is Steve turning the mac into a PC

[solvs]

Is this true? Even if it is, the back lash that the site would receive if they did start to censor unfairly would be swift and harsh.....or at least I'd like to think so.

Well that's why they don't. But they could if they wanted to, legally. Just thought I'd point that out to those who keep saying it would be a violation of their free speech to ban them or ask them not to do something. There are rules here, and if you elect to join you must follow them, whether you like the or not.

So I'll stop breaking one of the rules and going off topic. Yes, Steve is trying to turn the Mac into a PC. However, PC does not have to equal Windows.

 

[Morn]

And PC's have good quality hardware, nothing wrong with having mac's based around their hardware.

 

[gnasher729]

Sure, I will pay for the great OS. All $129 of it. Where is the rest of the money going?

Mac OS X doesn't cost $129. Apple hasn't been selling MacOS X so far. What you can buy for $129 is an upgrade to any rightfully installed MacOS version.

Expect MacOS X to be sold for something like $399, if it will _ever_ be offered for sale.

 

[emotion]

Personally, I would love to see Apple become more like the x86 world. I would love to have apps actually optimized for my platform for a change like windows users enjoy. I would love to have graphic cards' drivers optimized for the graphic card in my machine...again, like windows users enjoy. I would love to have all the choices in hardware and software x86 users have enjoyed for years and years. Bring it on!

The switch to using Intel is not gonna help you there. Unless Apple get more market share and the device manufacturers decide to write better drivers for the bigger _MacOSX_ market.

How many times do people around here have to make the mistake that Macs are still gonna be macs (on the level of above) because they run MacOSX.

 

[emotion]

I'd really HATE to see regular PCs running OS X.
What makes Macs unique is the OS. How many PC users wish they could build their PCs and use OS X?

How many Mac users wish they could build PCs and use OSX?

Count me in.

Laptops are a different matter but a desktop? I'd rather build my own.

 

[link92]

Thats like saying because a Chevy Aveo comes with Michelin tires, and a Ferrari Enzo comes with Michelin tires, that the 2 cars are the same. Absolute BS.

The Enzo Ferrari uses Bridgestone tires

So the Megahertz myth was true afterall.

You say the Quad G5 is slow? Sure, the G4, which is the latest one avaible for laptops is slow. The Pentium M kicks everything elses ass in that area.

Mac OS X doesn't cost $129. Apple hasn't been selling MacOS X so far. What you can buy for $129 is an upgrade to any rightfully installed MacOS version.

Expect MacOS X to be sold for something like $399, if it will _ever_ be offered for sale.

Having installed Mac OS X on an blank HD with nothing on it, I can say it is a full version. It is not an upgrade.

 

[macg4]

people are just worried about the future of such a great company as apple. but i beleive steve will lead us in the right direction

 

[Veritas&Equitas]

but i beleive steve will lead us in the right direction

This really is a religion.

 

[macg4]

This really is a religion.

i would agree and happy to be a part of it you know thats what steve always said about apple

 

[jefhatfield]

This really is a religion.

it's actually a cult since a religion seeks truth, or tries its best to be based on truth

apple inc of steve's imagination is based on hype, slick advertising, and clever excuses why apple can't deliver technology on time or in the proper amounts...but that being said, apple inc still produces the best computers in their price range in the market

it's so funny when mac cultists hated microsoft but when steve said microsoft office for mac was ok then it was ok for macdom...usb was evil since it was an intel standard, but proved to be ok once macs used them widely also...now we are moving to intel processors and since steve says it's ok, that makes intel a saintly company

i only look to see how the mac serves me and it has done a better job than my pc computers over the years so my next computer will be a mac

 

[aranhamo]

Mac OS X doesn't cost $129. Apple hasn't been selling MacOS X so far. What you can buy for $129 is an upgrade to any rightfully installed MacOS version.

Expect MacOS X to be sold for something like $399, if it will _ever_ be offered for sale.

Weird. How did I get OS X onto the new hard drive I bought then? And it only cost me $70, since I was a student.

On the whole mouse topic, I prefer a multi-button mouse, but I've seen actual studies that found that it doesn't make any difference in productivity. People who know how to use a one-button mouse are just as productive as those who know how to use a multi-button mouse, or a scroll ball for that matter. They just work differently.

IBM still has a pretty impressive roadmap, but they're not focusing on the desktop market. IBM makes some of the most powerful computers in the world, running on PPC processors, and they make the CPU for all three of the major gaming consoles on the market (also PPCs). The embedded computing market is almost all PPC; I went to an embedded systems conference a couple of months ago, and practically every single vendor's products ran on PPC processors. Most of the engineers I know and my professors would argue that PPC is superior to x86.

Nevertheless, Apple has made a business decision to go with x86, and I hope it works out.

 

[link92]

I too would argue PPC is superior. However, in cases like the Mac Mini and laptops, there simply aren't anybody developing chips for them.

Freenode is moving away from computers; and IBM focusing on servers, desktops and consoles.

 

[solvs]

Having installed Mac OS X on an blank HD with nothing on it, I can say it is a full version. It is not an upgrade.

Yes... but what computer did you load it on?

 

[Morn]

You know that in reality, there is barely any difference between powerpc and x86 chips speaking from a CPU engineers view point.

 

[link92]

Yes... but what computer did you load it on?

iMac G3.

You know that in reality, there is barely any difference between powerpc and x86 chips speaking from a CPU engineers view point.

Oh, just the byte order being completely different, VMX being 128-bit, compared with SSE being 64-bit(?)...

 

[jefhatfield]

iMac G3.


Oh, just the byte order being completely different, VMX being 128-bit, compared with SSE being 64-bit(?)...

depends on what you want to look at...on the component level, computers are all very similar, pc and mac...scott mueller's book on pc repair is a good guide for the home user and professional techie, and is even a good resource for mac gearheads

the book inspired me to go into a phd program in computer engineering at the university of california, but i soon realized that i didn't want to know THAT MUCH about computer hardware

there's a lot of good hype telling people that ppc is so superior to x86, but a lot of that is not based on fact...still, i love my mac and would not trade it for a pc

the operating system experience is really what makes most people love the mac and a good book about the mac experience is "macintosh : the naked truth"...he he, sorry, no nudity there...but maybe at the university of california they still have that nudist policy that....

 

[solvs]

iMac G3.

Then it's an upgrade. What OS did your iMac originally come with? Rhetorical question BTW, just trying to prove a point.

 

[Morn]

Oh, just the byte order being completely different, VMX being 128-bit, compared with SSE being 64-bit(?)...

SSE is 128bit, and byte ordering doesn't mean much other than the byte ordering is different. In terms of the architecture of the CPU's function units.... x86 and PPC CPU's are basically the same with the only real difference being different instruction set. TIf you want to try something more different and exotic, go get an itanium (what's known as EPIC architecture) or a cell, but PPC and x86 are quite similar, both being in the post-risc family of CPU's.

 

[jaduffy108]

The switch to using Intel is not gonna help you there. Unless Apple get more market share and the device manufacturers decide to write better drivers for the bigger _MacOSX_ market.

How many times do people around here have to make the mistake that Macs are still gonna be macs (on the level of above) because they run MacOSX.

>>well..you have a point, but that ain't the whole story. Adobe and others are ecstatic(!) over this Apple switch to Intel...why?
Yes..drivers are usually written by the manufacturers, but Apple writes a LOT of code for optimization...such as Java, etc...soooo, first... why doesn't Apple care enough to write decent graphics drivers? You don't think this switch to x86 isn't going to a big help in this regard?..ok...NVIDIA and others disagree.

I'm very excited about what's coming...yonah, merom, etc...but if I'm still left using windows/x86 hand-me-downs in terms of software and hardware, i'm making the switch to windows/x86. I'm sick of it....OS X is great..but it isn't THAT important.

peace

 

[Sunrunner]

i mean two button mouses, intel processors, i was happy being different, i don't like being the same as everyone else.

Yeah right. The two theories of computing are directly opposed.

 

[link92]

Then it's an upgrade. What OS did your iMac originally come with? Rhetorical question BTW, just trying to prove a point.

9.0

But how am I upgrading from something that isn't on the HD?

 

[solvs]

9.0

But how am I upgrading from something that isn't on the HD?

I think you're missing my point. That Mac came with the Mac OS. You can only install OS X on a Mac (legally), which always comes with an OS. You can't buy a new Mac without it. It's built in to the purchase price. It's an upgrade because you can't put it anywhere else than a machine that came with a Mac OS. Even if you install it on a blank hdd. That's why Apple doesn't sell upgrade disks, because they're all upgrade disks. It's built into the hardware.

 

[aranhamo]

Upgrade?

I think you're missing my point. That Mac came with the Mac OS. You can only install OS X on a Mac (legally), which always comes with an OS. You can't buy a new Mac without it. It's built in to the purchase price. It's an upgrade because you can't put it anywhere else than a machine that came with a Mac OS. Even if you install it on a blank hdd. That's why Apple doesn't sell upgrade disks, because they're all upgrade disks. It's built into the hardware.

So when somebody spends $299 (retail price at CompUSA) for the full version of XP Pro to put on their Dell, it's really just an upgrade because their Dell came with Win95 on it? But if they had purchased an upgrade version of XP Pro for $199, they wouldn't have been able to install it on their computer at all, because Win95 doesn't qualify for an upgrade to XP.

But the price of the Windows license is built into the price of the Dell. As a matter of fact, every PC dealer that sold any computer with Windows pre-installed had to charge a Windows license even for computers that shipped without Windows; that was one of the points of contention in the anti-trust case. So if you bought a Compaq in 1995, but somehow with no OS on it at all, the purchase price of the computer still had the price of a Windows license built into it, so you should be eligible for an upgrade to WinXP, right?

 

[BFMC999]

it's lame that most of you complain that you're not different anymore. the ultimate goal is to have a machine that will run better than anything else. who gives a crap if dell starts shipping with OSX? everyone knows that a Mac with OSX will run better than a pc with it. and i wouldn't complain about an apple two button mouse. mighty mouse is a joke.

 

[solvs]

So when somebody spends $299 (retail price at CompUSA) for the full version of XP Pro to put on their Dell, it's really just an upgrade because their Dell came with Win95 on it? But if they had purchased an upgrade version of XP Pro for $199, they wouldn't have been able to install it on their computer at all, because Win95 doesn't qualify for an upgrade to XP.

But the price of the Windows license is built into the price of the Dell. As a matter of fact, every PC dealer that sold any computer with Windows pre-installed had to charge a Windows license even for computers that shipped without Windows; that was one of the points of contention in the anti-trust case. So if you bought a Compaq in 1995, but somehow with no OS on it at all, the purchase price of the computer still had the price of a Windows license built into it, so you should be eligible for an upgrade to WinXP, right?

You should, but M$ doesn't play that way. Apple does. If you bought a Compaq with Linux or built your own (which you can't do with a Mac) you buy the full version. But then, Microsoft didn't see any money from that. You buy an iMac from a friend that came with OS 9, Apple already got their money, and will let you install the upgrade on a blank disk with no need to verify the prior installation because they know you are putting it on a Mac, otherwise it wouldn't work (unless you hack it). If you bought a Compaq with Win2000, you could install the XP upgrade on a blank hard drive, but you'd need the original install disks to prove it used to have Windows on it.

I don't know why we're still arguing this.