why doesn't Apple just make Macs cheaper or get OS X so it will run on normal x86?

[billdotson]

I have heard many people say "Well I want to get a Mac because they look like they are better, but I can't afford one"

Why doesn't Apple just make their Macs be the same price as a normal x86 PC?
Wouldn't that get them to sell more Macs?

Better yet, if Apple talks about how great OS X is why not just make OS X so that it runs on normal x86 computers that most everyone has? Then they could get some deals so that OS X would come pre-installed on PCs like Dell's or HP's.

Or is Apple so obsessed with their hip image of having the sleek, cool looking computer that matches the cool, sleek iPods they are unwilling to change?

[claudex]

I think that Apple don't make theirs Macs cheaper because they use quality hardware, the design cost a lot and they want to make money with their computers. And they don't make OS X capable to run on x86 because they will sell less computer in this case: People have the ergonomy of Mac with a x86 and Apple earn less.

[RAV TUX]

moving to the Mac OS X forum

[qamelian]

Mac OS is incredibly stable, in part, because it doesn't support the vast array of hardware available in the PC world. The more types of hardware you try to support, the more instabilities you potentially introduce into your OS. By designing around a narrow hardware spec, it is much easier to achieve stability.


And Macs aren't that expensive. A few months ago one of the hardware sites (I think it was Tom's or Extremetech, but I can't remember now) did a comparison by taking a standard, current Mac and then customizing a Dell to meet the same spec. Guess what? The Dell was more expensive by something like $1100!

[tbroderick]

they want to make money

That's it.

[Henry Rayker]

The reason they don't charge less is due to the fact that they can get what they currently charge...I'm certain their marketing teams have figured that any increase in number of machines sold will not justify the change in price necessary to get those additional sales.

The reason they don't sell the OS for non-Apple branded machines is a little more complicated. First, there is the cost involved with trying to support each and every piece of hardware a person could put in the machine. The cost of testing, alone, would be ridiculous. Another problem is, if they did that, they couldn't make the absurd premium that they do on their machines. Again, I'm certain that the marketing teams figured out that any sales generated by supporting non-Apple branded machines would not make up for 1) the amount of money lost due to testing/modifications for support and 2) loss of hardware sales.

Just doing a quick comparison of the cheapest iMac vs a Dell:
iMac for 999 has: (The Dell is 999 too)
a slower processor (I know it's 30 MHz, but still)
half the RAM (both are 2 DIMMs)
160GB hdd vs Dell's 250GB hdd
DVD player/CDRW combo drive (Dell has CD/DVD writer combo)
Intel GMA (64MB shared memory) vs Dell's 256MB nVidia Geforce 7300LE TurboCache (Probably the BIGGEST issue)
17in monitor (vs Dell's included 19in monitor)

The only perk the Mac has is that the machine is just the monitor...no tower...that's not worth the downgrades, in my opinion...

The hardware premium seems to lower as you go from the lower end systems to the upper end systems (ie, the difference in price for exact same specs is lower at higher performance models), but that's not much of an excuse, in my opinion.

[FuturePilot]

Actually it can run on the x86 architecture and people have done it, but it's illegal[-X

[aysiu]

Actually it can run on the x86 architecture and people have done it, but it's illegal[-X
And actually it's a hack to get it installed. You can't just pop the OS X CD into your Dell's CD-ROM drive and click Install and have it work. That's not the point. The point is that it's not easy or designed to work on any x86 PC. In fact, Apple has deliberately made it difficult.

I think it should be quite obvious why Apple ties the hardware and software together--that's why the software works so well. More than half the complaints about Ubuntu have to do with hardware compatibility because people expect Ubuntu to work on just about any computer configuration. I'd be a lot happier if there were Ubuntu certified hardware that was guaranteed to work with Ubuntu with no tweaking whatsoever than have Ubuntu try to work with everything. Now, going out of your way to prevent people from using non-certified hardware (what Apple does)... that's annoying, and I don't want that for Ubuntu.

As for the price... Apple's products actually aren't as expensive now as they used to be, but part of the Apple culture (whether customers buy into it or not) is the idea that you pay more for quality. That's why a lot of Apple and Windows users think Linux is crap (almost every Linux distro has a cost-free version). In their minds $0 = 0 quality and $Lots = lots of quality. My wife has a Powerbook, and when she wanted to upgrade her RAM, a 1 GB stick from the Apple Store was $300. She got the same stick from NewEgg for $129. Do you think the Apple RAM was better quality? I doubt it.

[FuturePilot]

Yes, I understand it is a hack and is difficult to install, but it still can be done. But then again, just about anything can be hacked.
As for their prices, I think they just over price their stuff. It's definitely not worth that much.
For some reason though I've been tempted by OS X. Not sure why though.....

[izanbardprince]

Apple makes a big fat margin on the hardware, the operating system is just gravy, if they licensed out Mac OS, there would really be nothing noteworthy between a Mac and a garden variety PC.

They had a clone program a while back, it was retarded as all hell, because you ended up paying the same or more than you would to get the system straight from Apple.

There is an (illegal) project called OSX86 that has ported Mac OS X to PC, and you can build a useable UNIX-like OS out of Apple's Darwin kernel, which should be a certified UNIX kernel sometime later this year, but other than that OS X probably will never run on PC hardware with Apple's blessing.

I for one dislike Apple, they're every bit as bad as Microsoft, but they cater to elitists, people who have gobs of money to waste on hardware thats really not any better than a PC in the same price range.

[izanbardprince]

And actually it's a hack to get it installed. You can't just pop the OS X CD into your Dell's CD-ROM drive and click Install and have it work. That's not the point. The point is that it's not easy or designed to work on any x86 PC. In fact, Apple has deliberately made it difficult.

I think it should be quite obvious why Apple ties the hardware and software together--that's why the software works so well. More than half the complaints about Ubuntu have to do with hardware compatibility because people expect Ubuntu to work on just about any computer configuration. I'd be a lot happier if there were Ubuntu certified hardware that was guaranteed to work with Ubuntu with no tweaking whatsoever than have Ubuntu try to work with everything. Now, going out of your way to prevent people from using non-certified hardware (what Apple does)... that's annoying, and I don't want that for Ubuntu.

As for the price... Apple's products actually aren't as expensive now as they used to be, but part of the Apple culture (whether customers buy into it or not) is the idea that you pay more for quality. That's why a lot of Apple and Windows users think Linux is crap (almost every Linux distro has a cost-free version). In their minds $0 = 0 quality and $Lots = lots of quality. My wife has a Powerbook, and when she wanted to upgrade her RAM, a 1 GB stick from the Apple Store was $300. She got the same stick from NewEgg for $129. Do you think the Apple RAM was better quality? I doubt it.


Actually, I was quite pleased to find that Ubuntu worked on this system pretty much flawlessly, all I've done is add the Nvidia driver for my 3d card.

Mac OS X is pretty good, but give me Ubuntu any day.

[billdotson]

yeah but honestly.. the whole Apple culture thing is absurd to me anyway.

Claudex: I seriously doubt that their hardware is that much more expensive because it is better quality. Price does not always equal better quality.

Although I do understand that if they had OS X able to run on x86 systems they would probably lose more money in hardware sales than they would make up for by having OS X installed on x86 PCs (Dell, HP, IBM) like Windows is (giving a lot of OS X installations at a discount to the big vendors)
And is is probably very likely if not absolutely true that Apple makes more money on hardware than they do OS X.

That is smart what they are doing in only having a few Mac certified hardwares as that keeps the OS stable, although then you are tied in closer with Apple and they can just jack the prices of that hardware up because they have less competition.

Btw, does the whole "Apple culture" thing annoy you? It just seems to be like Apple cashes in on fads and sells their computer and other technology (iPod, etc.) as more or less an Apple lifestyle or a way into the "superior culture of those who don't use Windows" I use Windows and Windows can do everything I really need it to do and I (I also use Ubuntu but I use Windows for this argument) would not say that I am a fan of Windows (I have no reason to be a fan.. it is just a decent OS that gets done what it needs to) but Apple's "switch to Mac" and "I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" commercials and the whole what it seems to be iPod fad just really annoy me.

Does it feel like this to anyone else that they are selling a way to get into the hip Apple "we're better than Microsoft and the normal PC users" culture than they are a technology product? While I realize that OS X is a pretty good OS and excels in multimedia work the way Apple seems to sell a "culture" or a "lifestyle" (hint OS X's iLife software suite) with the sleek, "cool" looking PCs and iPods and iPhones and iTV's and on and on..

I can't say that I like Microsoft and really support them in everything they do, but the way Apple seems to me anyway if I had to support a corporation completely it would be Microsoft.

By the way how can someone make it illegal to run the OS you bought from them run on your PC.. that is if you don't crack open the source code and modify it?

[aysiu]

Apple does, indeed, try to sell a "You're better because you use a Mac" culture to its customers (see the "I'm a Mac. I'm a PC" ads for proof of this). Fortunately, not all its customers buy into that culture. Some recognize that Mac OS X is just another operating system and Macs are just other computers. You can prefer a Mac personally, but you are not a better person for using a Mac or a smarter consumer for buying a Mac.

[Henry Rayker]

By the way how can someone make it illegal to run the OS you bought from them run on your PC.. that is if you don't crack open the source code and modify it?

My friend, you must not have heard much about EULAs...it's included in there. They can make it illegal to run the OS you bought from them in the same sort of manner that it's illegal to install the same copy of an OS on two different machines (I recall a friend of mine writing an email to M$ asking if it was okay if it was guaranteed that the machines would never be on simultaneously, and they said that STILL violates the EULA, lawl)

Basically the Apple EULA clause says something to the effect of, "You may install this OS on ONLY ONE Apple branded computer..." And for the record, I believe the code checks for a hardware marker (the TPM), if it's "official" Apple hardware, the Trusted Platform Module will be there, if not, it won't...the way to get around the marker is to hack their code...so, not only are you breaking the EULA, but you're also bypassing their security, as well.

[billdotson]

I really hate all that Trusted Platform Module crap.. I am sure glad I built my own machine as I do not like any company telling me what my system can do.

and although while some people that do use Macs realize that is just another OS and don't follow the whole Apple culture crap there are plenty that do. Apple's way of marketing the Macs as a superior product part of this technologically superior "Apple culture" alone keeps me from spending any $ or time dealing with Macs. Even if OS X was the best OS ever and the Mac hardware was technologically superior to all other hardware I would in almost all cases not bother with them simply because I do not support how they market their product.

Oh I have a ?.. if Mac OS X is made so that only can be run on special Mac hardware why can Mac users use Windows on their Mac computers?? Wouldn't Microsoft have made Apple pay them money for the ability to do that or does Microsoft simply allow this because it sells more copies of Windows?

[aysiu]

if Mac OS X is made so that only can be run on special Mac hardware why can Mac users use Windows on their Mac computers?? Windows doesn't have the same restrictions as OS X. It has its own restrictions, but you can basically install Windows on any IBM-compatible PC. Wouldn't Microsoft have made Apple pay them money for the ability to do that or does Microsoft simply allow this because it sells more copies of Windows? Windows on Mac benefits both Microsoft and Apple mainly because Microsoft is primarily a software company (even though they do make a Zune and an XBox 360) and Apple is primarily a hardware company (even though they make OS X and iWork).

So if you buy a Mac, Apple is happy because you bought their hardware, and then install Windows on it, Microsoft is happy because you bought their software and are locked into using it (if you weren't locked in, you probably would just be using OS X instead of dual-booting with Windows using Bootcamp).

[Henry Rayker]

I think the answer depends on what exactly you're asking...if you're asking why Windows is installable on Macs, the reason is simple...M$ isn't in the hardware business...they don't really care, too much, whose hardware you're using, as long as you install a Windows OS.

Now, if you're asking why they actually made mac versions of their software (Office, for example), this is a couple reasons...first and foremost, this is because, if they can get some software on the Mac user's system, maybe s/he'll say, "You know, it sucks that I spent twice as much money on my hardware and all I ever do is type M$ Word documents...next time, I'll go with Windows." (This scenario is WAY more likely than the converse, where a person installs OSX on a non-Apple branded computer and says, you know what? I'd like less power for more money! allright!) A second reason: it's come about that M$ considered using those apps as a lever against Apple...they'd just stop selling them and, because Apple doesn't have software to fit the Office bill, they'd be in deep trouble (Also, they said something about testing new features because compatibility/stability wasn't as much of an issue; they could blame it on the PC->Mac conversion, rather than their shoddy coding) A third possible reason is it just gets them some money from a system that, otherwise, they would have gotten nothing from...the demand for Office was there, and it was a profitable one.

[aysiu]

because Apple doesn't have software to fit the Office bill, they'd be in deep trouble I have a question about that. Apple claims iWork is compatible with MS Office (http://www.apple.com/macosx/switch/howto/dvd.html):
Consider iWork ’06
Apple’s iWork ’06 combines two easy-to-use, built-for-Mac productivity applications: Pages, a streamlined yet powerful word processor; and Keynote 2, an interactive slideshow program. And iWork is compatible with Microsoft Office. You can read and export Word and PowerPoint documents.

Just $79. Buy online now.
Does Apple have some special deal with Microsoft to ensure compatibility with Word, or is it sort of like Linspire's claim that OpenOffice is compatible with Word (http://www.linspire.com/products_linspire_whatis.php?tab=features): Complete Office Suite
Linspire comes with a complete office suite for word processing, spreadsheets, drawings and slide presentations. And all the programs are file-compatible with their Microsoft Office counterparts (.doc, .xls and .ppt), so you can easily read and share documents with people using Microsoft Windows. I mean, everyone knows OpenOffice can open and save .doc files, but they are not 100% compatible (sometimes the formatting is off, for example). Is that the same thing with iWork?

[billdotson]

what do you mean by being locked into it [with Windows on a Mac]?

granted: if I didn't already have a PC, I could easily upgrade my hardware (videocard, etc.) I didn't disagree with Apple's way of marketing, and Macs cost about the same as a normal x86 PC then I would probably get one.. that is of course if I could run Windows games on the Mac hardware.. which could be an issue.. by the way how would that work.. can you buy new videocard and upgrade your Mac (or any of your hardware for that matter.. CPU, RAM, etc.?) and would that new videocard be DirectX9 or Direct3D10 compatible so you could boot into Windows and play the games like you would normally?

Also.. if Windows can run on Mac hardware doesn't that mean that the Mac hardware is really only x86 architecture with an Apple TPM chip on the motherboard/other hardware?

[aysiu]

what do you mean by being locked into it [with Windows on a Mac]? Well, think about it.

If you buy a Mac, it comes with its own operating system (OS X). The only reason most people would pay for Windows and install it on a Mac is because they depend on (or are locked into) a Windows-only application. If they liked Windows better, they could have saved themselves some money and just bought a Dell or HP. Microsoft likes Windows-only applications (even if they're not made by Microsoft) because they ensure more dependence on Windows.

Also.. if Windows can run on Mac hardware doesn't that mean that the Mac hardware is really only x86 architecture with an Apple TPM chip on the motherboard/other hardware? Yes.

[billdotson]

that is kind of a slick one they pulled on the consumer by saying we have a new "modified Intel architecture" so Mac users can now also use Windows. So really all they did was put one of those stupid TPM chips on it. Interesting.

[rsambuca]

Windows on Mac benefits both Microsoft and Apple mainly because Microsoft is primarily a software company (even though they do make a Zune and an XBox 360) and Apple is primarily a hardware company (even though they make OS X and iWork).

More than a few business analysts suggest that Apple is more like a marketing company that just happens to sell computers:?

[Henry Rayker]

I have a question about that. Apple claims iWork is compatible with MS Office (http://www.apple.com/macosx/switch/howto/dvd.html): Does Apple have some special deal with Microsoft to ensure compatibility with Word, or is it sort of like Linspire's claim that OpenOffice is compatible with Word (http://www.linspire.com/products_linspire_whatis.php?tab=features): I mean, everyone knows OpenOffice can open and save .doc files, but they are not 100% compatible (sometimes the formatting is off, for example). Is that the same thing with iWork?

I'm not 100% certain about iWork...I would imagine that it's probably file-compatible similar to the way that OO is file-compatible with M$ Office. I imagine that there would be some formatting issues and the like, but that page was from a "convert to Mac" thing, so I'd imagine they just think the 1-time formatting change is not worth mentioning.

When I said that Apple didn't have software to fit the Office bill in my previous post, I really meant that at the time that M$Office was introduced to Macs, they didn't...now they have somewhat of a replacement, but from talking to a Mac friend, iWork is a less "complete" replacement than OpenOffice is.

As for the "modified Intel architecture": the parts are, as far as I know, different. They are in different packages (industry term, I obviously don't mean packaging as in "boxes" or whatever), they have some different features, however, the cores of the processor (the part that does actual work) are true x86 cores, exactly like the other Intel parts.

[madcow72]

I appreciate many of the points being made in this forum, but these discussions always make me question their intent. This may stem from my ignorance of the deeper meaning behind open-source and free software, but too often I see people equating the desire to make money with evil. Inherently, I doubt there's anyone in these forums that would prefer not make money.

In my opinion, I've realized that I can't hate M$ because they like to make money. If we appreciate people who are extremely talented at what they do, then we have to recognize that Microsoft is a company that, at least in the early days, was very skillful at doing business. What I do despise, however, is the dominance of their clearly inferior software. As a company who's purpose in life is to provide productivity software, not just market themselves, I think it's abysmal that they've come as far as they have without the quality behind their product.

On this note, I've been very impressed with Apple's return from what I thought was the dead about 7 years ago. They've made a massive turnaround and truth be told, their product actually works. I'm glad they exist so that there is a computer system out there I can recommend to my aging parents or grandparents - 'cause, as much as I love Ubuntu Linux, I have to admit that I don't think it's for the older, less computer inclined generation yet.

A quick question: Why do people purchase Macs and then delete OSX to install Linux? When you've paid that much money, why not stick with OSX (FreeBSD)?

[aysiu]

I'm not 100% certain about iWork...I would imagine that it's probably file-compatible similar to the way that OO is file-compatible with M$ Office. I imagine that there would be some formatting issues and the like, but that page was from a "convert to Mac" thing, so I'd imagine they just think the 1-time formatting change is not worth mentioning. But when you have to share documents with Windows users who use MS Office, then you run into problems, and it's not just a one-time thing, as some disgruntled OpenOffice users have pointed out even after doing the one-time switch to Linux.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I've seen numerous complaints in these forums about compatibility and OpenOffice.

[dasunst3r]

I was recently at the crossroads with Dell, and here's what I got from Dell for $1,500 (including tax and shipping):

Core 2 Duo T5600 (1.83 GHz, 667 MHz FSB)
2 GB DDR2 (667 MHz)
80 GB HDD
nVidia GeForce Go 7300 with 256 MB RAM
WSXGA+ display with TrueLife (whatever that means)
85Wh battery


A similarly-specced MacBook Pro would have cost me $1,000 more (excluding tax and shipping), and hence, I could not justify buying one. Sure, you can have a bigger hard drive and faster processor, but why pay such an onerous premium for reliability and security when you have it in Ubuntu?

[madcow72]

But when you have to share documents with Windows users who use MS Office, then you run into problems, and it's not just a one-time thing, as some disgruntled OpenOffice users have pointed out even after doing the one-time switch to Linux.

As long as products try to combine format and content in the same package, so far we've always seen this incompatibility issue, haven't we? This is the brilliance behind the LaTeX method.

[Henry Rayker]

But when you have to share documents with Windows users who use MS Office, then you run into problems, and it's not just a one-time thing, as some disgruntled OpenOffice users have pointed out even after doing the one-time switch to Linux.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I've seen numerous complaints in these forums about compatibility and OpenOffice.

That's true. Honestly, I don't know. Every single Mac user I know either uses MS Office or doesn't complain about compatibility. In situations where formatting is absolutely necessary, (at least in the Computer Engineering fields) pdfs are preferred to any "soft" formatted app. I know that iWork 2005 wasn't 100% compatible (from an article I just found and then lost =\) so I doubt the current version is either.

I think people complain here about OpenOffice so often for a couple reasons...1) They believe they are computer Gods or something, just because they know how to do things in Windows, 2) they feel that, because the machine is the same, everything else will be the same (fonts, etc) 3) in my experience, the more extravagant a purchase someone makes, the less likely they are to point out its flaws (they don't want to appear foolish for making such a purchase). Because they paid nothing for Ubuntu or OpenOffice, they feel more okay with complaining than the proud owner of a new Mac machine.

As far as this thread being against Apple; I don't believe I've said anything to chastise Apple or call them a bum...the fact that they sell their hardware based on its "trend appeal" is, in my opinion, not really a good (read: honest) idea...I personally won't buy a Mac, due to this, but other than that, I bear them no ill will.

[3rdalbum]

A quick question: Why do people purchase Macs and then delete OSX to install Linux? When you've paid that much money, why not stick with OSX (FreeBSD)?

Why do people purchase PCs and then delete Windows to install Linux? When you've paid for Windows, why not stick with Windows?

Because people want to use a better operating system, or because they want to use open-source for ideological reasons, or because they want to use open-source for practical reasons, or because they want their Macs to run faster.

By the way, Mac OS X is not FreeBSD. The relationship between OS X and FreeBSD is like Windows Vista to MS-DOS - there's a little bit left, but not enough.

[madcow72]

Why do people purchase PCs and then delete Windows to install Linux? When you've paid for Windows, why not stick with Windows?

That's not really a fair comparison, though, for 2 reasons: I believe anyone in these forums would agree that Windows is a pretty lousy operating system, but I don't hear the same complaints about OS X. Secondly, as dasunst3r just said:
A similarly-specced MacBook Pro would have cost me $1,000 more (excluding tax and shipping), and hence, I could not justify buying one.
Macs are still quite significantly higher priced, even at the same specifications. I've done my own comparisons and come up with similar numbers to dasunst3r as well. So my question remains, Why buy a Mac and then install Linux, when a PC desktop or laptop is very significantly cheaper? I assume there's a good reason, I just don't know what it is. Do their hardware combinations work better with Ubuntu?

[Henry Rayker]

A friend of mine who uses a Mac said he doesn't really like that there isn't a whole lot of community-based software out there for the Mac. Most of the software comes through Apple (his words, not mine) and, as such, it tends to be overly pretty (read: a little rough on the system resources).

Also, some of them may have gotten fed up with the way Apple carries out their advertising. They are incredibly aggressive and not always that accurate...

From my impression, most of the people who are installing over their Mac OS completely (Linux only machine) it is people with older hardware. The others are dual booting...perhaps they were using Linux before and prefer it for every day use, but need Mac media applications etc.

[billdotson]

I have a couple questions: why do people feel that Windows is an inferior OS? Granted it's idea of a registry isn't that great, having to scan for viruses and spyware isn't either and there are some other things like defragging but for general uses there is software for Windows that can do anything you need it to do.. granted it will cost $. Most of the time if you scan your computer with a virus scanner and a spyware scanner you should be fine.

I am using Windows XP SP2 right now until I get my PC back and even on there sometimes I use Windows. Granted I like Ubuntu more (and use it almost exclusively) because it is customizable, I learn more about computers in general when using it, and the free software that can do pretty much anything I need to do (apart from playing a commercial PC game as many of them do not work that well in Wine, and I would rather not pay for something like CrossOver or Cedega when they probably do not offer much more programs that run well that run through them.. although I do not know for sure if CrossOver is getting better as I think that it's goal is to be able to run any Windows-only application in )

the thing I have with Apple is clear.. I do not like their extremely high prices and the way they sell their iPods, iMacs, iWhatevers as a fashion statement or as something that makes you part of a "using better technology culture" Granted they keep OS X so that it will not run on as much hardware as Windows will in order to keep it more stable and that is a very good idea. I generally don't have anything against people that use Macs but there are some people that do things that annoy me with the Macs.

For instance one of my friends' dads was a bigshot (not like a buddy of Steve Jobs type bigshot but he got paid alot) at Apple and so naturally his son is an Apple fan. They have 3 or so Macs a piece and really like them. We had a project that required us to burn a CD with some music that we could tie in in some way to the text we had been reading and when my CD I had burned had to play.. it was a dud.. did not play. [could of been that fact that my JMicron controller didn't have the correct driver installed or something. Stupid JMicron why does there have to be a driver for any OS.. why can't you just be normal and work without a driver!?] His comment was something like "that wouldn't happen with a Mac" or something along those lines. While I like the guy and all it is just statements like that that seem to irk me.

I give it to OS X that it is better than Windows out of the box multimedia-wise, but Windows can be made just as good by buying some software with the $500-1000 you saved by getting a PC.

sorry for my rant but my main point is that while OS X is a good OS (from what I have heard.. as I have not yet used one) I do not want to support Apple's way of marketing a technologically superior lifestyle by buying it and their overly expensive hardware.

As I do not know much about Macs.. could someone inform me as to what things you cannot upgrade with them? I have heard that you cannot upgrade them but I have also heard of people putting extra RAM in theirs.

again sorry for the rant as it is a tad long

[Henry Rayker]

Problems with Windows OSes (at least my problems):
1) Security. This is the biggest issue, in my opinion. The amount of effort they put into security is, in my opinion, pitiful. Granted, I haven't seen the "amazing new improvements to security" that Vista promises...but I think basing my judgment on Windows 98, ME and XP is relatively fair.
2) Hardware requirements - it would really be nice if you could just use a "light" version of Vista on older hardware, for example...
3) Windows ME. I hold this against Microsoft quite a lot. The OS was shipped pre-maturely, it was a totally horrible experience for anyone who has used it, and they knew it going out...just wanted the $$$
4) I don't like they way they have strong-armed their way into having their OS installed on almost every single major name computer.
5) They just plain steal stuff, and accuse others of doing the same to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: they have patents on things that first appeared in open source software and everyone knows it. However, they accuse Linux distros of IP infringement without any whiff of evidence.
6) They rely on the FUD mentioned in 5 as a business model.

I have fewer problems with Apple, but those are multiplying with every "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" commercial I see...Macs don't have to be upgraded when they upgrade the OS? How about Macs CAN'T be upgraded when they upgrade the OS. You can change the RAM yourself, you can install harddrives and optical drives (for the most part) but that's about where that sort of thing stops...want a new processor? The only place to get it is through Apple, and I don't really think they're selling. Your mobo fried? Take it to an Apple store.

[qamelian]

3) Windows ME. I hold this against Microsoft quite a lot. The OS was shipped pre-maturely, it was a totally horrible experience for anyone who has used it, and they knew it going out...just wanted the $$$
I always get a chuckle out of the complaints I hear about WinME. Strangely, ME was the most stable and usable version of Windows I ever owned. In fact, for most of the first year that I had XP, I seriously considered going back to ME because it handled my multimedia needs (audio and video production and restoration) better than XP!

All my A/V work is done on Linux now though.

[Trebuchet]

I believe anyone in these forums would agree that Windows is a pretty lousy operating system, but I don't hear the same complaints about OS X.I don't agree XP is a lousy operating system, although I'm prepared to concede the point on 95/98/Me. I've found XP to be very stable and the lockup problems I used to get with 98SE are a thing of the past.

Macs' biggest advantage is that it's an OS for the technically ignorant even more so than Windows. It's designed for ease of use for complete novices. Indeed, despite its current ad blitz it's largest user demographic is (surprise!) the 55+ crowd, not hip young things. More technically savvy users are using XP or various open source OSs like Linux. It's biggest disadvantage is its high prices. And like it or not, gamers pretty much have to go with Windows at this point in time.

The danger to Microsoft with this situation is that it might be squeezed from both ends; with Mac OS X and its successors taking the high $$$ users and Linux/BSD distros taking the lower end simply because their cost is minimal. All Windows has to offer is its installed base and relative ease of use, and that might not be enough to hold customers as Linux distros start approaching and surpassing Windows in functionality for everyday tasks such as word processing, web browsing, and playing music or videos. (I'll discount the security issues for the most part for two reasons: 1) They're not really on Joe Average's radar; and 2) Microsoft is clearly trying hard to improve their security, and while they're not there yet I think they'll get there pretty soon so that won't be a significant issue in the not-too-distant future.) Gaming will remain Linux's one major weakspot.

[rsambuca]

Indeed, despite its current ad blitz it's largest user demographic is (surprise!) the 55+ crowd, not hip young things.

Where did you get this from?

[madcow72]

Personal opinions aside, though, I see nothing inherently wrong with the new Mac campaign of "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC." From a business perspective, it's quite effective and will sell a lot of Macs for Apple. Everyone does what they need to survive and I think Apple's ad campaign is accomplishing that task for them. Honestly though, what would be so different if the word "Ubuntu" was swapped out for the word "Mac" in those commercials? The campaign does more to smear Windows than to promote Apple. It's just that most consumers only know 2 options, and if Windows isn't it, then Apple is all that's left.

However, I think that Henry Rayker does bring a couple good complaints about Apple and the consumer's reliance upon their hardware. Consumers should understand that there is a choice beyond the proprietary OS that comes pre-installed on their nifty new razzle-dazzle PC - despite the warnings and discouragement from the manufacturers that no other system or hardware can be guaranteed to work with their computer. Choice is ultimately what the open-source community is all about, I think, and that should be advertised.

[aysiu]

Honestly though, what would be so different if the word "Ubuntu" was swapped out for the word "Mac" in those commercials? The campaign does more to smear Windows than to promote Apple. It's just that most consumers only know 2 options, and if Windows isn't it, then Apple is all that's left. The Mac commercials are overly smug and... lie. It's one thing to embellish or exaggerate, but the things Mac faults Windows for aren't even true. I mean, there are things wrong with Windows, but working with peripherals--uh, more peripherals work with Windows than with Mac; mainly because hardware manufacturers are always sure to include Windows drivers with palms, printers, MP3 players, etc. In fact, even Apple provides Windows-compatibility with its iPods. You are not more creative on a Mac. Mac has a lot of the same programs Windows has. Anyone who can be creative with Photoshop on Mac can also be creative with Photoshop on Windows.

And, no, I wouldn't approve a Ubuntu commercial that spent all its energies bashing Windows. In fact, there was quite an extensive discussion (not sure if anything came out of it) of a possible Ubuntu commercial (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=41771), and the general consensus was on having the focus be on Ubuntu's strengths and not Windows' weaknesses.

[Trebuchet]

Where did you get this from?Metafacts reports on the age demographics of the customers of various computer manufacturers, including Apple.

According to their 2006 Home PC Brand Profile Report, nearly half (46%) of Apple's user base is 55 and older, with only 25% of PC users being over 55.

Here's the Metafacts URL for the article; which I found mentioned on Mac Rumors: http://www.metafacts.com/pages/media/tupan06_announce_061129.htm

I didn't realize it was nearly half; I just remembered it was their single largest demographic.

[rsambuca]

Wow! I always take stats like this with a grain of salt, but I assume they must be somewhat close. I would never have imagined those demographics:shock:

[billdotson]

Ubuntu commercial sounds awesome.. it really needs to be done and it should not be done to bash ANY other OS, but to promote it's own good things.

[Henry Rayker]

The problems I have with the Mac commercials are the downright lies.

I've seen a TON of Dells that came pre-installed with a camera in the laptop...same with some monitors (my mom's flatscreen from Dell has a camera).

Macs just aren't upgradeable...if your hardware won't run the new OS, you need a new machine, plain and simple (not 100% always the case with a Windows machine).

I'm sure there are others, but I'm soo sleepy and have a rough pair of exams in the morning -.-''

[rsambuca]

I kinda think you guys are taking the ads waaaaaaay to seriously! They are done with the tongue very firmly planted in the cheek. I think the latest one with the "confirm or deny" UAC guy is absolutely hilarious:lol:

By the way, I read that the "mac-guy" will be replaced in the next set of commercials. Apparently focus groups indicated that the majority of average viewers related more closely with the PC guy than the mac guy, and thought the mac guy was a little too pompous.

[sultanoswing]

FWIW, I'm looking at buying a Macbook laptop in the next 6 months. Reasons (in no particular order):

1) I loathe having to pay for Windows Vista on the laptop, when I won't be accepting the EULA (the 'MS tax') - then I'll have to jump through hoops to get the money back, if at all. I know the Mac comes with 'OSX' installed, but that's been the situation with Apples since the Apple I, oh, and I'll actually use OSX (in addition to Linux, of course).

2) The Core 2 Duo models, at least here in New Zealand, are VERY well priced compared with generic (Toshiba, Compaq, Dell, Acer et al.) laptops. $2000 NZD for the Core 2 Duo 13" models, which is actually the cheapest Core 2 Duos I can find (although the other brands do have larger screens). http://www.noelleeming.co.nz/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&categoryId=16151&crumb=10005-10180-16151

3) Whatever the DRM stuff that Apple is doing, it pales in comparison to that built-in to Vista. And some people say Apple dictates what can and can't be done with their machines?! At least with iTunes and iPods I can still rip my own mp3's without resorting to proprietary formats, and it won't degrade the quality of the final playback a la Vista.

4) Who cares about the ads or the 'culture'.... let's harden up and get some thicker skins, people!

[3rdalbum]

3) Whatever the DRM stuff that Apple is doing, it pales in comparison to that built-in to Vista. And some people say Apple dictates what can and can't be done with their machines?! At least with iTunes and iPods I can still rip my own mp3's without resorting to proprietary formats, and it won't degrade the quality of the final playback a la Vista.


What you mean is, it doesn't CURRENTLY degrade the quality of the final playback. When there is protected high definition content available, Apple will face a choice:

1. Become unable to access HD content, lose a lot of money and convince people to stick with Windows
2. Implement Vista's DRM/TC protection scheme to "catch up" to Windows.

When Apple makes the choice, it will surprise many Macintosh fans, but it won't surprise the studios.

[3rdalbum]

That's not really a fair comparison, though, for 2 reasons: I believe anyone in these forums would agree that Windows is a pretty lousy operating system, but I don't hear the same complaints about OS X.

That's because the people who use OS X are using it because they like it. The people who use Linux are using it because they like it, and therefore they're not going to describe it as a "lousy" operating system.

There are quite a few people who have used OS X and found it wanting.

[madcow72]

I said this: Honestly though, what would be so different if the word "Ubuntu" was swapped out for the word "Mac" in those commercials?

aysiu responded: And, no, I wouldn't approve a Ubuntu commercial that spent all its energies bashing Windows.

I realize my comment was misleading the way I wrote it. I meant to make the point that the Mac commercials are somewhat generic and one could almost replace "Mac" with "OS Anything." That Apple is relying on the general public's knowledge of only 2 choices for OS so that by bashing the one, people will be inclined toward the other. The general public doesn't know that there are at least tens of other good choices of OS out there.

Honestly, I think that most people never question their OS enough to even look into the alternatives personally. If an alternative is proposed in some humorous way while watching their favorite TV show, perhaps they'll listen, but who would actually pay for prime-time advertising of open source OS's?

[aysiu]

but who would actually pay for prime-time advertising of open source OS's? Two years ago, Firefox advocates raised money to put a two-page-spread advertisement in The New York Times (http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-12-15.html). That can't have been cheap.

[madcow72]

Two years ago, Firefox advocates raised money to put a two-page-spread advertisement in The New York Times (http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-12-15.html). That can't have been cheap.

That is cool isn't it?! It'd be very neat to raise the funds to do the same thing for a commercial for Linux. I don't actually watch TV, but I think video advertising is still about the most effective form of advertising.

[konungursvia]

I absolutely love linux. But, next computer I buy will be a Mac. This old Dell is my last pc.

[Alfa989]

Macs just aren't upgradeable...if your hardware won't run the new OS, you need a new machine, plain and simple (not 100% always the case with a Windows machine).


Have you ever had a Mac? :)
I you got a Mac,, you don't need to upgrade to run a new Mac OS X version, just put more RAM in it (just if you want) and upgrade to the new one...

The latest version of Mac OS X (Tiger), can even run on a 233 Mhz G3... and that was released circa 1997... A 10 year old machine... :)

[Polygon]

Have you ever had a Mac? :)
I you got a Mac,, you don't need to upgrade to run a new Mac OS X version, just put more RAM in it (just if you want) and upgrade to the new one...

The latest version of Mac OS X (Tiger), can even run on a 233 Mhz G3... and that was released circa 1997... A 10 year old machine... :)

very very very slowly however. And are you sure its tiger? cause my info tech teacher has one of the old school translucent plastic power books, and he says you can only install 10.3 on it

[null0]

it seems everyone is missing the real point in the Macintosh technology. I agree it's elitist, and way too expensive, but the real reason why (intelligent) people buy mac is that mac IS multimedia. It's (allegedly) the best multimedia platform out there, for audio/video/3d production. I'm not into multimedia myself, but i always heard about the extraordinary performance of mac on those topics. hell, most of the BEST professional multimedia tools out there are mac native, most of them don't even have ports for windows or linux.
I think their price is justifiable due to their orientation to multimedia business. it's not meant for domestic users. And c'mon they give you quality in all their products.
And about the original question of this thread, why not make osx x86 compatible? That would just totally miss their point, and be a direct shot in the foot.

[3rdalbum]

The latest version of Mac OS X (Tiger), can even run on a 233 Mhz G3... and that was released circa 1997... A 10 year old machine... :)

That would be one big Frankenmac. System requirements for Mac OS X Tiger:

# Macintosh computer with a PowerPC G3, G4 or G5 processor
# Built-in FireWire
# DVD drive for installation

The 233 MHz G3 tower or iMac does not come with Firewire. Neither does the 333 MHz iMac, and neither does the 350 MHz iMac. None of those machines comes with a DVD drive, although you could fit one to the tower - no idea if the OpenFirmware would be able to boot from a DVD drive considering that they weren't available from Apple or Sun at the time.

It may be theoretically possible to run OS X Tiger on a 10 year old Mac, but I've got a 7.5 year old Mac that cannot run it without some SERIOUS hardware hacking, such as would not be recommended by Apple.

[Alfa989]

The 233 MHz G3 tower or iMac does not come with Firewire. Neither does the 333 MHz iMac, and neither does the 350 MHz iMac. None of those machines comes with a DVD drive, although you could fit one to the tower - no idea if the OpenFirmware would be able to boot from a DVD drive considering that they weren't available from Apple or Sun at the time.

Yo can install it with Xposfacto (http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/), which works great!


It may be theoretically possible to run OS X Tiger on a 10 year old Mac, but I've got a 7.5 year old Mac that cannot run it without some SERIOUS hardware hacking, such as would not be recommended by Apple.

What Mac have you got?

[Alfa989]

very very very slowly however. And are you sure its tiger? cause my info tech teacher has one of the old school translucent plastic power books, and he says you can only install 10.3 on it

Yo can with Xpostfacto... (http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/) :)

[Alfa989]

I agree it's elitist, and way too expensive.

Elitist and expensive? What are you talking about? I bought my Mac not to be "different", I did it because I could do thing that Windows or Linux can't...

Expensive? Just give me a laptop with the exact same specs as the MacBook and it will have around the same price... :)

[aysiu]

Elitist and expensive? What are you talking about? I bought my Mac not to be "different", I did it because I could do thing that Windows or Linux can't...

Expensive? Just give me a laptop with the exact same specs as the MacBook and it will have around the same price... :) Nice try.

The default Macbook has these specs and is US$1099:
* 1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256
* 60GB Serial ATA drive @ 5400 rpm
* Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
* Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
* AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth I took a Dell Inspiron and tried my best to match the specs (couldn't get them exactly), and you get better specs on a Dell for a cheaper price (US$1049): Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7200 (2.00GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB)
FREE Upgrade to Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium with 1GB of memory
14.1 inch Wide Screen XGA Display
1GB DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2 Dimm
80GB Sata Hard Drive
FREE! 8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950
Integrated Audio
My Accessories
53 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
Dell Wireless 1390b/g (54Mbps)
The dell is $50 cheaper. Both have an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, but the Dell is 2.0 GHz, and the Macbook is 1.83 GHz. The Dell has 1 GB of RAM, and the Macbook has 512 MB of RAM. The Dell has an 80 GB hard drive, and the Macbook has a 60 GB hard drive. The Dell has a free upgrade to a DVD burner, and the Macbook gives you only a CD burner.

You're wrong, I'm afraid.

Now, it's true that Macs are not as outrageously expensive as they used to be, but they still are expensive--both in the sense of being comparatively expensive (for similar specs) and in the sense of just being expensive (regardless of value for the price). Even if you're not trying to match specs, the cheapest Mac laptop you can get is $1000. The cheapest Windows-based laptop can be as cheap is around $500.

You could argue that for the same specs, they're the same price (which I've just shown not to be the case), but even if we assume that to be true, sometimes people don't want to pay $1000, no matter how good a value it is. They just want email and a web browser. Why would you pay $1000 for that if you can pay $500?

And the idea of Mac users being elitist isn't about all its users being elitist--it's about Apple trying to create a culture of elitism (just look at the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads). You, as a customer, do not need to buy into that culture, but the culture does exist, some Apple customers do buy into it, and Apple encourages the growth of a such a snobby culture.

[billdotson]

I agree w/ the poster that said that Macs are for professional multimedia applications and you sir are correct in that. Macs are in fact very good at multimedia.

The way Apple sells their products as a fashion trend, fad, or a buy in to some culture is what is disturbing to me. The iPod is a major hit and it is a major fad IMO.. and even though it does what it is supposed to I have seen other mp3 players that are less restrictive w/ DRM and seem much better than the iPod e.g. the Sansa Sandisk Connect http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Catalog(1230)-SanDisk_Sansa_Connect_MP3_Player.aspx
and some others like the Creative Zen Vision:M http://reviews.cnet.com/Creative_Zen_Vision_M_30GB_black/4505-6490_7-31632696.html?tag=lst

I know these players do not have deals in place to have it where you can buy TV shows and movies that you can play on them but with a DVD recorder or TV tuner and a video editor you can record the shows you want and transfer them to the player.

As I do not buy into fads, am not out enough where I have to have my music with me everywhere and I do not see the reason to spend that much money on an mp3 player like: $250 for a 60GB iPod, $190 for a 4GB nano, or $80 for a new shuffle. I just do not use mp3 players and really have no reason to use them. Granted there are other mp3/mp4 players that just as expensive but the iPods cost more on average because they are a popular commodity.

As for Macs I know they are better at multimedia but it seems that Apple markets their computers and other products similar to the iPod by making them seem as the "cool", "hip" or "trendy" thing to do. They also cost more which reasonably makes sense as Apple makes money on hardware and can tell people it is mainly for the better quality parts in the Macs but PCs can be tweaked by buying certain apps that make them just as useful for a normal person i.e. not a multimedia professional .. I know someone who's Mac crashed and they lost all their data, music.. everything. Just watch these Mac vs. PC commercial and see what I am saying about the "hip" persona they push with the Macs.

Mac guy about how Macs have built in webcams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZByDkSuY5c
by the way some PCs come with webcams in them as well-

Mac and PC exchanging gifts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgIb0xBQhk&NR
Blatant stereotype of the nerd doing C++ while the cool Mac guy makes photo albums. Btw learning C++ GUI programming = much much more useful in the long run and fun.. once you actually learn how to do it.

I found some PC lashes back videos that I think are good. links below:

These aren't entirely accurate but neither are the Apple ads so..

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2820132

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2820409

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2820408

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2820407?loomia_si=1

[Alfa989]

Nice try.
The default Macbook has these specs and is US$1099: I took a Dell Inspiron and tried my best to match the specs (couldn't get them exactly), and you get better specs on a Dell for a cheaper price (US$1049): The dell is $50 cheaper. Both have an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, but the Dell is 2.0 GHz, and the Macbook is 1.83 GHz. The Dell has 1 GB of RAM, and the Macbook has 512 MB of RAM. The Dell has an 80 GB hard drive, and the Macbook has a 60 GB hard drive. The Dell has a free upgrade to a DVD burner, and the Macbook gives you only a CD burner.


Now add all of the software, a remote, a great webcam, a hard drive sensor, (probably) firewire ports... I said EXACT same specs, with all the things that come with it... :)

http://public.box.net/alfa989 (comparison.pdf)

[aysiu]

Well, the Macbook with 2.0 GHz, 1 GB of RAM, and a DVD burner is still $250 more expensive. What do you mean by "all of the software"? Safari? iLife? Can't be done. There is no exact same specs, of course. Convenient.

As I said before, though, even if what you're saying is true, you're still talking about value for the money... acknowledging that it is a lot of money. Macs are expensive. Whether you think it's worth the expense or not is a different story.

[Redache]

As I said before, though, even if what you're saying is true, you're still talking about value for the money... acknowledging that it is a lot of money. Macs are expensive. Whether you think it's worth the expense or not is a different story.

I think the main point to make here is that Mac's are usually better designed than a bog standard Dell. This could have a lengthy discussion on the way Mac's are just "flashy" and so on but I think everybody can concede the fact that they are well designed machines. The whole integration thing has worked well for Mac.

An iMac is basically an SFF PC, so the only real comparison you can make is to do a comparable check with an SFF PC and see what the prices are like.
I think what he meant by free software is the likes of DVD playback software, Media software and so on, which can become a game of semantics if we take into account the stuff Dell pre-install on their PC's.

Figure in the price of Hardware support from Dell, sometimes that can push the price of a Dell over the edge, whereas a two year warranty with Mac comes as standard (Although the choice with Dell is a recent change).

I think what we all have to remember is that Mac don't make PC's the same way as other companies.

The iMac as I said is a Small Form Factor PC, and is competitively priced on that scale.

MacBooks are obviously Laptops and are sometimes treated as if they're Desktop PC's. I've seen plenty of comparisons between a MacBook and a Dell XPS Desktop or whatever and I think it's just pointless. Another important note is screen size becomes less important when you're talking laptops. Smaller screen size = longer battery life. Granted there's some flashy stuff on a Macbook i.e. the Hard Drive motion sensor or the light sensitive back-lit keyboard.

Mac Pro's are workstations, NOT DESKTOPS, WORKSTATIONS. I can't stress that one enough. They're more like a high end IBM than a Gaming Dell. Mac Pro's aren't designed for gaming. They're designed for 3D rendering and other such Multimedia heroics. Granted that they don't always do it better than a PC, But Mac have earned that badge through years of Professional worship.

Photoshop can be used on a Windows PC. It used to run better on a Mac, since the switch to intel, Photoshop sucks on both.

So in my view, Apple make a certain product and they shouldn't be compared to PC's as both sides aim for different shares of the market currently.

[rsambuca]

Sorry Alfa, I know you love your machine and all, but everywhere I look, the mac is 15 % to 20% more for roughly the same specs. Personally I think they are fantastic machines for what they are designed to to, but yes, they are a little bit more expensive. All in all, not that big a deal.

[Alfa989]

What do you mean by "all of the software"? Safari? iLife? Can't be done.

iLife, Mac OS X (kind if if you put V Ultimate in it), etc...

[Alfa989]

Sorry Alfa, I know you love your machine and all, but everywhere I look, the mac is 15 % to 20% more for roughly the same specs. Personally I think they are fantastic machines for what they are designed to to, but yes, they are a little bit more expensive. All in all, not that big a deal.

I'd say more like 10%, but it doesn't matter anyway... Do I love my machine? Dunno, suppose not, how am I going to love a piece of metal? :D

P.S: Thanks again for the help!

[Macmania]

I have this arguement all the time with my family. They all have Windows PCs, two with XP SP2 and one with 2000 SP4. They say (especially my brothers) that OS X is hard to use and that you can't find anything on it very easily and that there are no programs or software available for it, you can't upgrade stuff, on and on. My computer is about a year old and so is my moms but I paid like $150-200 or something more for mine. Hers is a Dell Dimension with a P4 2.8ghz,5400 rpm 80gb hard drive, 512mb ram,cdrw drive, intel extreme graphics chip and XP SP2. I have an eMac PPC G4 1.42ghz, 7200 rpm 160 gb hard drive, 2gb ram, cd-dvd dual layer superdrive, Ati Radeon 9600 and OS X 10.4.8. My computer kicks the hell out of that Dell. It boots up way faster, opens programs way faster, surfs the web way faster and doesn't freeze up like my moms when I wake it from sleep mode. I have never had it freeze up, crash or do anything weird for that matter and I use it way more than my mom uses hers. I think my computer was worth the extra cost.

[3rdalbum]

Now add all of the software, a remote, a great webcam, a hard drive sensor, (probably) firewire ports... I said EXACT same specs, with all the things that come with it... :)

Yeah, and let's add in the Trusted Computing, vendor lock-in, manufacturing faults (are those machines manufacturered by Conia or something?!) and lackluster speed (my year-old entry-level desktop running Ubuntu was about thrice as fast restoring a VM snapshot as the latest Macbook with OS X).

My computer came with a lot of software, a monitor and Firewire port to boot; it was 3/5ths as expensive as the headless (and technically inferior) Mac Mini. I could have bought a webcam, 3 year warranty and a remote control and still paid less than the headless Mini. And it runs Ubuntu like no Mac ever has.

[Alfa989]

Yeah, and let's add in the Trusted Computing, vendor lock-in, manufacturing faults (are those machines manufacturered by Conia or something?!) and lackluster speed (my year-old entry-level desktop running Ubuntu was about thrice as fast restoring a VM snapshot as the latest Macbook with OS X).

My computer came with a lot of software, a monitor and Firewire port to boot; it was 3/5ths as expensive as the headless (and technically inferior) Mac Mini. I could have bought a webcam, 3 year warranty and a remote control and still paid less than the headless Mini. And it runs Ubuntu like no Mac ever has.

TCPM? It is only used so that OS X knows if that machine is a Mac or not...
Vendor lock-in? Just because Apple only allows installing Mac OS X in a Mac...
Manufacturing faults? Just like any other computer... Bot those others don't get as much attention...
Lackluster speed: Depends in what, for video editing, opening apps, browsing the net and lots of things more... OS X wins by far... BTW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQhpOJvYUo)
Lots of (good) software bundled with a PC?: Yeah, sure...

What are the specs of the PC?

[billdotson]

my argument is not that OS X is a good OS or not. OS X is a good OS. No doubt about it. It excels in multimedia apps and is more stable than a standard Windows install (granted if you have enough know-how you can make a Windows install pretty secure, although the average user doesn't want to spend time to learn how to do that.. so..)

The argument isn't about the quality of the hardware, as I do not know enough about the differences between the Mac hardware and standard Dell/IBM/HP PC hardware to make a good argument in that regard. Although, Macs appear to be more expensive in regards to both obvious price and in comparing system specifications. Maybe OS X just runs really fast on the Mac hardware because it is designed specifically to run on Mac hardware and Mac hardware only..?

The argument I take is that Apple's products are marketed as "hip", the "cool" thing to use/have, buy in's to elitist technology culture, and so on. That is the reason I do not support Apple by using any of their products. Although there are people that can look past the way the products are marketed and see that they are pretty good products I won't support them by buying said products. Even if the iPod is superior in every regard to other mp3/mp4 players or the latest Macbook is superior to the latest Dell laptop as long as the iPod and Macbooks are advertised as "flashy and sleek" and the "cool", "hip", etc. thing to do I won't be buying them.

In technical terms of the new Mac architecture it is the most versatile architecture. I do not know about it's actual technicial advantages/disadvantages over another architecture but in terms of versatility for OSes it can run GNU/Linux, Windows and OS X. It would be kind of cool to have 3 OSes on one PC but the only logical reason I would have for doing such a thing is to use OS X for intense multimedia work, Windows for PC games and the other apps you can't replace on another OS and GNU/Linux for everything else. Although lately I have been using Ubuntu and it can do all the multimedia stuff I need it to.. granted I do not do much more than cut commercials out of recorded TV shows and encode the shows as an avi-contained xVid, so you really couldn't say I do "intense" multimedia work.

Although in terms of an OS my current preferences are for GNU/Linux. Give me Linux and apart from comercial PC games I can do anything I need to... for free.

[3rdalbum]

TCPM? It is only used so that OS X knows if that machine is a Mac or not...

And TPMs with Windows Vista are currently only used for Bitlocker... but neither thing really needs a TPM chip. I'm worried about the future uses of the thing!

Vendor lock-in? Just because Apple only allows installing Mac OS X in a Mac...

Try using iWork's file formats in OOo, or try putting a Garageband project into a real music composition program; the formats are not open, effectively tying you to the Apple platform. I couldn't care less about the hardware - I'm not interested in running a slow operating system on my PC.

Manufacturing faults? Just like any other computer... Bot those others don't get as much attention...

I think there's more to it than that, actually.

Lackluster speed: Depends in what, for video editing, opening apps, browsing the net and lots of things more... OS X wins by far...

You say "wins by far". Compared to what? Windows with anti-virus installed? Well, anything is going to be faster than Windows with a security suite. My father is a typesetter, and currently uses Macs and PCs at his various workplaces, with the same programs on both platforms. On both the latest Macintels and some year-old PPCs, performance in Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop is significantly less than on a 2-year-old Win XP Pro PC.

A couple of years ago I also did some Flash and 3D rendering. Let's just say, there's a reason why the rendering is done on Linux rather than Mac. Being able to output directly to Windows and Mac executables was a nice feature on the Mac, but these days the Windows version can do that too.

What are the specs of the PC?

1.8GHz Sempron 64 processor (running 32-bit Ubuntu Dapper). Single core.
1.25 gigabytes of RAM
7200RPM hard drive (I imagine the hard drive is the strong point over the Macbook, but I don't think my machine's system bus is really very speedy).

I was running Virtualbox, which I gather is a bit slower than Parallels.

[Alfa989]

And TPMs with Windows Vista are currently only used for Bitlocker... but neither thing really needs a TPM chip. I'm worried about the future uses of the thing!

Do you think that the guys at Apple are so stupid that they would do it?? And if it happens I can always install Ubuntu...

Try using iWork's file formats in OOo, or try putting a Garageband project into a real music composition program; the formats are not open, effectively tying you to the Apple platform. I couldn't care less about the hardware - I'm not interested in running a slow operating system on my PC.

[sarcasm] OMG! I can't open .odt files in Windows Notepad!!! OpenOffice sucks!!!! [sarcasm/]
So are you saying just because an app can't open other app's files it means that ties you to that specific company or developer?? Stop dreaming...

You say "wins by far". Compared to what? Windows with anti-virus installed? Well, anything is going to be faster than Windows with a security suite. My father is a typesetter, and currently uses Macs and PCs at his various workplaces, with the same programs on both platforms. On both the latest Macintels and some year-old PPCs, performance in Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop is significantly less than on a 2-year-old Win XP Pro PC.

Compared with Ubuntu... And about the perforomance, that bull****. Just make some benchmarks to "prove it"...


1.8GHz Sempron 64 processor (running 32-bit Ubuntu Dapper). Single core.
1.25 gigabytes of RAM
7200RPM hard drive (I imagine the hard drive is the strong point over the Macbook, but I don't think my machine's system bus is really very speedy).

And the software? built-in camera? SMS? Magsafe? Magnetic latch?...

[rsambuca]

Come on, guys. Let's all calm down here and stick to the forum rules of ettiquette please.

[3rdalbum]

[sarcasm] OMG! I can't open .odt files in Windows Notepad!!! OpenOffice sucks!!!! [sarcasm/]
So are you saying just because an app can't open other app's files it means that ties you to that specific company or developer?? Stop dreaming...

I thought all open-source users know this about proprietry formats? Are you an open-source user?

Mate, let me explain this to you. If I have a bunch of documents that I've written in Openoffice, and I decide that I want to switch over to the Abiword software instead, I can convert the existing files. If I wanted to switch to some kind of TeX-based package, if there's not a converter available already, I can hire someone to write a converter - as Opendocument is an open specification.

In this way, I have the ability to migrate my documents to another platform. Even switching from Linux to Windows wouldn't destroy my ability to work with the existing documents.

However, if I was using Garageband, and I decided to switch to Windows and buy a proper music composition program, that's where my problems would start. Garageband's file format is not open, so no other programs have the ability to open its files, and no converters exist. Converters for closed formats require reverse-engineering and it would be very costly to hire someone to reverse-engineer the format. If I want to continue working with my documents, I must still have a copy of Garageband. If I've still got to have Garageband, I've still got to have a Mac. And if I've still got to have a Mac, then it would just be easier to stick with the Mac and keep up with Apple's upgrade cycle.

See? Vendor lock-in. Apple does it, Microsoft does it.

Or, to use a simpler example: Imagine you have songs downloaded from the iTunes Music Store. But your iPod breaks, and you decide to try one of those brilliant tiny iRiver MP3 players. There's a problem though: Fairplay is not an open specification, so your existing music won't work on the new MP3 player. It's intended to be a lot of hassle to switch MP3 players, so you decide to get another iPod.

See? Vendor lock-in. Apple does it. Apple is not the only company that does it, but it is as bad as any other company.

And the software? built-in camera? SMS? Magsafe? Magnetic latch?...

Show me the built-in camera on the Mac Mini. Show me the Magsafe and magnetic latch on the Mini. I've got an entry-level DESKTOP computer here. No-name brand DVD recorders tend to have support for all sorts of video files, and come with USB ports for flash drives and very easy-to-use interfaces. That definately doesn't make them better than the more spartan, reliable Samsungs or LGs.

I don't really remember what software came with the computer. I do video digitising so I stripped all the non-essentials out ot the Windows partition. It was a fair bit though - MS Works, a DVD authoring package, an out-of-the-box experience like SUSE's 5th disc... whatever else there was, I remember it freed up gigabytes of room when I deleted it :-)

[Alfa989]

Mate, let me explain this to you. If I have a bunch of documents that I've written in Openoffice, and I decide that I want to switch over to the Abiword software instead, I can convert the existing files. If I wanted to switch to some kind of TeX-based package, if there's not a converter available already, I can hire someone to write a converter - as Opendocument is an open specification.

In this way, I have the ability to migrate my documents to another platform. Even switching from Linux to Windows wouldn't destroy my ability to work with the existing documents.

However, if I was using Garageband, and I decided to switch to Windows and buy a proper music composition program, that's where my problems would start. Garageband's file format is not open, so no other programs have the ability to open its files, and no converters exist. Converters for closed formats require reverse-engineering and it would be very costly to hire someone to reverse-engineer the format. If I want to continue working with my documents, I must still have a copy of Garageband. If I've still got to have Garageband, I've still got to have a Mac. And if I've still got to have a Mac, then it would just be easier to stick with the Mac and keep up with Apple's upgrade cycle.

See? Vendor lock-in. Apple does it, Microsoft does it.

Or, to use a simpler example: Imagine you have songs downloaded from the iTunes Music Store. But your iPod breaks, and you decide to try one of those brilliant tiny iRiver MP3 players. There's a problem though: Fairplay is not an open specification, so your existing music won't work on the new MP3 player. It's intended to be a lot of hassle to switch MP3 players, so you decide to get another iPod.

See? Vendor lock-in. Apple does it. Apple is not the only company that does it, but it is as bad as any other company.

Well... I prefer developers worrying about making easy-to-use, reliable and good software than having to care about interoperatibility...

Show me the built-in camera on the Mac Mini. Show me the Magsafe and magnetic latch on the Mini. I've got an entry-level DESKTOP computer here. No-name brand DVD recorders tend to have support for all sorts of video files, and come with USB ports for flash drives and very easy-to-use interfaces. That definately doesn't make them better than the more spartan, reliable Samsungs or LGs.

I don't really remember what software came with the computer. I do video digitising so I stripped all the non-essentials out ot the Windows partition. It was a fair bit though - MS Works, a DVD authoring package, an out-of-the-box experience like SUSE's 5th disc... whatever else there was, I remember it freed up gigabytes of room when I deleted it :-)

I though we were talking about the MacBook, or was that in another thread? :confused:

[Alfa989]

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/6417/zz700a2a4fdd6.th.png (http://img115.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zz700a2a4fdd6.png)

Taking in consideration that the Mini has got a much powerful processor, beter design and better multimedia capabilities... We all know who wins...

[stchman]

A quick question: Why do people purchase Macs and then delete OSX to install Linux? When you've paid that much money, why not stick with OSX (FreeBSD)?

If we get right down to it the only reason to buy a Mac is to get OS X. Look at the hardware they have:

Core2Duo Processors
DDR2 667 RAM
Serial ATA Hard drives
Glossy widescreen displays
SuperDrives (Appletalk for DVD burner)
Airport (Appletalk for 802.11g wireless)
ATI Mobility Radeon graphics cards (IMO nvidia makes better graphics cards for laptops)

You can go to Dell, Gateway, HP, Toshiba, etc. and get the SAME equipment. Apple says they use better quality hardware, RUBBISH. You can get laptops with built in video cameras as well. All this for about $1000 less.

From a hardware standpoint Macs are equivalent to a PC. You are paying for thier cool looks, hip commercials, and the aura that you are using a hip cool elitist laptop/desktop.

So the morale of the story, if you are going to buy a Mac/MacBook and wipe the drive to run linux get a Windows equipped system and install linux. You will save a bundle.

[madcow72]

So the morale of the story, if you are going to buy a Mac/MacBook and wipe the drive to run linux get a Windows equipped system and install linux. You will save a bundle.

Thanks, stchman. That's basically how I saw it, but was curious if there were reasons (to be supplied by Mac-Linux users) that I was missing.

[billdotson]

yeah hardware wise you might as well get a PC, especially if you are going to use Linux. OS X is the ONLY reason to get a Mac IMO. If OS X didn't only run on the Mac Intel architecutre or the PPC there would be alot of people that would just buy OS X and put it on their PC. Personally I still wouldn't because I don't like the way Apple advertises their products but I am sure many people would want OS X over windows.

[the.dark.lord]

Or is Apple so obsessed with their hip image of having the sleek, cool looking computer that matches the cool, sleek iPods they are unwilling to change?

Yep.

[3rdalbum]

Taking in consideration that the Mini has got a much powerful processor, beter design and better multimedia capabilities... We all know who wins...

My computer was introduced in September 2005, so compare the Mini from that date and you'll find that my machine comes out on top. I'm a pragmatist. I installed a second optical drive inside my computer - very useful. Do that with any Mini, and then I'll admit that it has "better design". I can upgrade the processor in my computer, too.

You don't seem to care about interoperability, until you find a website or web service that doesn't work on Macs.

[billdotson]

I am going to keep my mouth shut in terms of how you cannot upgrade Macs or not because I do not know.. but I have heard that it is nearly impossible to build your own Mac because there are a few vital parts like CPU fans that are simply not available.

[jincast90]

I am going to keep my mouth shut in terms of how you cannot upgrade Macs or not because I do not know.. but I have heard that it is nearly impossible to build your own Mac because there are a few vital parts like CPU fans that are simply not available.

Even if you could, according to Apples EULA you are not allowed to install mac os x on anything but a "normal" mac.

[billdotson]

I personally do not think OS X will ever be as big as Windows because of Apple's Mac-only restriction. Not everyone wants to spend more $ to get a "superior" piece of Mac hardware.. they just want a computer that works well.. so they are really buying a Mac just for OS X. Although if OS X did run on normal PCs it would be buggier (as I have heard) because it would have to be programmed for more types of hardware instead of the Mac-certified hardware.

It is kind of a middle-of-the-road thing.. if Apple let OS X run on x86 they would lose money on hardware sales but then they could get pre-install deals (possibly) w/ Dell, HP, etc. and get OS X adopted en masse. If they keep OS X on only official Mac hardware they are going to keep raking in the hardware $ but they won't get as many popular applications as Windows has. Overall I think Apple is pretty happy where they are.. they made a considerable amount of money off of hardware and do not really care about OS X adopted en masse. As I do not really like Apple because of their products being marketed as "hip" I would say they want to stay where they are because if everyone was running OS X it wouldn't be "cool" anymore. That is just my opinion.

[manmower]

Regarding the original question I think it is a simple marketing trick. The higher price makes you think you are getting more/better quality. Lowering the price would be admitting they are not "superior" if you know what I mean.

[fedrik]

It may be the fear of PIRACY. Since it won't be worth of buying, so everyone will just pirate it.

[Alfa989]

Do that with any Mini, and then I'll admit that it has "better design". I can upgrade the processor in my computer, too.

You can upgrade a mini's processor too...

You don't seem to care about interoperability, until you find a website or web service that doesn't work on Macs.

I DO care about it, but geez, if we had to make every app compatible with all the others of the same kind...

[Kalixa]

You can upgrade a mini's processor too...
of the same kind...

If I remember right the mini's processor is soldered to the motherboard. (Don't hit me if this isn't true). So you might be able to upgrade it, but it will be damn hard.

[Alfa989]

If I remember right the mini's processor is soldered to the motherboard. (Don't hit me if this isn't true). So you might be able to upgrade it, but it will be damn hard.

http://hdtv.o0o.it/mini/

The soldered processor was only in the G4 Mini... :)

[maddog39]

I dont understand what the big hype is really with OSX86. You can easily go and download OpenDarwin or FreeBSD 5, get on your mac (x86), copy the libraries for Cocoa and the such onto your OpenDarwin or FreeBSD machine in the appropriate spot, and if need be symlink the broken system links that OSX uses. I mean thats not as simple as I prolly make it out to be. But its a theory.

[billdotson]

so what.. you can copy the OS X system files over to an open-source darwin kernel.. what??

[Kalixa]

http://hdtv.o0o.it/mini/

The soldered processor was only in the G4 Mini... :)

Ok. My bad, sorry about that.

[3rdalbum]

I dont understand what the big hype is really with OSX86. You can easily go and download OpenDarwin or FreeBSD 5, get on your mac (x86), copy the libraries for Cocoa and the such onto your OpenDarwin or FreeBSD machine in the appropriate spot, and if need be symlink the broken system links that OSX uses. I mean thats not as simple as I prolly make it out to be. But its a theory.

Nice theory, but it would need more hacking than the OSX86 project. For starters, FreeBSD is not Darwin, so it wouldn't work as a drop-in replacement. Secondly, the "open-source" Darwin isn't the same as the Mac OS X Darwin. Thirdly, you've got worse hardware compatibility with the "open-source" kernel. Fourthly, you've still got to convince the system that you have a TPM chip. Fifthly, OpenDarwin is notorious for being hard to build, and it requires closed-source binaries anyway (hence the reason why I put the quotes around the phrase Open-source).

[izanbardprince]

I think that Apple don't make theirs Macs cheaper because they use quality hardware, the design cost a lot and they want to make money with their computers. And they don't make OS X capable to run on x86 because they will sell less computer in this case: People have the ergonomy of Mac with a x86 and Apple earn less.

I'd hardly call their hardware high quality, I could go get an eMachine at Wal-Mart with hardware that would run rings around your basic iMac, the only thing Apple really has going for them is the strangle hold on OS X, so they can charge outrageous prices for their mid-grade hardware.

[Alfa989]

I could go get an eMachine at Wal-Mart with hardware that would run rings around your basic iMac.

Show me... If you can... :D

[izanbardprince]

Show me... If you can... :D

Your basic iMac is about $1,000 and has an integrated Intel GMA 950, 512 megs of RAM, and a 1.8 Ghz Core 2.

[steve101101]

because macs rip you off and give you tons and tons of restrictions.

[Redache]

Your basic iMac is about $1,000 and has an integrated Intel GMA 950, 512 megs of RAM, and a 1.8 Ghz Core 2.

I've said it once and I'll say it again,

Show me a MEDIA CENTRE PC with exactly the same specs for the same price.

That Emachines you'd be buying will have A Monitor, Desktop unit, Speakers, Keyboard, Mouse....

an Imac has a Monitor, Speakers, Keyboard and Mouse.

STOP comparing Imac's to normal desktops because they are bloody Small Form Factor PC's.

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by Redache
I've said it once and I'll say it again,

Show me a MEDIA CENTRE PC with exactly the same specs for the same price.

That Emachines you'd be buying will have A Monitor, Desktop unit, Speakers, Keyboard, Mouse....

an Imac has a Monitor, Speakers, Keyboard and Mouse.

STOP comparing Imac's to normal desktops because they are bloody Small Form Factor PC's.

The iMac is a small form factor pc, but how is it a media center pc? Checking the spec page (http://www.apple.com/ca/imac/specs.html), it looks like only the most expensive have TV out. What do you mean by 'media center pc'?

I'll give it the small form factor bit, though.

[Alfa989]

Checking the spec page (http://www.apple.com/ca/imac/specs.html), it looks like only the most expensive have TV out.

They all have a mini-DVI out... And yes, iMacs, like all modern Macs are media centers... (except the Mac Pro)...

[Alfa989]

because macs rip you off and give you tons and tons of restrictions.

Like what?

[xplizid]

The better question is why dont they release a mid range mac desktop. imac i wouldnt consider much buying too hard to work on with no upgrade options. reasons for not distributing the osx discs for pc is of course sales would plumit the os is designed to be specific with certain hardware so only apple technicians can work on, also for better functionality and also say sum1 distributes the copy of osx around the net there is no validation required aka genuine cd key (although prolly get hacked neways). i have tried the hackint0sh scene and i for one can say its really not difficult at all to do - at this point theres kexts and hacks for a lot of the hardware out there and is no different than loading the drivers you need for windows - actually is easier installing the neccessary files to run a hackintosh than for me to get my hardware to work on windows go figure.