid wrong you are likely to break the LCD. A nice sturdy frame for it means it is far less likely to have issues. (I have seen this type of better construction on a few PC laptops, but it is most certainly not a standard).

I used to think Macs were just overpriced nonsense based on fancy branding. After playing with a MBP for a while in the store I realized that they actually have a ton of better design in the hardware. If you just compare CPU/RAM/etc then yes a PC is cheaper, but if you compare the whole system and all of its hardware design the Mac is a far better deal.

The price and the product line

[argent]

The price is high, but the limited product line makes the high price for Macs a much bigger problem.

This low market share is often attributed to the relatively high prices of Apple computers.

They're only about 40% more than comparable PCs, and sometimes less. But if you are looking for a conventional desktop then the "entry level" is over two grand.

Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how an all-in-one provides a better "experience", and how you don't "need" the expansion slots, and for people who like the iMac ... I'm happy for you, fellas, I really am. But most people buying home computers don't buy a set-top style box like the Mac mini, or an all-in-one like the iMac, they buy a mini-tower or fat slab with expansion slots, drive bays, and room to grow. Whether they USE it or not, that's beside the point, that's what they buy. Companies look at Apple's high margins and come out with "iMac killers" and "Mac mini killers" and, well, they don't STAY on the market. Now I suppose they could just be selling out and they don't want to cut into their less profitable lines, but I suspect that they just don't sell well.

People aren't buying Macs because of the hardware "experience", they're buying them because of OS X, and they're often buying them despite the hardware "experience".

The cheapest Mac that really competes head-to-head with the average PC, on a hardware level, is the Mac Pro. For the rest of the line, you have an all-in-one with almost no upgradability, and a crippled desktop with even less than the all-in-one (the putty knife problem). Now I will go along (for the sake of argument) with the claim that mostly don't upgrade their PCs, but even granting that the reason is that you can generally get any combination of stuff you WANT in a PC, because there's so many of them. Apple can't do that, upgrades are the only route to fine-tuning the box, and Apple doesn't even let you upgrade the one thing that's top on people's list of upgrades these days... the video card.

And in the mini, you can't put a full sized hard drive in there, you're limited to low power low performance laptop drives, or higher latency external drives.

The mini, currently, may be the MOST overpriced Mac. For $600 you get a 1.83 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 80GB 5400 RPM hard drive, and Intel integrated graphics... and firewire 400 and wifi. For $300 from HP you get a 1.8 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 320 GB 7200 RPM hard drive, and nVidia integrated graphics, but no wifi or firewire.

Well, you may say that the small size, the wifi, and the firewire is worth $300.

But you can't upgrade the mini to match the specs of the entry level HP for any amount of money, and adding wifi and firewire to the HP costs you $30 from HP and about $20 from Fry's.

So, setting aside the size, after upgrades, the Mac mini is 70% more expensive, and you have to give up 3/4 of your disk, you get a much slower disk, you get a USB port that can't even charge an iPod Shuffle, you get a far inferior graphics chip, and to get no "comfort headroom".

The size? If that mattered to most people then you can bet HP would have an "a6400z mini" out there. They're not going to leave money lying on the ground. The hardware "experience" doesn't move boxes.

Apple has to sell Macs to people for whom Apple's hardware is a huge stumbling block. Buying a Mac is like buying a car... and finding the only options are a decked out luxury SUV, a souped up Civic, or a motorbike.

They're selling laptops like mad because everyone's laptops have the same kind of limitations that APple imposes on all their computers, but desktops are languishing because they're simply not in the race for most people.

Re:There is no such thing as a 'legit' Leopard . .

[Shados]

The argument tends to be that that particular piece of the EULA is dubious at best, probably not enforcable... but even if it isn't, Apple has another trick up its sleeves (as far as I can tell, someone tell me if I'm wrong): they don't sell full copies of OSX, only upgrades. The only way to get a non-upgrade license of OSX is with a Mac. So you can't just buy a copie at the store and install it, since you don't qualify for the upgrade license.

Compleat instructions?

[WillAdams]

Wouldn't it be better if instead of hacking and distributing copies of Apple's OS if there were a straight-forward set of instructions on how to take a purchased OS, copy it to an image / partition, modify that, then burn it to a DVD and install?

If there is such a guide and I missed it, my apologies.

I've decided the Axiotron Modbook is too large for me, and would prefer to load Leopard onto a Fujitsu Stylistic.

William

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[Sandbags]

Actually, that seal you broke on the DVD case, inside the box? breaking that seal legally bound you to the EULA, which was not printed and availible in the box itself, but both on the outside of the box and on that sticker was information about how to get a copy and insistance that you read it.

It HAS been held up in court that breaking a seal constitutes the inception and agreement to a contract. You can not take the Mac out of the box without either breaking this seal to install the software, or if you got a new machine, you can decline the EULA and return the priduct for a full refund to Apple directly.

It;s not only worth the sticker it;s printed on, but it has already cost companies several hundred million dollars in fines for thinking like you do.

The use of, or opening of software IS legally binding. The ONLY exception is that some portions of that EULA may violate a particular state's laws, but since there's a seperation clause in every EULA, the law simply renders that line, statement, or section of the contract void, but the remainder is still legally enforceable.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[segedunum]

It's pretty obvious you've got a strong dislike for Apple -- and I have to think it goes beyond a simple, logical comparison of system specs for the money.

I think that sentence says it all, and tells us instantly what we're dealing with here, but anyway.......

Unless things are different in other countries, Apple tech. support is WORLDS better than HP in the USA.

In my experience Apple Care and tech support isn't all that great, largely because they know they have you by the balls (if they say it's not supported you're back down to the Apple store forking out for another machine), but the point is that you need Apple tech support to get anything done - and they know it. In the PC world you have a lot of different options as to where you get your support and what you want to connect to your machine.

Apple is far more conscious of "design" than HP.

History has taught us that faster and cheaper wins every time, and this is an argument that is usually wheeled out when people know that is the case. Hell, why do you think Apple moved to Intel at all?

OS X, in my opinion, is a FAR less trouble-prone environment to use, day-to-day, than anything else offered for PCs.

Evidence for that is thin on the ground.

So essentially, even if Apple hardware costs me a premium, I understand that paying it helps support and subsidize further OS X development and improvement -- and to me, that's a good place for my money to go.

You're in a minority.

Fuck Shuttle

[Bassman59]

This is a good point, relevant to the not-quite-low-end. I went to build out a very quiet Shuttle with similar specs to the mac mini ...

We bought a Shuttle SG33 for a project where we wanted a small form factor. We also wanted to use a PCI Express frame grabber card in the PCIe slot.

Well, it turns out that you can't use the PCIe slot for anything other than a video card, because setting the jumpers that enable the PCIe slot disables the onboard video. This bug isn't documented anywhere, not in their shitty manuals or their shitty web site. And the tech-support guy had the nerve to say, "well, if you called us and asked us before you bought the product, we would have told you." Yeah, right: "Hey, Mr Shuttle: can I use a PCIe frame grabber in your computer?" "Huh?"

So if you want to do any real work, avoid Shuttle.

Re:Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Just a quick note. You have a lot of assertions, but I bet Apple has a lot of formal studies on what the market wants. While you may want a given machine and while a lot of people on Slashdot may want it to, that doesn't mean it is the most profitable hardware niche for Apple to enter next. They've been doing pretty well so far. Their latest, the MacBook Air is something I don't want and most people on Slashdot think is useless junk. It's also been sold out in many locations for about 6 months now.

As a second note, your assertions about desktops versus laptops is well, not the way the industry is going. For office use and home use, the desktop has been slowly dying for several years now.

Useful link

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be useful if you wish to obtain Leo4Allv3.

17 USC 117

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

However, to run the software, you need to make your own copies into memory and most likely onto your hard disk. Under the copyright law of the United States, no separate license agreement is required to make these copies. From Title 17, United States Code, section 117:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

Apple and PA Semiconductor

[shmlco]

"It's the same guts, the same audio chips, the same northbridge chips and so on."

I covered this when Apple acquired PA Semiconductor, as I believe its a first step towards adding custom chips to do video processing, encryption acceleration, and so on. All of which would then clearly differentiate Apple's hardware and also serve to ensure that OS X only runs on Macs.

BTW, when discussing components built into Macs you also need to talk about accelerometers, light sensors, multi-touch trackpad controllers, FW-800 controllers, MagSafe connectors, and other things typically not built into your average plastic Dell or HP box.

Though HP does compensate by adding a LOT of blue LEDs and keyboard buttons for every piece of crapware shipped with the machine. You also get a lot of nifty "Intel Inside" and "Nvidia Inside" stickers on the case too.

A Wine counterpart for OSX

[rbanffy]

Shouldn't it be rather easy to do a Wine counterpart to OSX? Windows is, in every aspect it can, Unix-offensive. The same is not true for OSX and I think it would not be that much insane to do a "compatibility layer" for OSX executables.

Many parts of OSX are even open-source.

Has anyone ever considered this seriously?

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[flyingfsck]

Xigackly - In most jurisdictions, EULAs mean squat.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[King_TJ]

A few things:

1. "Faster and cheaper" wins every time, only when it's also reliable! (EG. Apple moved to Intel because despite every effort, they couldn't get either Motorola or IBM to consistently improve on their product offerings in a timely manner. It was already proven that Intel CPUs are reliable, so that PLUS faster and cheaper made it a good move.) It does a person no good to have something that's "cheaper" and supposedly "faster", but is breaking down constantly.

2. My experience with AppleCare has been FAR superior to anything I ever received from Dell, HP, Gateway, or other PC vendors I've had the displeasure of dealing with. Yes, Apple systems are "proprietary", in the same sense that a Playstation game console is proprietary to Sony, or the XBox 360 is proprietary to Microsoft, or a Sun workstation was proprietary to Sun. That business model has its pros and cons, but it's the de-facto ways computers were ALWAYS sold, up until a bunch of different people decided to build "PC clones" running the same default operating system. I know my hold times calling Apple have averaged around 5-10 minutes, as opposed to 45 mins. to 1 hour with everyone else. I know I've always reached a person who speaks my native language clearly and effectively with Apple. I know that when I have sent in a Mac for warranty work, they've gone over and above what was promised or "covered in writing", replacing any dented or scratched casings, loose hinges, etc. etc. What makes you think Dell or anyone else will give you great support for old, out-of-warranty systems of theirs, anyway? Like Apple, they'd rather just have you buy a new model, too.

3. I'm not going to get into the big, raging "Windows vs. OS X" debate, other than to say one thing. Currently, you can poll Mac users and then poll Windows users on how often spyware has crippled their machines. You tell me who suffered the biggest productivity losses.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[CogDissident]

So, paying 1800 euros for a pretty design, an operating system, and some tech support? For that much, just buy a 2nd computer and throw the first one out the window when it starts giving you trouble.

I see you take criticism of Apple personally.

[stuntmanmike]

Have you considered therapy or medication?

Re:There is no such thing as a 'legit' Leopard . .

[Budenny]

All purchased copies are legal and legitimate whatever they run on. No restraint on the source of your hardware is going to hold up in court, which is why Apple has not sued Psystar and never will. Nor will they sue the next one to do it. Some Eula terms are valid and enforceable, this one is not.

Budget (Disposable) Notebooks and OSX

[th3rmite]

Disclaimer: I have owned a Mac in some form since 1993.

The one thing that Apple just doesn't do is a budget minded notebook computer, the kind I like to call "Disposable" notebooks. I had a cheap ($350 brand new) Toshiba Satellite that I had bought from Circuit City that I had managed to run OSX 10.4 Tiger on for over a year. It worked great, did not sound like an airplane taking off, and was amazingly responsive. I think Apple could greatly expand it's market share if they would just put out a budget minded notebook, although I am not claiming to be an market analyst. I tend to replace my notebooks about every other year, so they sure would have me sold.

Although my wife just wouldn't put up with a "fake" Mac and bought a nice new MacBook.

Re:Budget (Disposable) Notebooks and OSX

[ToasterMonkey]

Does Apple really make a 'disposable' anything? I wouldn't even call the Mini that. If they'd built a mini in a mini-atx case or something yes.. but not as it is.

I think it's like asking BMW to make a budget car. What would you expect of it?? Why would BMW enthusiasts buy one if it didn't have 10-way adjustable seats and junk. You just can't put all that much into a $10,000 car, or a sub $500 PC. Why would Apple or BMW want to compete in that market? Beats me.. both would have to entirely change gears to start selling that junk in large quantities, and they seem to be doing just fine in their particular markets.

Re:Well some us would upgrade if given the chaCUBE

[evil_aar0n]

Specifically, what was wrong with the Cube? Need to change the RAM, HDD, or video card? It's not really that difficult. In fact, I wish more computer cases were as easy to open as the Cube.

Changing the CPU isn't for everyone - I've done it a few times - but not a lot of people need to do that with their desktops, either.

The only thing missing from the Cube, really, is USB 2.0, but it wasn't available when they made the machine. It can't be added, after-market, but FW 400 is just about as fast, anyway.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[Rufty]

Stealing, is it? Just how many copies of OSX for PCs vanished from Apple's warehouse? None? That's right, EULA disobedience is not stealing.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[Panaflex]

It;s not only worth the sticker it;s printed on, but it has already cost companies several hundred million dollars in fines for thinking like you do. Alright... I'll bite. When in the USA has anyone paid millions in fines for breaking a EULA?

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[MightyYar]

It HAS been held up in court that breaking a seal constitutes the inception and agreement to a contract. Case law is far more muddled than you indicate, and in any event is irrelevant. It is extremely unlikely that you will get sued by Apple for using their OSX CD improperly, and the consequences are the cost of the CD.

It is not acceptable to put restrictions on the buyer of a good AFTER the sale, period. A sale IS a contract.

Did you include OSX ($130) and iLife($80)?

[Viewsonic]

Since those are included by default, and you can't remove that cost from the Macs, they should be added to the Dell you are comparing them to. Since we're going to try and make this an OSX machine, you'll probably want to purchase these, no?

Re:Did you include OSX ($130) and iLife($80)?

[Sancho]

Since those are included by default, and you can't remove that cost from the Macs, they should be added to the Dell you are comparing them to. Can you explain what you mean? I didn't subtract anything from the cost of the Mac. I took the stock MBP at $1999 and configured a Dell to match those specs as closely as I could. The Dell had ever so slightly more drive space and battery capacity at a lower price. Even if you discount those additions, the cost difference is nearly $400.

If you're going to make this an OS X machine, the hardware I provided may not be suitable--I don't know what the compatibility is like for the various components. But you'd have to add in OS X, of course, which comes for "free" on the Apple. So you could reasonably add $130 to the cost of each Dell, and subtract $50 from the cost of the first Dell that I mentioned (which I upgraded to Vista Home Premium.) Of course, if you ever want to install Windows on your MBP, you have to adjust the costs accordingly.

Re:Did you include OSX ($130) and iLife($80)?

[LaskoVortex]

Can you explain what you mean?

He means you need to add these to the cost of the Dell because it is impossible to subtract these from the Mac. Since the Mac is a reference, we are not holding it against Mac that these are bundled. I would still consider OS X a value if it accounts for difference between the price of the machines. 10.5 performs exceptionally on intel hardware.

Also, I think there is a little too much focus on the specs of the hardware, a better comparison would be at the performance level using benchmarks. My guess is that Macs would come out to be a better deal at this level, but I don't have time to do the comparisons.

I am a long time Mac user, but I won't hesitate to switch OSs when Linux gets all of the features I need. I was on a fresh fedora box yesterday and I was considering running a newer linux on my machine with OS X running in a VM. Then I came to my senses. In a few years, I don't think this idea is going to be to far fetched.

Re:Did you include OSX ($130) and iLife($80)?

[Sancho]

Ah! I didn't see that he'd changed the subject line. Sorry to the original poster! Changing the subject and using that to lead in to your post always confuses me.

I addressed the software issue in another post. I think that what it boils down to is that it's too hard to compare the systems, but my post was merely a response to the request from another poster to "configure a Dell." Other people then started attacking my post as though it were flawed because I didn't include their idea of a fair comparison. Guess what? That wasn't what the person to whom I responded was asking for.

Re:Violating the EULA *and* DMCA !!

[Nom du Keyboard]

In addition to the EULA, they almost certainly violated at least one provision of the DMCA along the way as well.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[Sandbags]

Actually, many cases of AutoDesk suing companies for violating their donge and using software on a system not serialized for it (not by hacking the dongle, just by plugging it into a different machine that's not licensed when the first died).

MANY MANY firms have been sued for using "for non-commercial use only" licences as well. I can't tell you how many medium businesses got burned using student/teacher versions of office for business purposes. or for using demo versions to produce commercial materials. same goes for a bunch of people who tried to use GoDaddy and other cheap web hosting to host business web sites. All of these are managed by EULAs.

Symantec successfully sued a computer migration software vendor for allowing their Norton programs to be automatically moved from one computer to another, like you can with Office and other apps. NAV is licensed for a single machine, not a single user, and they won enough money to bankrupt the vendor.

The list goes on and on. You don't hear about it because unlike the RIAA, these vendors don't sue their users, they sue large firms that would rather pay then get the public attention...

I suspect a lot of people won't care

[Slugster]

When OSX86 first came out, there was a lot of curiosity--but most of the people who were watching (myself included) never bothered to actually set up a system. Most of the people who had gotten it running weren't using it much. Many of the people who I asked were people who already owned a Mac, and were just curious to see it running on a PC. I'm sure somebody at Apple worried about losing revenue but from my informal polls I got the impression that anyone who had wanted a Mac had already bought one, and being able to download OSX86 for free didn't change much of anything.

I was one of the people who didn't bother. Most of my reason was that I already had a bunch of PC software that I knew how to use, and didn't want to bother re-learning other software. I suspect that once people get used to either platform, this is a bigger preventative factor in changing (either way) than the higher prices of a Mac machine.
~

They tried licensing - it failed

[AHumbleOpinion]

I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt.

Been there, done that, it failed. The authorized Mac clones of the late 1990s proved that a large segment of Apple's customers would gladly trade better hardware and design for lower prices. Now keep in mind the timeframe, people buying Macs in those days were generally pretty solid Mac enthusiasts. So it is probably fair to say that a large segment of Apple's more enthusiastic customers would trade batter hardware and design for lower prices.

Now all of this was on authorized Mac clones so there was some control over the hardware. To attempt to run Mac OS X on any PC hardware would replicate the nightmare faced by Microsoft, being dependent on third parties of questionable ability to provide drivers and to have some of these undermine the stability of the operating system with crappy drivers. Go down this road and the perception of the reliability of Mac OS X will be destroyed and the motivation to abandon Windows for Mac OS X will be greatly diminished.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[stewbacca]

Contrast the MacBook Pro light sensor with this Dell one I use at work (Latitude D630). It makes the screen too dark under normal office lighting conditions, and actually WASHES OUT the pixels by becoming too bright in dimly lit conference rooms. The brightest setting on a MacBook Pro display never washes out the image, regardless of the ambient lighting.

System API's?

[JSBiff]

I don't really know. I suspect it might certainly be possible to do a wine-like layer to run Mac Apps on other platforms, but I think Mac isn't *quite* as close to Unix as you think. Well, that is, Mac has, I think, a full Unix compatibility layer, but then in addition to that, they have all the Mac-only stuff like Quartz, Cocoa API, Carbon API, etc, which are not standard Unix libraries. Additionally, Mac OS X uses, I believe, a slightly different standard Filesystem structure than other Unix-like systems. For example, Macs have an "Applications" directory, I believe, where applications are 'installed' by dropping a folder for the application into the Applications directory (not completely unlike "Program Files" on Windows, but rather unlike the rest of the Unix like systems where a single application might have executables in /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, or some other directory, config files in /etc, library files in /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib, /opt/libs, etc.

Mostly, I think the hardest part of creating a compatibility layer for MacOS apps would probably be re-creating the Cocoa and Carbon API's, though. There may be other API's that also need to be re-created (I think Mac's have something similar in concept to DirectX for accellerated media playback, image manipulation, etc).

Re:System API's?

[rbanffy]

One other way to address the problem is to build incomplete versions of those components and create a XCode plug-in that can evaluate how compatible the program is with the "alternative" target.

Also, you don't need to duplicate the entire look and feel of the Mac application - there are equivalent widgets for most of OSX functionality. Complete emulation is not a requirement, just API replication.

As for the different file system lay-out, it's nothing a chroot can't solve. I would insist all apps under this compatibility layer should be chrooted someplace else anyway.

If the licensing on making plug-ins for Visual Studio weren't so restrictive, the Xcode plug-in option would be great for Mono too - When people build .NET apps within VS, they could check how Mono-friendly those apps will be.

I bought a copy

[Time Ed]

> Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

Fine. I bought a copy and a $500 PC. Here's how to install it:
http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=74964

Easy to maintain, super stable, and better app support than my old Linux install...

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[stewbacca]

You're in a minority. Speaking of being in the minority, you said:

In my experience Apple Care and tech support isn't all that great. In light of the recent Consumer Reports poll

http://www.macworld.com/article/133293/2008/05/consumer.html

(and years and years of evidence prior to this putting Apple firmly in the #1 spot for tech support), I'd say that YOU are in the minority. Perhaps Apple support "isn't all that great" but considering it gets an 83 to Lenovo's 66, Dell's 60, Toshiba's 54 and Gateway's 51, I'd say there's nothing better.

taller Mini

[ChristTrekker]

Apple should double the height of the Mini, put in a CPU that keeps pace with the ones they put in their laptops (why is the Mini so slow?), use a standard size hard drive, and they'd probably find a way to put some expansion capability in it while keeping the price down. This would address most of my needs. It's not quite as elegant a design (would look almost cubic), but would still look pretty darn slick. By changing only the height, it retains physical compatibility with some of the "stacking" peripherals that have come out.

Good Advice

[CyberLife]

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

This is good advice. However, I would also recommend reading the Leopard SLA too, particularly section 2:

This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

Re:Good Advice

[shentino]

For some reason that sounds like an illegal tie-in, sorta like GE saying "no lightbulbs unless you buy our toasters".

Re:Good Advice

[CyberLife]

Ah, but this is not what Apple is doing. They do not require the purchasers of Leopard to also buy a Mac. Anybody is free to just buy the OS. It may not be usable on anything other than Apple machines, but this fact is not exactly hidden from consumers. It is plainly stated on Apple's website as well as in the license agreement, and even on the software box itself. All of these are freely available to anyone prior to purchase. There is no justification, other than sheer ignorance, for buying Leopard and being surprised that it cannot be used on a Dell.

Re:Good Advice

[Nullav]

It may not be usable on anything other than Apple machines Pretty sure OS X comes with a sticker.

Re:Good Advice

[shentino]

You mean may not be used on a Dell, I suppose.

Technical difficulties, as in "We wrote it for the apple, so if you wanna go mucking around trying to install it on something else, more power to you but consider your warranty voided", are WAY different than legal difficulties of "we forbid you to install it on a dell, or any other non-apple machine."

Making contrived legal prohibitions crosses into antitrust law if it constitutes a tying arrangement.

IIRC, Microsoft sorta recently got into trouble for exactly that. There's a whole section about it in my textbook for EC202.

And the whole thing about "the customer knew the terms before they bought it" is bullshit. That's simply ass-covering versus FRAUD charges or the like. It's still illegal to engage in monopoly-maintaining business practices whether you are up front with it or not.

Full disclosure only protects you against fraud and misrepresentation. It is NOT a defense in an antitrust/monopoly case. Having the gusto to spew out "it's our terms, take them or leave them" may even backfire by providing evidence of an illegal tie.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[p0tat03]

ThinkPads are also more expensive than similarly-equipped Dells or HPs. You pay for superior design, whether it's coming from Apple or Lenovo/IBM.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[db32]

That sounds like it is going in reverse. The MBP dims the screen in darker rooms so it doesn't burn your eyeballs out to look at it. Though now that you mention the brightness setting, the fact that all of those normally worthless F-Keys default to their fn-key function things are nice. I can adjust the sound, brightness, and other things with quick button presses right across the top.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[db32]

To be honest it has been a long time since I have touched an IBM thinkpad. The last time I did they were basically only available in that god aweful nipple mouse configuration and no touchpad option. Though that is more personal preference than anything for me.

I also loathe having all the connectors and crap on the back of my laptop. It makes it damned inconvenient to connect/disconnect anything while actually using the device.

Laptops aside IBM scores big brownie points for employing a fleet of ninjas. We had one of those mega blower fans in a blade center go out and IBM had a new one there within 45 minutes and we are at least a 30-40 minute drive from the closest "major" city. Clearly this is only possible by using warehouse and delivery ninjas.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[stewbacca]

It HAS been held up in court that breaking a seal constitutes the inception and agreement to a contract. That's funny. I thought contracts weren't legally binding until the person CONSIDERING the contract actually reviewed it and ACCEPTED it. Please cite your sources.

Re:Well some us would upgrade if given the chaCUBE

[prockcore]

Specifically, what was wrong with the Cube?

I can point to two things:

One, it wasn't obvious which way CDs were supposed to go, and accidentally putting one in backwards required rebooting while holding down a key to eject the damn thing.

Two, the power button was touch sensitive.. no need to push it, just brush against it and your computer would immediately hibernate.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[stewbacca]

Yeah, in other words, the Dell one I use at work is a "check the box" function. It has the auto sensing screen dimmer function, but it works about as well as the Microsoft built-in grammar checker. Some engineer can say they met the requirement, but we consumers get screwed with a bad feature.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[arminw]

....In my experience Apple Care and tech support isn't all that great....

In this case YOU are the minority. I just got my Consumer Reports magazine for this month. They tabulated their data from about 10,000 computer owners. The support ratings for Apple are FAR superior than any other computer maker.

Apple has the highest, by far, support score for both laptops and desktop systems of 83 and 81% respectively. For comparison, HP is at the bottom of the list with only 48 and 47%. Dell is at 60 and 56%.

For workhorse laptops, Apples were also number one in over all satisfaction results turned in by these real world, non-geek computer users.

Maybe Apple does pad their prices a bit, as evidenced by their considerably better profits than the rest of the computer makers. In the end though, you get what you pay for. A backlit keyboard, mag-safe connector, motion sensor, flawless sleep and wake-up and freedom from malware, ie. over all attention to details of design, don't show up on spec sheets, but do add measurably to the computing experience for many people. Even the way Apple packages their products speaks of care and quality. You'd know this, if you have ever bought a new Apple product.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[arminw]

....they've gone over and above what was promised...

When my what I thought was otherwise working, 4 year old ipod needed a new battery, I sent it in to Apple for that. What I got back was a newly re-furbished iPod of that model. With it was an explanation note, that after extensive testing, they determined that my old iPod was not meeting the original factory specs, even with a new battery. Like any other human endeavor, Apple may not be perfect, but they are orders of magnitude above others in the same game. Not all of Apple's profits go into Steve's pocket.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[William Ager]

Is this the same Apple Care that refused to even speak to me for an in-warranty hard drive replacement without getting a credit card number first, along with an agreement that they could decide to charge me for the call afterward if they decided the problem wasn't covered under the warranty? And then took a month to replace the hard drive, while also removing my (perfectly functional) DVD+CD+-RW drive and replacing it with an older CD-ROM drive? Compared to my experience with Dell's email support, which replaced anything I needed replaced within 24 hours, with no questions asked, Apple seemed horrid.
Technical support anecdotes are generally not indicative of the overall quality of technical support that a company offers. I'm sure others have had horrible experiences with Dell and wonderful experiences with Apple.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[konohitowa]

flawless sleep and wake-up

You have got to be kidding. I'm trying to think of a Mac that I've had that actually slept reliably. My first Mac was a Beige G3. Since then, I've had a BB iMac, DVD burning G4 (the first of the movie burning Macs), lampshade iMac, Mac Mini (G4), lampshade iMac, and the Core 2 Duo MBP. The MPB has been the worst of the bunch, but every one of them has had issues with coming out of sleep correctly. Doesn't happen all the time, but when it doesn't come back from sleep correctly, it sucks. Yes, I've modified the sleep defaults to shut off hot sleep (it swaps out to hard drive now). Didn't fix it. It got better, but it still occasionally doesn't wake up. So I don't ever sleep it anymore.

Yes - I realize it's anecdotal for me - perhaps a bad run of luck - but go check google. You'll find I'm not even remotely alone in this.

Re:Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old

[Script_God]

Their latest, the MacBook Air is something I don't want and most people on Slashdot think is useless junk. It's also been sold out in many locations for about 6 months now.

I find that to be rather amazing since it's only been out for about 3.5 months. ;)

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[eldepeche]

Yeah, too bad Apple only sells one model of computer.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[arminw]

We have a number of Macs here, both PPC and Intel based. They ALL sleep and wake without trouble. I must admit that for security, we encourage users to log off, or at least use fast user switching, before putting the Mac to sleep. Maybe that has something to do with our experience.

Hardware is irrelevant in this comparison

[Lonewolf666]

Because the Linux box could also run on the latest Intel processors. And I don't think a PC with carefully selected components is inferior to an Intel Mac.

So it is all about the quality of the software.

Re:Hardware is irrelevant in this comparison

[porcupine8]

This is very true; I was mostly using that as an example of what kind of major changes can happen over the course of 5 years. Who thought in 2003 that Apple would switch to Intel? The idea that Apple could possibly NOT come out with something "new and shiny" in the next five years to stay well ahead of Linux is just silly.

Who cares about forks unless they are better?

[Lonewolf666]

...but ultimately the personality of Linux fans gets in the way causing the inevitable forking of a distro and confusion among users...

Forks happen. But unless the original developers screwed up in some way, they tend to stay irrelevant and die off. Offhand, I can think of two forks that gained some significance:

1) X.org which mostly replaced XFree86. People were unhappy with the progress of XFree86, and when XFree86 changed its license on top of that, some developers took the last version with the old license and developed it into the X.org server.

2) The Firebird database. Borland had open-sourced a version of Interbase, but then they changed their mind and went closed source in later versions again.

In both cases, the old developers disappointed the Open Source fans and someone else put in the work to continue the project in Open Source style.

Bullsh!t!

[egghat]

Take an All-In-One computer from Gateway:

Gateway® One ZX190 1399 Dollar Core 2 Duo, 19" screen, etc.
Half the price of an iMac?

Mac Mini:

CompuStre: AOpen Pandora MiniPC MP915-B Slim DVD/CDRW 40GB Cel-M 1.4 512MBDDR2 549 Dollar. This thing is worse than the mini *and* more expensive.

But it seems as if your only qualitiy indicator is speed of folding@home. Strange. I guess your PC is a PS3 then ..

Half the price?

And some other fellow slashdot users have done the same for the Pro and the notebooks. When you compare Apple to sth. of similiar quality and design (e.g. Sony) Apple looks quite competitive.

If you compare Apples to lemons, well, than you'll get lemons. It's fruit, but the taste is really sour ...

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[mgblst]

You can still get the Mac or DVD out without breaking the seal. Just cut open the box, or breakapart the dvd. I wonder if this holds up in court?

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[Weedlekin]

"I've used quite a few HP laptops, and frankly, I'd never be caught using another one, if I could help it."

Their business class laptops are actually pretty good, but they tend to cost nearly as much as Apple's offerings for something that's usually bigger and heavier, and lacks some of Apple's attention to detail. HP's domestic laptops on the other hand are rubbish that looks good to those reading paper specifications, but are made from far cheaper components than their business laptops, hence the fact that the latter cost nearly twice as much for what appears to be a similarly specified computer.

"Apple tech. support is WORLDS better than HP in the USA"

If my and other peoples' experiences are anything to go by, it's pretty good outside the US as well.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[Sandbags]

1st, ghost is system image software, not migration software. Its expectation is you're restoring a backup image to the original machine, or to a new HDD in the same machine. It also facilitates partition remapping. It's licence has no impact on what's contained in the image itself, they each have theior own geverning licences.

2nd, While working for a consulting IT firm in Connecticut, one of the architect clients I was working for was fined when AutoDesk reported them trying to licence an upgrade version on 32 PCs that were not the systems the previous version had been licensed on. They had moved the dongle to new machines they bought from my firm and installed the old version, then tried to upgrade. That client sued US for not following that license term and correctly informing them of the limitation (we won since we were only contracted to do the system sale, not the integration). They paid AutoDesk full price for the licences and got no refund on the upgrades they bought to avoid a formal court case and risk piracy charges. I can't name the company because my firm was named in the case. This was back in 1998, so I doubt there's much linked to it on the net...

BestBuy paid fines for using student teacher versions of Office on Manager workstations in stores. Cost them a couple million back in 2002-2003. I can't find the link, but I know it happened, one of my good friends got fired for it.

BestBuy also got burned for using retail copies of a data migration software package without having a corporate licence back in 2003, and are currently being sued for using Winternals software. They "store used" (aka, paid for internally) legal copies of the software, thinking that was OK, but unfortunately, it's all non-commercial use retain licences. Here's a link to the winternals article http://www.iampowered.com/archives/2006/04/12/best_buy_being_sued_for_illega_1.php

Circuit City's geek squad equivolent got burned for much the same thing recently.

GoDaddy doesn't sue people for violating their EULA, they simply close down the web page and back bill the customer for the commercial rate from the time the site went up. If that goes unpaid, there's no lawsuit so to say, but there's a legal collections action. Either way, the illegal users have paid millions in fees and fines and interest.

People are sueime AutoDesk, but I can't find reference to a case they have won. The licnece that was agreed to indicates the software is "non-trasferable" This is no legally different that trying to resell a membership card or concert ticket that bears the same "non-transferable" indication. They can't sue you for selling it, but they can refuse to accept it, support it, activate it, etc, and insist you pay if you want to use it. Using it by hacking it beyond that point is piracy.

It does happen. People like you who don;t want to believe it, and violate the licence, likely will never be sued. Spending 10K in legal fees to go after a single person of small company that a) doesn't have that much to take and b) is only a coupld hundred dollar missed sale, if you ever would have paid for it in the first place, is not worth their effort. As for big firms, school districts, and opther public targets, yes, they DO get sued, regularly, and they all pay.

You get what you pay for.

[jcr]

In a laptop, one of the things you pay for is light weight, and battery life. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the HP laptop you're talking about comes anywhere close to the size and weight of the MacBook Pro?

-jcr

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[Corwn of Amber]

Just to reply on two points :

I have never called any sort of tech support. I know that I know more about computers than any trained monkey with a checklist. So i can't say anything about Apple tech support, but I can tell you that every time I've had the slightest question on a Mac or on a Hackintosh, I headed to the insanelymac forums and found the answer there.

OSX is less troublesome? HELL YEAH. After spending four hours to make everything work (save the webcam and sleep modes) on this Hackintosh, I can tell it's much less troublesome than either uninstalling the ton of crap that came with the Vista that was factory-installed on it AND installing and configuring any Linux distro Just Right. Windows Vista needs more actions to do anything than Windows XP, and both of these impede your work with blaring "Computer Not Secured" "Updates To Install" "Please Install an AntiVirus" "The firewall is deactivated" "Norton Sensed An Activity" and the Nightmare : "Your mouse has moved. Cancel or Allow?"
Linux, let's not talk about it... Remember the bug in Ubuntu 7.04 that prevents you from accessing NTFS drives no matter what you do, because of the security settings? Been there, done that. Ever installed a Gentoo? The first time I did that, I learned everything I'll ever need to know to become a sysop at any site with a thousand Linux boxen. Because I needed to learn it all just to successfully install the damn distro. It took me a week. Now I can install a Gentoo in three lines of bash, but... who wants to have to know that? Or even DO that? Geeks living in their parents' basements, and? And?

My point is, in Linux you have to know it all. in Windows, the environment distracts you all the time. In OSX, well, you may dislike the interface... but you've got a usable, integrated Desktop Unix that Just Works.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[OrangeTide]

There are a lot of tweaks apple makes to the base PC to make it better for Mac OS (they ignore making it better for windows). But it does also make it different than a PC and some people who are used to one way do not like it when Apple does things a another way.

re: Applecare

[King_TJ]

Unfortunately, yep - that's the same Applecare.

If there's one thing I've always found maddening about Applecare, it's that damned policy of theirs of wanting a credit card first, and then giving you that "disclaimer" line about having to charge you if it's determined you called about something not covered.

Apple's a bit of an "odd" one to deal with, though, in the sense that they almost seem to demand you work with them on "faith". Their stated policies seem to provide them a lot of "wiggle room" to deny you coverage for things and screw you over. Yet if you "play along" and "trust" them to do the right thing, you TYPICALLY find that they do.

EG. When most vendors were outlining detailed policies on how many bad pixels an LCD monitor had to have before they'd agree to exchange it, Apple stood fast with an answer of "it's at our discretion", refusing to quote a number. From reading people's anecdotes posted on forums over time though, it became evident that this was working out in people's FAVOR more often than not. Monitors with even 1 or 2 bad pixels that no other company would replace were getting swapped by Apple, if you complained it was interfering with your work (as a graphics artist, photographer, or what have you).

Issues of not getting back the parts you shipped a system with are usually because they opted to ship you a refurbished equivalent machine, and someone screwed up on comparing all the specs and components. Again, this isn't good (although it ALSO means some people get back free upgrades!), but it's not something Apple is known for doing excessively.....

tough shit

[Scudsucker]

It can easily be reviewed before purchase

If it's not on the box, it's not easy to read.

If you don't like the terms of the license, you have a choice not to use that software.

You aren't licensing Leopard, you're buying a copy of the software. And that's all. When you buy Oracle's products, that is an actual license since you have to sign a contract before getting the software.