Computer Science Canada Apple Intel Switch |
| Author: | Martin [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Apple Intel Switch |
I was thinking about this, and here are some things that I think could be problems for Apple. 1. Speed comparisons. Right now, comparing the speed of OSX with the speed of Windows XP is impossible, as one ends up simply comparing the speed of the G5 vs. that of the Intel/AMD processor. With the Intel switch, more direct comparisons will be possible. This could work against Apple, this could work for them. Windows XP is fast, dispite its flaws. 2. Piracy. Cracked versions of OSX will be available for non-Apple computers. There is no way to avoid this. A lot of people want to try OSX, and before this, the only way to do it was to buy a Mac. Apple realized this, and released the Mac Mini. Although there are sketchy x86 OSX builds floating around the net, this would give people the opportunity to use a real, release quality build of the operating system. 3. Lifespan. When does the G4/G5 get old? When Apple says it gets old. Apple wouldn't have this control any more. As a result, Apple's products prices would go down a lot faster than they do right now. So those are the most obvious observations. I don't think that Apple will go into selling its OS for generic PC's any time soon, if only because Microsoft has such a firm grasp of the OEM OS market. A lot more people are willing to say 'Hey, I need a new computer, let's try a Mac' than 'I have a computer, let's dish out another $200 for a new OS.' So yeah. Discuss. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The key issue to understanding why Apple would switch is quite simply: supply. Imagine you're Steve Jobs. You announce a fancy new computer, and then you can ship it 2 months later because IBM couldn't ship enough chips. Sucks, doesn't it? I mean, there's nothing else you could do. You have to keep the faith by making the announcement, but doing so wreaks havoc on sales for the next few months. Now, you partner with a company that has supply coming out the wazoo, like Intel. All of a sudden you never have to make an announcement like that again. You can do a lot more "shipping today" announcements. Heck, you can even have regular once a month updates, and just toss in whatever Intel can give you at the time. You can sell the older machines that haven't yet sold at a discount, thus filling the desire for less expensive Macs. Oh, and it might be happening a lot sooner than anyone expects. http://thinksecret.com/news/0511intelibook.html |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I understand the need to switch, and I think it's generally a good idea (actually, that's the article that I read that made me post this). The other thing that'll happen will be price comparisons. 1.9GHz G5 compares to what on the intel side? The average consumer doesn't know - they know it's faster than a 1.9GHz P4, so they're willing to pay more for it, but they don't know much beyond that. This switch'll draw more direct comparisons. Although I doubt Apple'll try to compete in price with Dell or HP, it'll still put a bar on their prices. Good for the consumers though. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: I understand the need to switch, and I think it's generally a good idea (actually, that's the article that I read that made me post this).
The other thing that'll happen will be price comparisons. 1.9GHz G5 compares to what on the intel side? The average consumer doesn't know - they know it's faster than a 1.9GHz P4, so they're willing to pay more for it, but they don't know much beyond that. This switch'll draw more direct comparisons. Although I doubt Apple'll try to compete in price with Dell or HP, it'll still put a bar on their prices. Good for the consumers though. I think most of Apple's customers don't care. They care about software. Apple or a third party Mac software developer has the software they need, so they buy a Mac. If this means that the only consideration is software, then I think that works in Apple's favor. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think a lot of Apple's potential customers would care. More transparency with prices and specs would mean fewer users frightened off. For instance, I've never even considered a Mac, because I've never wanted to spend more than about $1500 on a computer, including monitor, etc. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
iMac! iMac! But yeah, I know the feeling. Apple's slowly figuring things out. |
|
| Author: | md [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think apple will keep their current customer base no problem. But they still have the same problem they've always had: competing with significantly cheeper PCs. Unless they can make a compelling argument that their software (the only difference now) is better people just aren't going to switch. Of course if they can get their hardware down to the $1000-$1400 range then I think a lot of people would be willing to give it a try (especially if they include a 30" Cinema display  ). |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cornflake wrote: I think apple will keep their current customer base no problem. But they still have the same problem they've always had: competing with significantly cheeper PCs. Unless they can make a compelling argument that their software (the only difference now) is better people just aren't going to switch.
Of course if they can get their hardware down to the $1000-$1400 range then I think a lot of people would be willing to give it a try (especially if they include a 30" Cinema display ).A full computer system, plus a 30" display in the $1000-1400 range? How cheap do you think computers are? Apple's prices are, averaged out, pretty competitive. There are of course some issues with Apple's long update cycles. Their prices tend to be quite competitive when products are launched, and then progressively less so as they age. |
|
| Author: | md [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was joking about the display
But since an apple machine will now be an x86 machine it'll get compared to other x86s; and when you at it the only difference between and apple and a Dell will be that the apple comes with slightly more (perhaps better) software. However the difference between MacOS and Windows is probably not enough of one for people to pay 1.5+ times the price (Dell @~800 US, Mac @~1200-1400US). |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Care to show us these two machines? |
|
| Author: | md [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, I know you can find a dell machine for ~800 US (search their site... they had a bare-bones computer for < 800 a short while ago); as for hte mac I'm entirely guessing at prices. I never claimed to know anything about how muich a mac would cost, but I certainly don't expect to get one for under $1000. /me backs out of the debate now... |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mac Mini 1.42GHz 80GB Combo Driv - $599.00 US Wired Mighty Mouse & Keyboard - $78.00 US 1024MB ram upgrade - $100.00 US 17" Dell Flat Panel Monitor - $276.25 US Total: $1053.25 US Dell XPS 400 w/ 17" LCD - $1028.00 US 3.2GHz P4, 1GB ram, 128MB x300, 80GB HD, XP MCE, yadda yadda The Dell wins with a much better video card and a much faster processor (for $25 cheaper). Apple's catching up, but they're not there yet. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
$25 to not have to worry about viruses, spyware, etc? Are you so sure that's not an appealing deal? |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
And no, I'm not saying Macs are necessarily immune to such things, but so far, there haven't been problems. Car analogies are old and tired, but here's one: why do people buy Honda Civics instead of Chevy Cavaliers? I mean, the Honda certainly can break down and it has the potential to be just as unreliable as the Chevy. They do so because they like the odds on the Honda side better. Reputation counts for a lot when it comes to purchasing patterns. I think the only reason that this hasn't been a huge advantage is a lack of awareness of what Apple had to offer. Much of this problem I lay squarely at Apple's door, for doing such a craptacular job of advertising the Mac. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The XPS 400 comes with anti-virus/spyware software. And it's $25 for a much slower computer that you don't have to worry about viruses and spyware. If that's worth the switch, yeah, get the Mac. But the thing is, most people look at it in terms of speed, not software quality. The software thing is kind of an 'oh shit' thing you realize afterwards. Apple has a bad reputation too in some regards though. Apple users are seen as being overly zealous and Apple computers seen by the general public as computers for stupid people. Apple computers are known for their bad hardware support (in terms of printers, scanners, mp3 players, etc.) It's like this. Imagine you just put down $200 - $300 on a new (non-apple) mp3 player. You look at the Mac and say 'hey, that looks cool, I'd really like to try that.' But wait. Your mp3 player won't work with it. Neither will your scanner. Chances are, you're not going to buy a Mac. Admittedly, it's getting better, but it's not there yet. Apple needs to do something about it. I'm buying an iMac (if I ever get paid...). Fortunately, the only mp3 player that I own is an iPod shuffle. If I had another brand's player, I don't think I'd even consider making the switch, even if the iMac was 15,000 yen cheaper. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm not sure you're factoring in how bad things really are. I talk to people all the time whose Windows PCs are slowed to a crawl by spyware, viruses and such. Or sometimes by bad "anti-" software. Even if the Mac isn't quite as fast, does it matter if they expect a brand new Windows PC to slow to a crawl within a matter of weeks? I've heard lots of people tell me they've discarded nearly new computers and purchased new ones due to malware. Is it stupid and wasteful as hell? Yep. But it's also a factor in the market. People will pay extra to get a better shot at having a computer around. Just look at extended warranties if you need evidence of this. $1000 for a Mac that's running fine in three years, or $750 for a Compaq you pawned off on a relative after 8 months because you couldn't stand the mess it had become? |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Alright, so Apple's problem is that they have to bring these problems to light and show of OSX a little more. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yep. As I mentioned, Apple has done very little advertising of the Mac, which is very odd, since they have a great working relationship with Chiat-Day, one of the best advertising firms out there. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The other thing is that Vista is finally going to bring Windows up to speed in the security department, so then Apple has to answer the question again: why OSX? |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: The other thing is that Vista is finally going to bring Windows up to speed in the security department, so then Apple has to answer the question again: why OSX?
A few things: Will it? If 3rd party developers had followed the rules, everything NT-based would have decent security. But Microsoft never really enforced the rules, so those developers never cared. Making them follow the rules now is going to be a massive change, and a social one, rather than a relatively simple technical issue. Apple's got time to ship another version of OS X with further advantages. Even when Vista "ships", it'll be quite some time before it has any decent penetration into the market, which I suspect gives Apple time to get to 10.6. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you are Microsoft, and you get the whole privileges thing working... how do you maintain backwards compatibility? By sandboxing programs so they see a virtual administrator account that they can feel free to screw up. But, of course... then Apple can come along and say, "hey, we've got all the stuff you want, and there are no kludges to make it work securely." |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Simple unix style permissions. You need admin read or write permissions, the app minimizes and a dialog box pops up telling you what's happening and asking for the password. It has nothing to do with calls made by the program - it's entirely the OS. And of course Apple does have time to ship 10.5/10.6, but one of Apple's problems is that people generally want to stick to ground they're familiar with. Right now, there are significant reasons to switch to Apple (security, cool looking GUI) but also some reasons against it (poor 3rd party hardware support, unfamiliar GUI, less software, no games). Some people look at that, and say 'okay, it's worth learning a new thing.' With the security and style gap closed (although I think OSX looks nicer than the Vista beta screenshots) people would have less of a reason to switch. |
|
| Author: | goomba [ Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: Simple unix style permissions. You need admin read or write permissions, the app minimizes and a dialog box pops up telling you what's happening and asking for the password. It has nothing to do with calls made by the program - it's entirely the OS.
And of course Apple does have time to ship 10.5/10.6, but one of Apple's problems is that people generally want to stick to ground they're familiar with. Right now, there are significant reasons to switch to Apple (security, cool looking GUI) but also some reasons against it (poor 3rd party hardware support, unfamiliar GUI, less software, no games). Some people look at that, and say 'okay, it's worth learning a new thing.' With the security and style gap closed (although I think OSX looks nicer than the Vista beta screenshots) people would have less of a reason to switch. Tiger has already been out for over half a year, and has been continually improved since its release. Vista is still over half a year away and it is only CATCHING UP to Tiger (and Panther and Jaguar, in many respects) in functionality. Apple has a huge chance to make 10.5 as many steps ahead of Vista as Panther was to XP. Not to mention that when Vista comes out, there will undoubtedly be so many bugs and compatibility problems that it will take a while to replace XP for most people, compared to the more stable, evolutionary upgrade to 10.5. As for software, I find OS X software to be of much higher quality both aesthetically and functionally than its Windows equivalents. Just compare MS Word 2004 for Mac to Word 2003 to Windows and it's obvious. 3rd party software for the Mac tends to be much more pleasing to use. These days, finding software to accomplish a specific task is less of a problem for Mac users than ever, and the situation is only improving. I admit that games are still an area that needs TONS of improvement, but the switch to Intel should make it easier for developers to port more games faster. Essentially, most people switch to macs for the seamless Apple experience that they hear so much about. The look and feel, the comfort, the security, and the elegance that you just don't find in the PC word. The fact that Vista isn't shaping up to what MS claimed it would be back in 2003 and its expensive upgrade requirements will only cause more people to switch next year. Apple has very little to worry about! |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Microsoft has the past 10 years of Apple's revenue sitting in the bank. If that's not something to worry about, I don't know what is. 1. Check out the Vista beta's. The gap isn't as big as you'd think. OSX is behind it in many areas. Yes, 10.5'll be cool, but whether it'll be cool enough to keep up Apple's steam remains to be seen. 2. The beta tests are cleaning out these bugs and compatibility issues. Sure, there'll be some, but they'll be fixed pretty quickly. Besides, companies will package Vista with their computers. 3. I can't really see a difference between Office 2003 for Windows and 2004 for Mac, besides the Mac GUI vs. Windows GUI thing. I've only really used Word for either though. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anyone who manages to cripple their computer in half a year isn't ready to own their own yet. If they can't handle the simplest issues of installing virus and spyware protection, they'll also be the type that download trojans and give out their credit card numbers and passwords to insecure sites. I can't remember the last time I got a virus - it was several PCs ago (and I only go through PCs every 4+ years), and I haven't had a significant number of spyware/adware since programs for their removal came out. |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: I can't remember the last time I got a virus - it was several PCs ago (and I only go through PCs every 4+ years), and I haven't had a significant number of spyware/adware since programs for their removal came out.
I don't mean to nitpick or anything, but even assuming that 'several' only means '2' and that '4+' actually just means '4', that means you haven't had a virus in about 8 or 9 years. Like, since 1996-1997. I'm not sure how many common 'consumer' viruses were even around back then >.> If we take some of the upper limits of your estimate, the the last 'virus' you caught was the Bubonic Plague of the 1500's  |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Several means 3 PCs ago, I do a minor upgrade every 2.5 years or so, and get a completely new system usually every 5 years. I'm making a personal note to avoid vague generalizations in the future.
I've been using the internet since 1989, and yes, there were viruses at the time. The last virus I had was the Jerusalem virus (aka Fri. the 13th), and that was in the early 90s. Viruses were just as rampant back then; there weren't as many, but virus detection was in its infancy. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: OSX is behind it in many areas. Like what.. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
rizzix wrote: Martin wrote: OSX is behind it in many areas. Like what..As a media center. Hardware compatibility. OSX requires more resources to run. Software selection. There are tons of things. That's not to say that OSX is bad. Just not as revolutionary and way ahead of the competition as a lot of people believe. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: rizzix wrote: Martin wrote: OSX is behind it in many areas. Like what..As a media center. Hardware compatibility. OSX requires more resources to run. Software selection. There are tons of things. Mac OS X 10.4 is a fairly recent OS. Windows XP is 4-5 years old. If Windows XP runs better on older machines, it should be little surprise. Early versions of Mc OS X ran decently on very modest hardware. As for hardware compatibility... Mac OS X holds up just as well as Windows... if you use peripheral hardware that respects standards. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of hardware that does not respect open or at least published standards, and attempts to compensate for this with software hacks on top of Windows. Software selection... aside from things like CAD applications or some games, if you can find anything truly lacking that isn't simply a matter of ignorance, I'll be honestly surprised. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
512mb of ram isn't enough to run Tiger smoothly. Hence, resource hog. And the rest, sure. Windows is still better for it then. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's a lot of BS there.. Martin. The "quality" of applications (as someone stated before) is much much better than the equivalent on windows. But if hardware compatibility is the only argument as to why windows Vista is better.. then you don't have much of an argument there. Yes the only darwback of the OS is that it requires a lot of RAM. No doubt. But my mac (10.4) running on a 450mhz pc.. runs just as zippy as my 2.0ghz windows machine.. Aside that, Safari runs faster than browser on that 2.0ghz pc. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maybe. I don't see it yet though. Examples? The included software is much better (although I have to say I'd prefer Solitare to Nanosaur or Marbles Blast), but available software for either seems fine. Photoshop is amazing with Expose. And the hardware thing is completely true. Name five non-Apple mp3 players that work with the mac. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok.. well to fill up ur Applications folder ..
An IRC app: Colloquy P2P app: Poisoned FTP/SFTP app: Cyber Duck Bit-torrent apps: Transmission (a fast and lite c-based bit-torrent app with a cocoa interface), bits on wheels (a great (cocoa) replacement for azureus... or is it?) Text Editor (and more): SubEthaEdit Optimized Manga Viewer: FFView Optimal Video Player: MPlayer OS X (note: this is much more optimized than VLC for OSX) Script Editor/Testing Utility: Pipe Video Format Converter: FFmpegX DVD Ripper's: handbrake, mencoder (preferred?) Graphics Utility: Graphics Converter (yes, install this in addition to photoshop) TeX: LaTeXiT, TeXShop (note: you are required to install latex somehow (i suggest through darwinports) before u can use these apps) Hidden Settings: OnyX (careful.. the only thing i turned on with that is the optimize safari option..) well that's just to name a few.. PS: oh and please take a look at all the apps http://www.omnigroup.com/ has to offer.. IMHO they are the best 3rd-party mac developers out there.. |
|