OSx86: Are You Serious?

[Veljo]

RacerX, I see where you're coming from, but what Mikuro said is more what I was thinking.

The price of the PowerMac G5 is ridiculous. Sure it has great power and expansion capabilities, but it is a high end tower. I wouldn't know one person who had a PowerMac and didn't have a career in video editing or graphics.

Point is, the all-in-one computers are fine, but towers are better for expansion. And at the moment Apple is kidding itself by promoting how powerful the PowerMac G5 is, yet its AU$5000+ price tag is something they don't mention. The funniest part is that price doesn't include a monitor. Shocking.

I hope with the new Intel Macs Apple rethink their strategies. They can offer a super powerful upmarket Mac like the PowerMac G5s at a high price, but lets hope they also release a tower that may not be as powerful but is still good at a reasonable price......with a monitor.

 

[ElDiabloConCaca]

I wouldn't know one person who had a PowerMac and didn't have a career in video editing or graphics.

Sure, what home user needs two G5 processors, a graphics card with 256MB of RAM, four PCI slots, 8GB of RAM, dual DVI displays and multi-hundreds of gigabytes of storage?

Point is, the all-in-one computers are fine, but towers are better for expansion. And at the moment Apple is kidding itself by promoting how powerful the PowerMac G5 is, yet its AU$5000+ price tag is something they don't mention.

True... but let's take a look at who needs expansion beyond RAM and hard drive:

Professionals who invest a lot in their computer and a lot in their peripherals and need a stable system. Once configured properly, all their SCSI cards and FireWire cards and audio cards and graphics cards all humming along in rhythm, it's money down the drain to buy a new computer and cross your fingers that everything's compatible. Apple hits 'em up for a good sum of money in the beginning and it's well worth the investment to the professional.

Home users, on the other hand, need a card reader, an inkjet printer, a microphone and a place to dock their iPod -- all available as external USB or FireWire devices.

Apple isn't Wal-Mart... they don't have the revenue and cash flow that Wal-Mart has to completely dominate a market and offer "something for everyone." Yet, Apple does offer the best array of novice-to-pro hardware. If you're a pro, don't kid yourself with an iMac. If you're not a pro (you don't make a living with your computer), then having a PowerMac G5 tower is like driving a Ferrari to and from work in rush hour traffic. Too much horsepower for what you intend to do with it.

And the low-end PowerMac G5 is completely affordable if you intend to really use the computer, not just brag about how fast your computer can go yet never get around to actually doing anything with it other than creating half-ass desktop pics in a pirated version of PhotoShop.

I think Apple has done a damn good job at selling the customer an adequate computer that will last a long time and fit their needs and budget nicely. Pros spend more, and they get more. Home users can go anywhere from a G4 at about 1.25GHz up to a 2.0GHz G5 processor and have plenty of expandability in terms of RAM, hard drive and peripherals.

Don't mean to be rude, but everywhere you go some home user is complaining that they don't have enough money to get the absolute fastest Macintosh available. It's just not realistic... the home user shouldn't and can't afford the latest and greatest and fastest Macintosh available, just like home users shouldn't and can't afford the latest and greatest dual-Zeon-processor 4GB RAM 300GB hard drive 256MB video card 800MHz FSB 5.1 surround in a tower case that sounds like a jet taking off from Dell or Gateway or Alienware or whoever. They get to choose from crappy, "look like they're expandable on the outside but are really just pieces of crap" mid-size towers that they'll never bother expanding anyway from those companies -- why not give 'em an Apple iMac with a great processor and the perfect amount of expandability instead?

 

[hawki18]

Just to let you know the revision E AMD chips do have SSE3 and would have been a better choice instead of Intel.

 

[fryke]

EDCC: Never underestimate gamers and hobbyists. Wether they need it or not: They want more than one HDD inside their computer, they want to add/replace their DVD-RWs on their own, they want to buy a second graphics card and a cheap TV tuner card (non-usb, non-firewire, but PCI). They don't even mind it not having correct drivers, since they then build usergroups and some open source tinkerer might find a way to adapt a different driver etc. And all those are pretty much "home users". Just because Apple doesn't make machines for them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

hawki18: Which of the intel processors that comes out in the 2nd quarter of 2006 have you tested it against?

 

[RacerX]

EDCC: Never underestimate gamers and hobbyists. Wether they need it or not: They want more than one HDD inside their computer, they want to add/replace their DVD-RWs on their own, they want to buy a second graphics card and a cheap TV tuner card (non-usb, non-firewire, but PCI). They don't even mind it not having correct drivers, since they then build usergroups and some open source tinkerer might find a way to adapt a different driver etc. And all those are pretty much "home users". Just because Apple doesn't make machines for them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Which was why I said that anyone willing to buy a low end PC should be a perfect candidate for a used or refurbished PowerMac.

And we should also not exaggerate the market importance of gamers and hobbyists to Apple. These consumers are almost unnoticeable to Apple's bottom line. And more importantly, these consumers tend not to be loyal (the clones showed that).

I, personally, wouldn't be caught dead buying a new PowerMac... or a new PC tower for that matter. New computers are worse than new cars as an investment. The moment you buy a new computer you've lost a large chunk of your investment. Which in turn is why a used PowerMac is an ideal investment, someone has already paid for the initial cost and usually has already dealt with any new system issues.


But all of this is beyond the point... Apple makes these systems. Period.

If you don't like the price (which I don't), then buy something else or look for other options (like used or refurbished systems). But don't pretend like Apple doesn't make expandable systems. The last time Apple's product line was without an expandable Mac was back in 1987 (before the release of the Macintosh II).

And I think fantasizing about Apple changing their product structure (which has work very well for them) just because of a change of processor is also a little unrealistic. When Apple did make consumer expandable systems, Apple ended up with inventory that they couldn't move.

 

[fryke]

I just thought that EDCC defined the home user according to Apple's products. But the error in this thinking is a large portion why most home users do _not_ currently buy Macs.
I also didn't say this would change with a simple (*cough*) processor change.

Let's say Apple _wants_ to increase their market share. I think we can agree on that. Let's not talk about gamers, primarily, let's talk about home users in general instead. Once Apple is on common ground in that a home user can directly compare the features (finally their MHz and RAM fixation can make some sense again...), Apple has to maybe rethink their product strategy. They have a lot of "pros" they can play out, but expandability in consumer machines certainly isn't one of them.

We all know Steve Jobs is no friend of internal expandability, anyway. And surely, they'd rather sell you a new machine, anyway - perfectly understandable. But if for that reason people move or stay away from Apple...?

I think for a really "cheap" machine like the Mac mini, it's more than acceptable that you can't really expand them (internally). But the iMac is _no_ cheap computer. Its display stays new a lot longer than its processor.

 

[RacerX]

I also didn't say this would change with a simple (*cough*) processor change.

That was a general comment on the course of the topic, not aimed at anyone in particular.

I think for a really "cheap" machine like the Mac mini, it's more than acceptable that you can't really expand them (internally). But the iMac is _no_ cheap computer. Its display stays new a lot longer than its processor.

Apple has had more problems (with market share) because of the expandability of their systems in the past (which was why they dropped the design of the PowerBook G3 series). Market share is more of a measure of how often people buy a new system rather than how many people are using a platform. Expandability slows the rate at which people buy new systems... so Apple has been moving away from that.

I'm a good example of the type of person that doesn't help market share. I haven't bought a new Mac since 2000... so when you read market share numbers, they have nothing to do with anyone who hasn't bought a system within that quarter.

I would have replaced my iMac a couple years ago if it wasn't for the fact that I was able to upgrade my PowerBook to the point of not needing a new system. The expandability of my PowerBook has cost Apple my purchase of a new system.

Besides, with the current state of mind in the Windows world, a lack of expandability isn't going to hurt Apple at all. Right now it is to the point where people are willing to buy a new PC every 9 months to a year rather than deal with the problems on their systems. With a market mentality like that, the iMac, eMac and Mac Mini are perfect products.

Apple is already gaining market share even without the processor change, that won't change with the addition of expandable consumer models. And as I pointed out, the last time Apple had expandable consumer models, they were left with overstock.

 

[jh2112]

IMO, If Apple wished to increase market share all they'd need to do would be:
Update OSX86 by adding Apple hardware only features. (No doubt it would be hacked though.)
Then release OSX86 to run on any pc, not just Apple hardware. This should surely make a large stack of cash, I think that OSX is superior to Windows, it can't be too hard to convince others.
Lower cost of ownership, reliability, security and current lack of viruses would encourage business to switch their software at point of licence renewal.
Compatability with current hardware could encourage home users, who dislike Windows and its issues, to try. (Apple could even offer a try before you buy trial.)
Apple hardware would continue to sell as Apple hardware only features would drive sales.

 

[fryke]

That's quite a rosy utopia you're painting in my opinion. Others (NeXT, BeOS) have tried and failed. Sure, Apple's in a better position, but Microsoft is biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig.

 

[jh2112]

Microsoft are big, yes but I wrote increase not take the majority of market share.

But you're probably right.

The only thing is that I cannot see how Apple are going to keep OSX86 on their hardware only, TPM chips or not. We've seen how quickly the OSX86 software has been hacked and really does run well on generic pc's. Even the SSE3 requirement has been defeated for Rosetta.
What comes to mind is the old adage: if you can't beat them, join them.
Selling OSX86 as a software package is a viable alternative to trying to defeat the hackers. Imagine the millions gained in sales and the millions saved on R&D trying to stay one step ahead.
A rosy picture, maybe but what are the alternatives?
IMO, if Apple do not release OSX86 as a package then I believe they will simply be losing revenue to the hacked (illegal but free,) versions that will be available.

 

[RacerX]

That's quite a rosy utopia you're painting in my opinion. Others (NeXT, BeOS) have tried and failed.

Agreed.

And people seem to be glossing over a number of important factors...

First, the idea that Mac OS X would run on any PC is a pipe dream at best. Even if Apple released Mac OS X for Intel, the odds are that it would have very strict requirements. If we look at NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Rhapsody and the BeOS, all of them were limited to a small subset of the PCs being made at the time.

Just because Windows can run on every PC doesn't mean every x86 operating system is going to be able to. People should keep in mind that Windows runs on everything because everything has been designed to run Windows (which is also the same type of mistake that people are making assuming that an Intel Mac is going to run Windows).

Second, Apple releasing Mac OS X for Intel is going to do nothing to increase market share.

That bares repeating... Apple releasing Mac OS X for Intel is going to do nothing (at all) to increase market share.

Why? Because the only time that an operating system is counted in market share is when it is bundled with the computer.

If you buy a Windows PC and put Linux, Solaris or even Mac OS X on it, that only counts as market share for Windows. It doesn't count for any of the operating systems that end up on the system.

So the only way for Mac OS X to possibly gain market share is by having it preinstalled on other venders hardware... which Apple isn't likely to do considering how the clones damaged Apple.

 

[jh2112]

"That bares repeating... Apple releasing Mac OS X for Intel is going to do nothing (at all) to increase market share.

Why? Because the only time that an operating system is counted in market share is when it is bundled with the computer."

Ok, I didn't know that! I presumed that market share was based on OS licences rather than hardware.
Damn my lack of industry knowledge!

 

[RacerX]

The only thing is that I cannot see how Apple are going to keep OSX86 on their hardware only, TPM chips or not.

Funny, this issue has been covered (many times by me... including in this thread) in this forum.

The developer kit version of Mac OS X was based on the version Apple has been developing since they acquired NeXT. It was designed for standard PC hardware... which is what the developer kits are, standard PC hardware.

If you can't see how Apple could keep Mac OS X on their own hardware, it isn't because the answer wasn't right in front of you all along.

People just don't seem to be able to think outside Wintel boxes.

 

[RacerX]

Damn my lack of industry knowledge!

The first antitrust case against Microsoft was because they were forcing PC makers to only install their operating system. Microsoft penalized any hardware maker that preinstalled another operating system. They did that to dominate the market (and it worked).

And the antitrust case did nothing to stop the practice. Microsoft did the same thing to stop the BeOS from being preinstalled on PCs as late as 1999.

 

[cfleck]

...
Why? Because the only time that an operating system is counted in market share is when it is bundled with the computer.

If you buy a Windows PC and put Linux, Solaris or even Mac OS X on it, that only counts as market share for Windows. It doesn't count for any of the operating systems that end up on the system.
...

I have to disagree with this. That just doesn't make sense then that the Linux market share has grown like it does. The only computers that get sold in any real quantity with linux on them are server machines and I can't see linux achieving the numbers that they have with those machines alone.

 

[RacerX]

I have to disagree with this. That just doesn't make sense then that the Linux market share has grown like it does. The only computers that get sold in any real quantity with linux on them are server machines and I can't see linux achieving the numbers that they have with those machines alone.

There are actually a lot of desktop systems being sold with Linux preinstalled by a lot of smaller hardware makers.

But beyond that... what exactly do you think you are disagreeing with?

It can't be me... I don't make this stuff up ya know.

So are you disagreeing with the practice?

I disagree with the practice too. Mac users don't buy new systems as much as PC users do, so the market share is completely skewed towards PCs. The fact that developers use market share to decide on what platform they are going to develop on when those numbers don't represent actual installed users of those platforms is a complete injustice.


But market share is an unfortunate fact of life.

 

[jh2112]

People just don't seem to be able to think outside Wintel boxes.

No surprise there, having only recently seen the light and bought a powerbook. Maybe Windows is harder to shake off than I thought!
Thanks for the snippet of history, I always thought the first anti trust cases was more to do with bundled software (IE, Media Player et al.)

 

[fryke]

It was about a LOT of things. Among them IE, MediaPlayer - or rather the competitors' media players like QuickTime and RealPlayer.

 

[hawki18]

Can't test it against something that has not came out yet but AMD chips have been beating Intel in all but a few bench marks. I can't see that changing anytime soon. I still have my AMD 3200 64 bit desk top and would not get rid of it. My first Mac is I book 1.2gig still learning the os. Work as tech support and keep up on speed issue and test between intel and amd.