Apple wouldn't necessarily lose hardware sales if they switched to x86s. Apple owns industrial design in this industry: they could sell *more* hardware if they had x86s and could run Windows. How pissed would MS be if they had an Apple logo on machines running Windows which could dual-boot OS X out of the box? If my TiBook were x86, I'd still own it. what else is out there that has this screen and runs Final Cut Pro? Eh?
If Apple went x86, the boxes would not run Windows (well, not without some sort of VirtualPC app anyway). They would absolutely not use PC BIOS,.they would still use OpenFirmware. Why, oh why would Apple place around their neck the 20 year old albatros that is the PC BIOS / architecture??
They would share a similar CPU with PC's -- and that's the end of it.
It's not just "gee whiz, it sure would be nice if our users would use OS X more than OS 9" -- Apple is doing an OS switch. This is a massive undertaking. There need to be enough users on the new OS to warrant development for the platform---but the users would not generally switch until the apps are in place, created by developers for the new OS. Chicken and Egg.
This is one way Apple is pushing the issue. Not the only way. But the adoption of OS X must take place in a widespread fashion, and soon.
This just makes sense. For Apple to survive / profit, folks must move to OS X en masse. They're not just being mean!
It had just become profitable--had it more time it would have no doubt gained more marketshare. It floundered early on due to poor HWR and the fact that people didn't know what to make of a PDA. Just like the Amiga, ahead of its time...
"Multimedia? You mean it's a game machine. You can't seriously do business with a game machine!"
Steve is disassociating their handwriting software from a system that flopped LONG AGO. Most people don't know what a newton was. Those that do, know it flopped. Never mind the reasons or how great it was - it flopped. End of story.
The Newton group had just turned profitable before Apple killed it. How did it flop?
Windows CE is perhaps the worst PDA OS ever. It still tries to put a desktop OS on a PDA. The Newton never did this--it was designed from the ground up as something that is not a traditional computer. Palm also took the wise path of not following the desktop OS model.
And how about designing a PDA OS that allows applications to execute in place, where they reside in memory? Why build a PDA OS that does not support this (as Windows CE does not)? It causes a need to double your resources. Palm and NewtonOS devices all had applications execute in place.
I have owned a Newton MP2100, an eMate 300, and currently have an MP130. The Rosetta print recognition engine is still superior to the latest that ParaGraph has released for WindowsCE. If only Apple had come out with a smaller form-factor Newton (and not killed the line alltogether).
True, WinCE is quite popular and getting moreso compared to Palm, but this is due to people being wooed by the faster, more colorful units. They are, unfortunatley, also getting a sad OS for PDA use. I have hopes that when Palm switches to the StrongARM in the next year, that they will regain some footing.
And by the way, I've had some experience in these areas...
I would love to see, simply, the full manuscript to Lewis' The Dark Tower -- it's a novel fragment that is one of the more interesting (up until it stops) that I have read. Shades of it can be seen in his space chronicles, mostly in Perelandra.
Creative Computing is the best mag. Back in the early 80's you could see 10 or so totally proprietary systems being reviewed, put through paces. Such a magical time for personal computing, before the shake out.
I've been buying old copies on eBay, and can just sit for hours and look through them.
blakespot
First 32-bit processor came out in 1995?!?!?
on
AMD's 64-Bit Chip
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Staggering quote from the Wired article, effectively rendering the author's opinion moot:
"While the first 32-bit processor came out in 1995, the average PC used 1 MB of memory, so 4 GB was both unaffordable and generally not needed."
Without digging too deeply, it can be found that Motorola came out with the 68020, a true 32-bit processor, in June of 1984, 11 years prior to the debut of the 32-bit processor according to the nimrod author. I don't have solid dates but I know that within a year of this timeframe Suns and Apollo workstations were using this chip.
The quote regarding Steve Jobs on Intel may have been misrepresented by the original article. The quote came from Apple's Q3 Financial Analyst Meeting Q&A. From that broadcast, here is the entire quote in context:
(5m 40s) Steve Jobs was asked about porting Mac OS X to Intel:
Steve Jobs: "The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eek out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done. And the roadmap looks pretty good. Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent. "... so it looks like discussions of OS X on Intel/AMD may be a premature. (despite repeated speculation on this
A bit clearer, is his intent when taken in context.
Wouldn't it be nice if the next time you bought a PC you were given the choice of Windows, OS X or both? Yes, it would be a happy year for hardcore PC users, until Apple filed chapter 11 becuase 95% of their income source (hardware sales) was gone.
People: OS X will never run on Wintel PC's. It would be the death of Apple and they are well aware of it.
I would enjoy having OS X on x86 hardware simply for variety and for accessibility on a larger installed base if your scenario of Apple proprietary boards did not occur.
Yes, but as the original poster explained, Apple is a hardware company---the motherboards would be non-PC, proprietary using OpenFirmware rather than PC BIOS. (So there will not be the hardware variety and larger installed base accessibility that you seek at the risk of Apple's demise.)
blakespot
Re:Mac hardware design has BEEN superior for years
on
Mac-Case Clone for PCs
·
· Score: 1
The problem has always been the OS, and the costs of the hardware.
I'd say they've managed to fix the first of those [apple.com] pretty well.
If your goal is to run UNIX on the desktop and you also happen to place a value on your time, then you'll find that Apple has taken care of the second issue as well.
I'm not a big fan of the mac look espically the most current, the silvery one with the big hole that a child, or adult, could easily stick a finger in and damage the speaker.
Merry Christmas. Now you need not worry about a child fingering your hole.
Well, I get paid to maintain a number of Solaris servers and Linux servers for my organization. So I don't feel I'd fall under the category of one who has no business attempting to run Linux on the desktop. It was lack of desktop apps that had my 5 attempts at running Linux as my main desktop OS at home failing over the years, not impatiance with the process. I was always hopeful that this time I would be there for good.
Interestingly it was my last attempt at desktop Linux that put me off, really. I was not trying it at home, but had won a 3 month research grant from my employer at the time, CSC. The grant was to examine the viability of the LAMP (Linux + Apache + MySQL + PHP) application server platform. I needed to setup a workstation--not simply a remote server to attach to via FTP and Telnet, no, the server had to be my workstation as well. I spent so much time configuring the desktop to behave as I wanted that it was just frustrating. I know people generally aren't using Linux desktops in the workplace (mainly at home) but with this example it was easier to feel the "my time is worth money" frustration in twiddling with the config and maintenance of this OS as a desktop solution---because my time was my grant money, slipping away day by day.
My point to all this is, again, not to say that Linux is useless on the desktop. Just that, with OS X out there, which promises so very much more ideal a user experience with no sacrifice in--nay, with more power to the user...why bother with Linux?
As I type this reply on my Toshiba 200MMX laptop in Galeon 1.2.something or another (don't remember what fonts I am using -- but they are not to bad). I am sitting on the couch using some wireless lan card from CISCO that cost about 1/10 what an airport would (the hub is in the basement somewhere). I have "The Road Warrior" playing on the TV next to the couch. I am importing pictures from my cameras Compact Flash card connected to my PCMCIA slot and rotating the ones taken sideways using Gimp 1.something or another -- as soon as I am done transfering the pictures off the CF card -- I am going to delete them and copy over 256 Megs of MP3 files to play on my Nex II portable. (Software cost for this whole setup was $0)
I read this article and I don't buy the "Linux is useless on the Desktop" crap. There is always alternatives -- the only caveot is to be careful when you buy your hardware. People who live in glass houses....yadayada
I enjoy using Chimera sometimes (an OS X "Cocoa" browser based on the gecko engine, like Galeon), but sadly am often forced to use IE given certain sites' leanings towards IE as far as non-platform-independent page layouts. I would not like to lack IE as an option, at any rate. Also, you say your wireless card costs 1/10 what my AirPort card costs. I paid $100, you must've paid $10. Good buy. I do have an actual AirPort Base Station which cost me $300. I could've gone with one of many others, and almost went with the LinkSys, but on two wireless review sites, I found that the AirPort fared better as far as range than the LinkSys, and I assumed I may have problems with range with either and would be forced to place the base station on the 2nd floor, in plain view, rather than hidden away up on the 3rd floor computer room. The AirPort looks far more acceptible for an item in plain view. But, happily, the range is such that I am able to leave it up on the 3rd floor...but I've featured it a bit more prominently than I might were it less interesting looking an item.:-)
And yea, I watch DVD's on my TV as well. But I can watcth them on my BSD UNIX based laptop and desktop, while you cannot, running Linux. I don't think that placing a laptop near a TV negates the advantage of OS X being able to play DVD's.... And as for MP3's, I hear you about liking to take MP3's on the road. I have a frequently changing 1000 songs on my iPod, and move MP3's to the unit at a rate of one album's worth of music in less than 10 seconds across FireWire. It's great stuff. (I like the iPod so much I run a website about it --> iPodHacks.com.)
And it may be simple preference, but I find Photoshop 7 to be more conducive to my getting the results I'm looking for than Gimp. (But I do have Gimp, compiled under OS X, using a rootless X-Windows server I've got installed, in case I want to use it.) Your cost for the software was $0. I paid many hundred $$ for Photoshop 7, but I need the app. OS X came with my machine. It retails for $125 though. That's perhaps the best deal as far as "bang for your buck" in software that I've seen in 20 years of using computers.
And I don't claim "Linux is useless on the desktop." I simply feel that in the face of the existence of OS X in this world, that Linux's viability on the desktop is much more in question. You saved $$ on the software -- but how much $$ is the time needed to cope with that desktop arrangement worth to you?
If running OSX on a wintel box suddenly became very easy (and ignoring licence issues), would Linux on the desktop suddenly look rather doomed?
As opposed to the "future's so bright I gotta wear shades" prospect that desktop Linux is sporting now???
I was an Amiga user, and finally went PC when I realized I could use NeXSTEP on PC boxes, and I bought a high end 486 (at the time) to run it. Spent $4,500 on the machine. After 9 months I had to wipe NeXTSTEP and install Windows 3.1 as I needed the desktop apps. It was a sad day. I tried 4-5x over the next few years to run Linux exclusively (desktop use), but was forced to go back to Windows 95 becuase I simply needed the desktop apps Windows offered. I finally saw Jobs return to Apple and saw the plan for NeXTSTEP to merge with some MacOS pieces and become OS X. I bought a Mac, a Blue-and-White G3 400, in Jan '99. I jumped the gun a bit becuase OS X did not really get to rolling until March/April '01. But I had fun with the hardware while I waited (and noted OS 9's decent speed but terrible stability, etc.) Summer '01 I went out and purchased a dual processor G4 800 upon which to run OS X like a beast. I have never been happier with an OS.
Do you know how much $$ (hardware, purchase of NeXTSTEP) and time (installing Linux 5x over the years, only to uninstall and reinstall Windows) I spent trying to get a UNIX solution on the desktop that worked? It became a hobby in and of itself, the quest for desktop UNIX. But the apps always kept me away.
As I type this, I sit downstairs, away from my "machine room," using my new iBook 700. I am typing this on IE 5 (which now uses Apple's Quartz text smoothing for so-nice aa fonts) connected to the net via my AirPort base station (WiFi), I have Silverado on DVD playing in a small window, and have Photoshop 7 running in the background because I've been doing some color correction on some digicam images I've imported, via USB, into iPhoto, Apple's free photo management package. I could not be doing these things on the Linux platform. Nor any other UNIX platform. OS X has brought together the best desktop interface I have encountered, the most stable UNIX variant that I have encountered, mainstream application support that leaves the user wanting of nothing, and a company behind it all that has a clear and compelling vision and direction.
So...would Linux be doomed on the desktop if OS X became available for the PC? Well, you'll have to make that call. It won't happen becuase Apple's main source of revenue is hardware sales and also they currently are able to hold up OS X to the crowds with the stability and ease that only comes from a company controlling both the hardware and the software. Having run NeXTSTEP both on that old PC back in the day (where motherboards / chipsets / CPU's come from one of many vendors) and on my NeXT machine, I can tell you that such dead solid stability comes only from having just that kind of control over both ends of the stick. But OS X is available for Macs--and looking at what one walks away with when they take the plunge into the current world that Apple has built, it seems that the appeal of "free" Linux and the ability to run on super-economy hardware becomes somewhat less mighty....
Oh....and did I need a new laptop when I already have a DP G4 800 in-house? No. I simply am so enamored of OS X that I wanted to be able to take it with me whenever I like. I've had a few engrossing and satisfying relationships with OS's in the past (AmigaDOS in the 80's, etc.) but nothing like this. This is just...right.
"Next was the USB Keyboard. This was packaged in a yellow cardboard box. Upon opening it, it appears as a standard black keyboard, but on closer inspection you find that the Windows keys are missing."
Let us not forget that all things Windows are PROPRIETARY!! MS Keys have nothing to do with a "standard" keyboard!! I'd hoped that a 27 year old guy who is installing Linux on his PS2 would have known that!!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Apple seems to be shooting itself in the foot by getting stuck on hardware. By sacrificing sales of software to non-Apple owners, they are vastly limiting their potential income. I firmly believe they are getting much better margins on their software products, which suggests that they really ought to be using the hardware to sell the software, not vice-versa.
Apple is a hardware company. People in these niche markets who need this software...will go and buy Mac hardware, and come away with a better application (look at OS X's incredibly audio latency) and a better user experience. These are not casual users unwilling to spend $$ on hardware that fits the solution.
Which benchmark were you looking it?? Check the main article above. Where the text is blue or maybe green and underlined, click with your mouse's left button. You should soon be faced with the benchmark results that are being discussed here.
You've clearly come upon something else entirely...?
The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. -- George Washington
Right! So let's do George proud and clean up the Christian rhetoric, such as the "under God" bit added to the pledge, that has polluted the separation of church and state upon which the republic was built!
Isn't it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does Apple maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Mac has become the AS/400 of desktop computing, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if Apple never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Windows platform?
Ok John, I've heard your question however strange.
The most interesting aspect with OS X is the way Apple managed to take a Unix kernel and turn it into a user-friendly OS with a charming desktop and Mac GUI. Curiously, no other company has been able to manage anything like this. The Linux folks are said to have legions of coders whose sheer numbers are supposed to be the big threat to Microsoft, but they have gotten nowhere close to what little ole' Apple has accomplished in the operating system arena. In fact, if you even bring up the issue of Linux as a possible desktop replacement, members of the Linux crowd will almost always tell you that it's not ready. Only the folks at Lindows.com even consider the possibilities. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.
Asked and answered, it seems. Split personalities, John?
Apple is more like a $50,000 Hyundai. It looks better than the Chevy, but it costs a lot more.
I think that one might've needed a little work there...
Mac is too expensive since you pay much more for something with fewer features, fewer capabilities, often with less memory and a slower system.
I see. Please explain to me the list of features that I'm missing out on by running OS X on this dual-processor G4 800. What would Windows 2000 / XP offer me that I am lacking with OS X? The challenge of creative problem solving? How about Linux--perhaps that's what OS you favor. Will it keep me in good karma becuase I'd be forced to use only open-source apps what with all those pesky commercial apps like Photoshop and Office being unavailable for Linux? Would I miss the freedom of choice in baing ableto choose one of a number of GUI desktop interfaces for Linux--none of them the defacto standard?
OS X has married Unix and average Joe desktop computing successfully. This has never happened before. It's rather exciting and I feel priveleged to be in on it. So...I'm not feeling the lack of features too greatly. As for a "slower system"... well, this dual G4 seems to be handling the task of running this OS rather well.
And cost? High end hardware does have a price. But for what I get in return, it's a steal. Such a steal that I had to break down and grab a new iBook 700 so that I can have OS X even more at my disposal. Yea...only I had a PC...
Slashdot Mirror
Apple wouldn't necessarily lose hardware sales if they switched to x86s. Apple owns industrial design in this industry: they could sell *more* hardware if they had x86s and could run Windows. How pissed would MS be if they had an Apple logo on machines running Windows which could dual-boot OS X out of the box? If my TiBook were x86, I'd still own it. what else is out there that has this screen and runs Final Cut Pro? Eh?
If Apple went x86, the boxes would not run Windows (well, not without some sort of VirtualPC app anyway). They would absolutely not use PC BIOS,.they would still use OpenFirmware. Why, oh why would Apple place around their neck the 20 year old albatros that is the PC BIOS / architecture??
They would share a similar CPU with PC's -- and that's the end of it.
blakespot
It's not just "gee whiz, it sure would be nice if our users would use OS X more than OS 9" -- Apple is doing an OS switch. This is a massive undertaking. There need to be enough users on the new OS to warrant development for the platform---but the users would not generally switch until the apps are in place, created by developers for the new OS. Chicken and Egg.
This is one way Apple is pushing the issue. Not the only way. But the adoption of OS X must take place in a widespread fashion, and soon.
This just makes sense. For Apple to survive / profit, folks must move to OS X en masse. They're not just being mean!
blakespot
It had just become profitable--had it more time it would have no doubt gained more marketshare. It floundered early on due to poor HWR and the fact that people didn't know what to make of a PDA. Just like the Amiga, ahead of its time...
"Multimedia? You mean it's a game machine. You can't seriously do business with a game machine!"
*rolls-eyes*
blakepsot
Steve is disassociating their handwriting software from a system that flopped LONG AGO. Most people don't know what a newton was. Those that do, know it flopped. Never mind the reasons or how great it was - it flopped. End of story.
The Newton group had just turned profitable before Apple killed it. How did it flop?
blakspot
Windows CE is perhaps the worst PDA OS ever. It still tries to put a desktop OS on a PDA. The Newton never did this--it was designed from the ground up as something that is not a traditional computer. Palm also took the wise path of not following the desktop OS model.
And how about designing a PDA OS that allows applications to execute in place, where they reside in memory? Why build a PDA OS that does not support this (as Windows CE does not)? It causes a need to double your resources. Palm and NewtonOS devices all had applications execute in place.
I have owned a Newton MP2100, an eMate 300, and currently have an MP130. The Rosetta print recognition engine is still superior to the latest that ParaGraph has released for WindowsCE. If only Apple had come out with a smaller form-factor Newton (and not killed the line alltogether).
True, WinCE is quite popular and getting moreso compared to Palm, but this is due to people being wooed by the faster, more colorful units. They are, unfortunatley, also getting a sad OS for PDA use. I have hopes that when Palm switches to the StrongARM in the next year, that they will regain some footing.
And by the way, I've had some experience in these areas...
Blake's Nino Info Page -- anyone recall?
Me in the NY Times discussing PDAs
My resume showing contract work with Philips (for their Nino site)
blakespot
I would love to see, simply, the full manuscript to Lewis' The Dark Tower -- it's a novel fragment that is one of the more interesting (up until it stops) that I have read. Shades of it can be seen in his space chronicles, mostly in Perelandra.
Has anyone else read it?
blakespot
Creative Computing is the best mag. Back in the early 80's you could see 10 or so totally proprietary systems being reviewed, put through paces. Such a magical time for personal computing, before the shake out.
I've been buying old copies on eBay, and can just sit for hours and look through them.
blakespot
- "While the first 32-bit processor came out in 1995, the average PC used 1 MB of memory, so 4 GB was both unaffordable and generally not needed."
Without digging too deeply, it can be found that Motorola came out with the 68020, a true 32-bit processor, in June of 1984, 11 years prior to the debut of the 32-bit processor according to the nimrod author. I don't have solid dates but I know that within a year of this timeframe Suns and Apollo workstations were using this chip.How disgraceful.
blakespot
- The quote regarding Steve Jobs on Intel may have been misrepresented by the original article. The quote came from Apple's Q3 Financial Analyst Meeting Q&A. From that broadcast, here is the entire quote in context:
... so it looks like discussions of OS X on Intel/AMD may be a premature. (despite repeated speculation on this
A bit clearer, is his intent when taken in context.(5m 40s) Steve Jobs was asked about porting Mac OS X to Intel:
Steve Jobs: "The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eek out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done. And the roadmap looks pretty good. Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent. "
blakespot
Wouldn't it be nice if the next time you bought a PC you were given the choice of Windows, OS X or both?
Yes, it would be a happy year for hardcore PC users, until Apple filed chapter 11 becuase 95% of their income source (hardware sales) was gone.
People: OS X will never run on Wintel PC's. It would be the death of Apple and they are well aware of it.
blakespot
- Yes, but as the original poster explained, Apple is a hardware company---the motherboards would be non-PC, proprietary using OpenFirmware rather than PC BIOS. (So there will not be the hardware variety and larger installed base accessibility that you seek at the risk of Apple's demise.)
blakespot- I'd say they've managed to fix the first of those [apple.com] pretty well.
If your goal is to run UNIX on the desktop and you also happen to place a value on your time, then you'll find that Apple has taken care of the second issue as well.blakespot
- Merry Christmas. Now you need not worry about a child fingering your hole.
blakespotWell, I get paid to maintain a number of Solaris servers and Linux servers for my organization. So I don't feel I'd fall under the category of one who has no business attempting to run Linux on the desktop. It was lack of desktop apps that had my 5 attempts at running Linux as my main desktop OS at home failing over the years, not impatiance with the process. I was always hopeful that this time I would be there for good.
Interestingly it was my last attempt at desktop Linux that put me off, really. I was not trying it at home, but had won a 3 month research grant from my employer at the time, CSC. The grant was to examine the viability of the LAMP (Linux + Apache + MySQL + PHP) application server platform. I needed to setup a workstation--not simply a remote server to attach to via FTP and Telnet, no, the server had to be my workstation as well. I spent so much time configuring the desktop to behave as I wanted that it was just frustrating. I know people generally aren't using Linux desktops in the workplace (mainly at home) but with this example it was easier to feel the "my time is worth money" frustration in twiddling with the config and maintenance of this OS as a desktop solution---because my time was my grant money, slipping away day by day.
My point to all this is, again, not to say that Linux is useless on the desktop. Just that, with OS X out there, which promises so very much more ideal a user experience with no sacrifice in--nay, with more power to the user...why bother with Linux?
blakespot
As I type this reply on my Toshiba 200MMX laptop in Galeon 1.2.something or another (don't remember what fonts I am using -- but they are not to bad). I am sitting on the couch using some wireless lan card from CISCO that cost about 1/10 what an airport would (the hub is in the basement somewhere). I have "The Road Warrior" playing on the TV next to the couch. I am importing pictures from my cameras Compact Flash card connected to my PCMCIA slot and rotating the ones taken sideways using Gimp 1.something or another -- as soon as I am done transfering the pictures off the CF card -- I am going to delete them and copy over 256 Megs of MP3 files to play on my Nex II portable. (Software cost for this whole setup was $0)
:-)
I read this article and I don't buy the "Linux is useless on the Desktop" crap. There is always alternatives -- the only caveot is to be careful when you buy your hardware.
People who live in glass houses....yadayada
I enjoy using Chimera sometimes (an OS X "Cocoa" browser based on the gecko engine, like Galeon), but sadly am often forced to use IE given certain sites' leanings towards IE as far as non-platform-independent page layouts. I would not like to lack IE as an option, at any rate. Also, you say your wireless card costs 1/10 what my AirPort card costs. I paid $100, you must've paid $10. Good buy. I do have an actual AirPort Base Station which cost me $300. I could've gone with one of many others, and almost went with the LinkSys, but on two wireless review sites, I found that the AirPort fared better as far as range than the LinkSys, and I assumed I may have problems with range with either and would be forced to place the base station on the 2nd floor, in plain view, rather than hidden away up on the 3rd floor computer room. The AirPort looks far more acceptible for an item in plain view. But, happily, the range is such that I am able to leave it up on the 3rd floor...but I've featured it a bit more prominently than I might were it less interesting looking an item.
And yea, I watch DVD's on my TV as well. But I can watcth them on my BSD UNIX based laptop and desktop, while you cannot, running Linux. I don't think that placing a laptop near a TV negates the advantage of OS X being able to play DVD's.... And as for MP3's, I hear you about liking to take MP3's on the road. I have a frequently changing 1000 songs on my iPod, and move MP3's to the unit at a rate of one album's worth of music in less than 10 seconds across FireWire. It's great stuff. (I like the iPod so much I run a website about it --> iPodHacks.com.)
And it may be simple preference, but I find Photoshop 7 to be more conducive to my getting the results I'm looking for than Gimp. (But I do have Gimp, compiled under OS X, using a rootless X-Windows server I've got installed, in case I want to use it.) Your cost for the software was $0. I paid many hundred $$ for Photoshop 7, but I need the app. OS X came with my machine. It retails for $125 though. That's perhaps the best deal as far as "bang for your buck" in software that I've seen in 20 years of using computers.
And I don't claim "Linux is useless on the desktop." I simply feel that in the face of the existence of OS X in this world, that Linux's viability on the desktop is much more in question. You saved $$ on the software -- but how much $$ is the time needed to cope with that desktop arrangement worth to you?
blakespot
If running OSX on a wintel box suddenly became very easy (and ignoring licence issues), would Linux on the desktop suddenly look rather doomed?
As opposed to the "future's so bright I gotta wear shades" prospect that desktop Linux is sporting now???
I was an Amiga user, and finally went PC when I realized I could use NeXSTEP on PC boxes, and I bought a high end 486 (at the time) to run it. Spent $4,500 on the machine. After 9 months I had to wipe NeXTSTEP and install Windows 3.1 as I needed the desktop apps. It was a sad day. I tried 4-5x over the next few years to run Linux exclusively (desktop use), but was forced to go back to Windows 95 becuase I simply needed the desktop apps Windows offered. I finally saw Jobs return to Apple and saw the plan for NeXTSTEP to merge with some MacOS pieces and become OS X. I bought a Mac, a Blue-and-White G3 400, in Jan '99. I jumped the gun a bit becuase OS X did not really get to rolling until March/April '01. But I had fun with the hardware while I waited (and noted OS 9's decent speed but terrible stability, etc.) Summer '01 I went out and purchased a dual processor G4 800 upon which to run OS X like a beast. I have never been happier with an OS.
Do you know how much $$ (hardware, purchase of NeXTSTEP) and time (installing Linux 5x over the years, only to uninstall and reinstall Windows) I spent trying to get a UNIX solution on the desktop that worked? It became a hobby in and of itself, the quest for desktop UNIX. But the apps always kept me away.
As I type this, I sit downstairs, away from my "machine room," using my new iBook 700. I am typing this on IE 5 (which now uses Apple's Quartz text smoothing for so-nice aa fonts) connected to the net via my AirPort base station (WiFi), I have Silverado on DVD playing in a small window, and have Photoshop 7 running in the background because I've been doing some color correction on some digicam images I've imported, via USB, into iPhoto, Apple's free photo management package. I could not be doing these things on the Linux platform. Nor any other UNIX platform. OS X has brought together the best desktop interface I have encountered, the most stable UNIX variant that I have encountered, mainstream application support that leaves the user wanting of nothing, and a company behind it all that has a clear and compelling vision and direction.
So...would Linux be doomed on the desktop if OS X became available for the PC? Well, you'll have to make that call. It won't happen becuase Apple's main source of revenue is hardware sales and also they currently are able to hold up OS X to the crowds with the stability and ease that only comes from a company controlling both the hardware and the software. Having run NeXTSTEP both on that old PC back in the day (where motherboards / chipsets / CPU's come from one of many vendors) and on my NeXT machine, I can tell you that such dead solid stability comes only from having just that kind of control over both ends of the stick. But OS X is available for Macs--and looking at what one walks away with when they take the plunge into the current world that Apple has built, it seems that the appeal of "free" Linux and the ability to run on super-economy hardware becomes somewhat less mighty....
Oh....and did I need a new laptop when I already have a DP G4 800 in-house? No. I simply am so enamored of OS X that I wanted to be able to take it with me whenever I like. I've had a few engrossing and satisfying relationships with OS's in the past (AmigaDOS in the 80's, etc.) but nothing like this. This is just...right.
blakespot
I'd say that Linux is the propriertary platform and Windows the standard.
How diverting. You'd be wrong.
blakespot
"Next was the USB Keyboard. This was packaged in a yellow cardboard box. Upon opening it, it appears as a standard black keyboard, but on closer inspection you find that the Windows keys are missing."
Let us not forget that all things Windows are PROPRIETARY!! MS Keys have nothing to do with a "standard" keyboard!! I'd hoped that a 27 year old guy who is installing Linux on his PS2 would have known that!!
blakespot
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Apple seems to be shooting itself in the foot by getting stuck on hardware. By sacrificing sales of software to non-Apple owners, they are vastly limiting their potential income. I firmly believe they are getting much better margins on their software products, which suggests that they really ought to be using the hardware to sell the software, not vice-versa.
Apple is a hardware company. People in these niche markets who need this software...will go and buy Mac hardware, and come away with a better application (look at OS X's incredibly audio latency) and a better user experience. These are not casual users unwilling to spend $$ on hardware that fits the solution.
blakespot
Which benchmark were you looking it?? Check the main article above. Where the text is blue or maybe green and underlined, click with your mouse's left button. You should soon be faced with the benchmark results that are being discussed here.
You've clearly come upon something else entirely...?
blakespot
Apache makes the vulnerability known, and Apple's right there with an OS patch bringing the new version into the fold.
How it should be. OS X.
blakespot
Sheeeesh... Nasty stuff. I don't think "Fritz" will be paying a visit to the Mac's motherboard anytime soon.
What's next, MS requiring a webcam mounted in each user's bedroom, sending images back to the Dark One?
blakespot
One of my favorite quotes:
The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.
-- George Washington
Right! So let's do George proud and clean up the Christian rhetoric, such as the "under God" bit added to the pledge, that has polluted the separation of church and state upon which the republic was built!
blakespot
- Ok John, I've heard your question however strange.
The most interesting aspect with OS X is the way Apple managed to take a Unix kernel and turn it into a user-friendly OS with a charming desktop and Mac GUI. Curiously, no other company has been able to manage anything like this. The Linux folks are said to have legions of coders whose sheer numbers are supposed to be the big threat to Microsoft, but they have gotten nowhere close to what little ole' Apple has accomplished in the operating system arena. In fact, if you even bring up the issue of Linux as a possible desktop replacement, members of the Linux crowd will almost always tell you that it's not ready. Only the folks at Lindows.com even consider the possibilities. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.blakespot
Apple is more like a $50,000 Hyundai. It looks better than the Chevy, but it costs a lot more.
... well, this dual G4 seems to be handling the task of running this OS rather well.
I think that one might've needed a little work there...
Mac is too expensive since you pay much more for something with fewer features, fewer capabilities, often with less memory and a slower system.
I see. Please explain to me the list of features that I'm missing out on by running OS X on this dual-processor G4 800. What would Windows 2000 / XP offer me that I am lacking with OS X? The challenge of creative problem solving? How about Linux--perhaps that's what OS you favor. Will it keep me in good karma becuase I'd be forced to use only open-source apps what with all those pesky commercial apps like Photoshop and Office being unavailable for Linux? Would I miss the freedom of choice in baing ableto choose one of a number of GUI desktop interfaces for Linux--none of them the defacto standard?
OS X has married Unix and average Joe desktop computing successfully. This has never happened before. It's rather exciting and I feel priveleged to be in on it. So...I'm not feeling the lack of features too greatly. As for a "slower system"
And cost? High end hardware does have a price. But for what I get in return, it's a steal. Such a steal that I had to break down and grab a new iBook 700 so that I can have OS X even more at my disposal. Yea...only I had a PC...
blakespot