It's quite easy to write about a strategic subject after the battle, but as far as I can see, Apple has handled the situation with a visionary approach: don't use Intel but use standard components (IDE/PCI/RAM...).
The point is to use good and cheap components, simple and build on order product lines, and to avoid competitors. Apple decided to avoid competitors with a dedicated architecture (PowerPC, dedicated hardware+software) and Dell decided to avoid competitors with obsessive efficiency and speed.
Let's see the result now: we meet two companies working well (I mean earning some pennies) in the "PC" business. Both are improving their product lines with inexpensive (eMac, iBook, Axim, 1U servers, etc.) and top performance (G5, Precision 650) offers.
The strange experience I did recently was to compare some Dell & Apple products for my personal wish list: a solid desktop for development/office tasks, able to handle some multimedia for free-time and a laptop for mobility (web surfing/ messaging/ coding) and audio connection. Basically the performances where close, prices were really close (+/-10% max on both sides) and the differences were on accessories (nice looking good LCD screen or basic one, RAM, disks, all of them compatible with competitors). I'll certainly choose Apple because of the nice looking/ well assembled machines and because I haven't got to choose between Linux and XP as best of both is integrated in MacOS 10 (plus some little more, thanks to integration).
That leads me to a simple conclusion: these two companies have made a similar good choices which are not at all in the Intel vs PowerPC discussion but standard components choice, build on order based on the client needs, firmly choose an OS and some markets to work on. This leads to a similar result: two companies doing well in the business with satisfied customers.
Like a lot of people here, I would tell iBooks are the best choice because of functionalities:
- Clean OS with simple use and easy adoption by "non-computer-friendly" people (I believe not all the kids love computers)
- Powerful way of limiting some harmful use (even improved on Panther), with clear experience from schools specialists (macosxlabs for example) and from Apple
- All the basic tools necessary for class/fun are included and some other can be found for free on apple.com.
But robustness is also and important issue in the hands of kids. Basically my experience with Dell computers is clearly not as happy as with Apple's ones.
I imagine the cost is an important matter at this scale and Dell can really go low on big quantities, but Apple proved to be able to. On that specific "price" field, I recently searched for a small (second) computer and compared iBook to Dell (and some others, but those 2 arrived in short list) and I realized that the world had changed and, for my needs, Apple was cheaper than Dell!
So perhaps is it the time to say, like in Virginia (G5), that Apple is the choice on the price...
I also rely a lot on Internet for information, entertainment, and technical knowledge. Of course for the last 5 years I have been using it more and more (also thanks to Google), but my "non-digital media" consumption is stable, or even increasing because of internet (thanks to Amazon).
A good technical book is in my opinion better than surfing, basically because it can stay on the desk, be read in transports and is usually more detailed and better organized than a list of links, articles, good/bad advices...
Concerning fiction, I won't switch to digital, because there is a relation between me and the book (the object) I can't find with a screen.
Nevertheless, most of the books I read have been bought or discovered on Internet.
For the news, I haven't been watching TV for years and I don't trust Internet more than TV on the field of objectivity/accuracy. My newspapers consumption (both general and tech news) has even increased during the recent years basically because I find information more focused and better organized than on Internet. But when I'm interested in more details, I use Internet to search on the subject for details.
But that's ok, right, because you all have spare huge-ass hard drives that you can use solely for backing up your entire main drive, and you'll do that before you try this update, just in case something goes wrong
Basically, I sometimes fully re-install my system (seeking for the perfect file/partition/apps organisation) and I've never had to back up everything because files like documents and non i-applications are not concerned by the re-install (no reformat needed, no file move impact).
One of the reasons I'm using Os X for is this way of working: You install a system, you put files (documents and applications) and it works. Nearly as easy as with Os9
Basically I also back up files in case of disk crash but not in case of system update/install and it's a real pleasure to be able to do a clean install so easily, especially compared to Windows (just try to move your windows apps from a drive to another;-)
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite easy to write about a strategic subject after the battle, but as far as I can see, Apple has handled the situation with a visionary approach: don't use Intel but use standard components (IDE/PCI/RAM...).
The point is to use good and cheap components, simple and build on order product lines, and to avoid competitors. Apple decided to avoid competitors with a dedicated architecture (PowerPC, dedicated hardware+software) and Dell decided to avoid competitors with obsessive efficiency and speed.
Let's see the result now: we meet two companies working well (I mean earning some pennies) in the "PC" business. Both are improving their product lines with inexpensive (eMac, iBook, Axim, 1U servers, etc.) and top performance (G5, Precision 650) offers.
The strange experience I did recently was to compare some Dell & Apple products for my personal wish list: a solid desktop for development/office tasks, able to handle some multimedia for free-time and a laptop for mobility (web surfing/ messaging/ coding) and audio connection. Basically the performances where close, prices were really close (+/-10% max on both sides) and the differences were on accessories (nice looking good LCD screen or basic one, RAM, disks, all of them compatible with competitors).
I'll certainly choose Apple because of the nice looking/ well assembled machines and because I haven't got to choose between Linux and XP as best of both is integrated in MacOS 10 (plus some little more, thanks to integration).
That leads me to a simple conclusion: these two companies have made a similar good choices which are not at all in the Intel vs PowerPC discussion but standard components choice, build on order based on the client needs, firmly choose an OS and some markets to work on. This leads to a similar result: two companies doing well in the business with satisfied customers.
Like a lot of people here, I would tell iBooks are the best choice because of functionalities:
- Clean OS with simple use and easy adoption by "non-computer-friendly" people (I believe not all the kids love computers)
- Powerful way of limiting some harmful use (even improved on Panther), with clear experience from schools specialists (macosxlabs for example) and from Apple
- All the basic tools necessary for class/fun are included and some other can be found for free on apple.com.
But robustness is also and important issue in the hands of kids. Basically my experience with Dell computers is clearly not as happy as with Apple's ones.
I imagine the cost is an important matter at this scale and Dell can really go low on big quantities, but Apple proved to be able to. On that specific "price" field, I recently searched for a small (second) computer and compared iBook to Dell (and some others, but those 2 arrived in short list) and I realized that the world had changed and, for my needs, Apple was cheaper than Dell!
So perhaps is it the time to say, like in Virginia (G5), that Apple is the choice on the price...
I also rely a lot on Internet for information, entertainment, and technical knowledge. Of course for the last 5 years I have been using it more and more (also thanks to Google), but my "non-digital media" consumption is stable, or even increasing because of internet (thanks to Amazon). A good technical book is in my opinion better than surfing, basically because it can stay on the desk, be read in transports and is usually more detailed and better organized than a list of links, articles, good/bad advices... Concerning fiction, I won't switch to digital, because there is a relation between me and the book (the object) I can't find with a screen. Nevertheless, most of the books I read have been bought or discovered on Internet. For the news, I haven't been watching TV for years and I don't trust Internet more than TV on the field of objectivity/accuracy. My newspapers consumption (both general and tech news) has even increased during the recent years basically because I find information more focused and better organized than on Internet. But when I'm interested in more details, I use Internet to search on the subject for details.
But that's ok, right, because you all have spare huge-ass hard drives that you can use solely for backing up your entire main drive, and you'll do that before you try this update, just in case something goes wrong
Basically, I sometimes fully re-install my system (seeking for the perfect file/partition/apps organisation) and I've never had to back up everything because files like documents and non i-applications are not concerned by the re-install (no reformat needed, no file move impact).
One of the reasons I'm using Os X for is this way of working: You install a system, you put files (documents and applications) and it works. Nearly as easy as with Os9
Basically I also back up files in case of disk crash but not in case of system update/install and it's a real pleasure to be able to do a clean install so easily, especially compared to Windows (just try to move your windows apps from a drive to another;-)
people who need or want speed but don't have it
I am one of them (want) and manage to do so with native OsX apps (no need of Os9 anymore now), correct machine (LCD iMac 700/512MB ram)
Web browsing rendering is a tad slower and less optimized than under Windows
Like on windows (my company choice), I use Opera browser (my choice) which is as fast on OsX as on W2K