I just saw that Apple is now selling their first Intel based iMac and laptop, dubbed the MacBook.
http://www.apple.com/
http://www.apple.com/
Intel based Macs now available
- Thread starter pixelninja
- Start date
Resistance is futile.
You have been assimilated.
You have been assimilated.
To mac users every, I say this.
[nelson]HA HA![/nelson]
[nelson]HA HA![/nelson]
Yeah really! Quick, someone run out and get one. Then, try and install WinXP or Longhorn on it....FWWAAAHAHAHA...MicroBook, iSoftCover :love: :love: :love:sanjuro said:
Power consumption is the big difference; the Intel is just as fast or faster with much less power consumed, which makes it possible to put it in a laptop. The Mac OS now runs on both processors, though still only on Apple machines.sanjuro said:
Tenchiro, I think lack of progress with power consumption of the G5 can be attributed to the fact that Microsoft was using it for their new baby, the XBox 360.
Close...Ciaran said:Next report will be that Apple is using a microsoft based OS.
Apple is saying that while they won't sell or support Windows itself, they also hasn't done anything to preclude people from loading Windows onto the machines themselves.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10794396/from/RS.3/
Interesting.pixelninja said:
They did preclude people from loading MacOS onto non-Apple machines, though
. Nothing like keeping your environment as proprietary as possible.
They are technically just as vulnrable as any other PC, but there are such a small target as compared to Windows that nobody bothers.sanjuro said:
I wouldn't go as far as to claim that MacOS has exactly as many vulnerabilities as Windows - but only because I don't know, and can't back my claim up.sanjuro said:
I would guarantee, though, that if MacOS had as much of a market share as Windows, there would be a tremendous quantity of viruses and vulnerabilities written for it.
To argue on a 1:1 scale is just idle speculation, but the overwhelming reason why there are very few viruses and vulnerabilities found for MacOS is due to its tiny market share.
sanjuro said:
What I am saying is that if their market shares were reversed we would be seeing the same frequency or exploits and viruses. Especially considering that the most explotable part of any computer is the user.
While the security holes, and technical details will differ between the two. The biggest security feature of the Macintosh is its small presence on the internet.
x86 cpu architecture confirmed? Can I run Tigger on my PC now? mmm...
Apple is keeping everything wrapped up - in order to run Mac software, you need to be on a Mac. Apparently they're not putting the restriction in the other way, but my guess is that installing Windows on one of those machines might be a nightmare.blue said:
The dev realese of the MacOS for Intel was cracked within hours, and ran on any Intel PC. I imagng the final release will be also.binary visions said:
Well, the programmers will never be able to keep up with the hackers, so that's to be expectedTenchiro said:
...why? We still have the best operating system on the planet, and now the laptop is literally four times faster....the downside is what exactly?Tenchiro said:
Ridemonkey said:
After working at Apple for a few years I know that there is an phobia of all things Intel (and MS for that matter) amongst many Apple owners. While there may be no technical downside, there are many mac users who are unhappy nonetheless.
i just wanted to antagonize those people if they are around.
Intel and MS are two VERY different things. Apple is about user experience, and they've just taken the next step to improve their user experience to a whole new level.
Maybe, but I've heard for years from Mac fanatics that the PowerPC chip was so much better than anything Intel offered, and blah blah blah we have superior hardware.Ridemonkey said:
Now, Apple switches over to Intel hardware and all these same Mac people start praising the almighty Apple for doing what's best for the user and switching over to superior hardware
.Not you, specifically, mind you. I just find it funny.
Of course they are, but in alot of peoples minds they are synonymous w/ PC's.Ridemonkey said:
Although I get the feeling that if the next MacOS were to be written by MS, there would be a number of people touting it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
ink:
Yes, and at the time the PowerPC chips were much better. That's changed, and Apple has evolved, as they always do.binary visions said:Maybe, but I've heard for years from Mac fanatics that the PowerPC chip was so much better than anything Intel offered, and blah blah blah we have superior hardware.
Now, Apple switches over to Intel hardware and all these same Mac people start praising the almighty Apple for doing what's best for the user and switching over to superior hardware
Not you, specifically, mind you. I just find it funny.
Everyone sees this as Apple "finally giving in", and it's not that at all in my opinion. In the past they used PowerPC chips because they were the best, and now they're switching to the best chips of this phase. Look for them to change again another ten years down the road when another hot processor comes out.
I'll take a company that is willing to evolve and adapt to give me the best possible product over a company that will stick with an old provider to save face.
Does that include refinancing your house in order to purchase a laptop?Ridemonkey said:
Last I heard, "user experience" wasn't about making your widgets far more expensive than everyone else's relatively equal widgets because they were white, rounded plastic...
blue,
apple's prices on notebooks are fully in line with the industry:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/samsungs-core-duo-pair-149230.php
vs.
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/whatsinside.html
show me a laptop with a core duo processor, ddr2 memory, pci express, a 1440x900 screen, and a dvd burner for much less than the $2000 that apple charges. now show me one that will boot both mac os x and windows vista.
qed.
apple's prices on notebooks are fully in line with the industry:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/samsungs-core-duo-pair-149230.php
vs.
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/whatsinside.html
show me a laptop with a core duo processor, ddr2 memory, pci express, a 1440x900 screen, and a dvd burner for much less than the $2000 that apple charges. now show me one that will boot both mac os x and windows vista.
qed.
Funny, Toshi, I see this:
http://gateway.com/products/GConfig/proddetails.asp?system_id=nx560xl&seg=hm
...for $1299, which competes with the $2000 Apple model.
I see this:
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?CS=19&kc=11111&oc=ie1705s1
...for $2000 that beats out the $2499 Apple model.
If you want to nitpick about specs one way or the other that's your business, but don't deny that Apple laptops are more expensive.
...and who the hell cares if it can boot both operating systems? What's your point there? Your Windows Vista installation isn't going to be out-of-the-box, and with the same amount of expertise, MacOS has already been hacked for use on PCs.
QED.
http://gateway.com/products/GConfig/proddetails.asp?system_id=nx560xl&seg=hm
...for $1299, which competes with the $2000 Apple model.
I see this:
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?CS=19&kc=11111&oc=ie1705s1
...for $2000 that beats out the $2499 Apple model.
If you want to nitpick about specs one way or the other that's your business, but don't deny that Apple laptops are more expensive.
...and who the hell cares if it can boot both operating systems? What's your point there? Your Windows Vista installation isn't going to be out-of-the-box, and with the same amount of expertise, MacOS has already been hacked for use on PCs.
QED.
If you want to argue value then you're really barking up the wrong tree. When I compare my productivity on my Mac to the productivity I had on my PC there's NO question that over the last year I've saved money as a result of buying a Mac.
I'm a recent convert. Up until last year I worked on a PC exclusively. In relative terms, I had a pretty reliable PC. I work in design, and web development, and put my machines through the works day in and day out, and I have to say, I was always impressed with how my PC managed it. I had to reboot it two or three times a week to unlock it, or clear the cobwebs, and I was ok with that. Programs seemed to open and run relatively quickly, and only crashed periodically...causing me to lose work now and then. Again, all things we accept as PC users.
Then I switched to a Mac with similar specs. It has NEVER, not once, crashed and I've never had to reboot it to free up RAM, etc. I probably get at least 15-20% more done from day to day than I did on my PC. Those minutes add up.
Now, since we're talking about economics, let's mention the free software like iCal, Mail, Address Book, and iPhoto which come preinstalled with any Mac. I think they're far better than the PC counterparts like Outlook, which sells for hundreds. Not to mention all the great freeware in the Mac community. You can say PC has freeware, but having used both, I can tell you there's way more for Mac and it's vastly superior.
So...yeah, you can look at similarly spec'ed Macs and PCs, and say "OMG the Mac is $500 more!!!" but you're just scratching the surface. You're paying for quality. If you want to talk value/dollar, there's no question in mind that Macs are ahead by a landslide.
I'm a recent convert. Up until last year I worked on a PC exclusively. In relative terms, I had a pretty reliable PC. I work in design, and web development, and put my machines through the works day in and day out, and I have to say, I was always impressed with how my PC managed it. I had to reboot it two or three times a week to unlock it, or clear the cobwebs, and I was ok with that. Programs seemed to open and run relatively quickly, and only crashed periodically...causing me to lose work now and then. Again, all things we accept as PC users.
Then I switched to a Mac with similar specs. It has NEVER, not once, crashed and I've never had to reboot it to free up RAM, etc. I probably get at least 15-20% more done from day to day than I did on my PC. Those minutes add up.
Now, since we're talking about economics, let's mention the free software like iCal, Mail, Address Book, and iPhoto which come preinstalled with any Mac. I think they're far better than the PC counterparts like Outlook, which sells for hundreds. Not to mention all the great freeware in the Mac community. You can say PC has freeware, but having used both, I can tell you there's way more for Mac and it's vastly superior.
So...yeah, you can look at similarly spec'ed Macs and PCs, and say "OMG the Mac is $500 more!!!" but you're just scratching the surface. You're paying for quality. If you want to talk value/dollar, there's no question in mind that Macs are ahead by a landslide.
Your argument is too subjective to even address effectively. You as a personal user have had this experience, which is fine - you get more done, it's more valuable to you, great. I'm very happy for you.Ridemonkey said:
Me? My computer never freezes. It runs 24/7 and I reboot it about once a week, but only because I'm constantly modifying it and need the reboot cycles to, say, run tests on my latest overclock. It's not a reliability thing or need to free up more memory, as my memory is handled fine by Windows XP.
My programs never crash, and never cause me to lose data. I did webpage design for several years and never lost a client's data. Now, I do digital photography and process large batch files through Photoshop or edit big scans when my dad has a particularly problematic slide scan that he wants me to take a whack at (by big scan, I mean 30-70mb). I would be no more productive on a Mac simply because there is nothing slowing me down on the PC. No crashes, no memory errors.
Your experience with a Mac is not an experience I have had with a Mac. I used Macs mostly through schools but also some friends, and they crash. More frequently than my machine, that's for sure, but I have had numerous instances of lost data because I got a box telling me to click here to reboot, 'cause I don't have a choice.
It's fine that it works better for you, but as I said, your subjective and user-specific experience (not to say unique experience, but it will vary from user to user), is a little different from providing objective evidence that Macs cost more money. Which is what Toshi was arguing about.
As far as shareware/freeware goes, I have a lot of really great, high quality freeware on my machine. Certainly as good as anything else on the market. I don't think your claim of one system having better freeware is valid - you haven't tried it all, and I haven't tried everything available for the Mac.
Sure, of course it's personal experience, but it's a LOT of experience. I've also worked in network installation, PC repair/troubleshooting, etc., so over the years I've worked on many, many PCs, not just my own.binary visions said:
On a similar note, you can't compare your experience with your PC to the experience someone would have with an out-of-the-box Dell (for example), which is what you're comparing the Mac's pricing with.
By the sounds of things (overclocking, etc.), you're an advanced user, and have customized your PC fairly extensively? If that's the case then you probably have a pretty solid machine. I certainly wouldn't dispute that. However, it's rare to get a machine like that straight from a manufacturer. ie. Joe Blow user is going to have a hard time finding a machine as reliable as yours from [insert PC manufacturer here]. Whereas an advanced user can likely tweak and modify their machine to make it run as it should.
Having dealt with new PCs from Dell, IBM, Gateway, Toshiba, etc, over the years I can safely say none of them perform as well as my self-built PC. So yeah...it's possible.
The difference is Macs come like that out of the box. That means that on average, for a user who doesn't want to have to work on the machine they just bought, or build their own they're going to be far better off with a Mac.
Whenever I hear people ranting about how great their PC is, it's aways someone who has either built their own, or has a highly modified one. I never hear positive PC ranting from any of the lawyers, accountants, brokers, teachers, CEO's, etc that I used to deal with when I worked in PC/Network service, and who have out-of-the-box PCs. So, while I don't deny that it's possible to make an excellent PC, MOST people who use PCs have a less positive experience when they're using an out-of-the-box machine.
On the flip side, MOST people who use Mac DO have a positive experience with their out-of-the-box machine, and that's why I feel it's worth it for most people to spend a few hundred extra....if that's even the case anymore.
When I worked for Apple, the quality of their products was absolutley atrocious. They had multiple recalls on products in almost every single lineup of computers. So much so that the demand for replacements FAR exceeded their production abilities. Multiple laptop, desktop & display models were crippled with engineering defects that made them inoperable.
At the same time they were charging people upwards of $1000 to replace something like a motherboard out of warranty. If you cracked your laptop display, the bill would be over $1000. This was even the case on product lines that were basically obsolete.
I remember talking to one guy who had an old Powerbook 500c and at the time it was a year out of warranty or so. Due to Apples financing he still owed about what it would have cost him to buy outright brand new (2 years prior), even though he had been paying on it for those 2 years. Plus the repairs he needed were in excess of $2000, which was almost of the price for him to go out and buy a brand new Powerbook 5200c (their current model at the time).
Now I don't know if Apple still does business this way, because when Steve Jobs was rehired they had just released the iMac before our dept got layed off.
At the same time they were charging people upwards of $1000 to replace something like a motherboard out of warranty. If you cracked your laptop display, the bill would be over $1000. This was even the case on product lines that were basically obsolete.
I remember talking to one guy who had an old Powerbook 500c and at the time it was a year out of warranty or so. Due to Apples financing he still owed about what it would have cost him to buy outright brand new (2 years prior), even though he had been paying on it for those 2 years. Plus the repairs he needed were in excess of $2000, which was almost of the price for him to go out and buy a brand new Powerbook 5200c (their current model at the time).
Now I don't know if Apple still does business this way, because when Steve Jobs was rehired they had just released the iMac before our dept got layed off.
...this is my point exactly. With a Mac, you don't have to "set it up correctly", it just works.Ciaran said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again... People who have issues with their PC's don't have them set up correctly. (Or have screwed them up themselves. Can't protect the user from themselves)
I know how to set up a PC correctly, but most don't, and that's why 99.999% of PC owners curse at their machines.
In all fairness there have been some really crappy PC products, some that just didn't work. But for the most part I agree with you. I can't tell you the number of computers I have looked at that had over a dozen icons in their system tray, had startup lists longer than I care to remember and were chock full of spyware and viruses.Ciaran said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again... People who have issues with their PC's don't have them set up correctly. (Or have screwed them up themselves. Can't protect the user from themselves)
there is a huge difference between setting something up correctly, and crippling it with every piece of crap you find on the internet.Ridemonkey said:
Which you can easily do on both PC and Macs.
Funny...I've never seen a mac like that...Tenchiro said:
Yep, and I won't dispute that my machine is not typical of your average PC. Just pointing out that not all people will obtain any kind of benefit from switching brands.Ridemonkey said:
Maybe. I dunno, I've talked to a lot of frustrated Mac users and worked on a lot of crappy Mac computers.
Like I said, it's not clear cut one way or another since it's so subjective. Have you taken into account how rabidly loyal Mac users are? Rabidly loyal customers are typically very unlikely to complain about a product, even if it's not that great. Look at all the iPod fanatics - their batteries suck compared to the rest of the market, but most of 'em won't even admit to it, let alone acknowledge that it might make their player a poor choice for certain applications. iPods aren't bad. Macs aren't bad. But this cult following doesn't properly represent their products.
There are so many variables present... Hell, even consider the tiny market share Apple has - what kind of users are buying these machines? Are those users a good cross section of the general public who often ruins their machines by installing six billion games on it, or who browses porn sites all day and is hit by spyware that's designed for the majority of the market (Windows)? I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right but I AM pointing out that your subjective experience is just that - subjective - and is not necessarily applicable to all users or all applications.
A machine that is $500 cheaper, however, is applicable to all applications and all experiences. It might be worth it, but it's still there.
I'd suggest that one of the biggest problems lies in the million companies that package these OEM boxes. A clean Windows install with installation of only the programs a user needs typically leads to an extremely stable machine. When you pull a Dell or a Compaq out of the box, you have sixty five unnecessary programs that are installed because the company has a contract with the software vendor.
Apple has everything wrapped up so the price goes up, but they have total control over the package.
That's neither here nor there and is not part of my arguement, I'm just talking
Apple has everything wrapped up so the price goes up, but they have total control over the package.
That's neither here nor there and is not part of my arguement, I'm just talking