How Mac is similar to Linux...

[aysiu]

In light of our family's recent purchase of a G4 Powerbook (less than a year ago), I thought of some things Mac and Linux have in common...

Things Mac OS X and Linux have in common

Both *nix-based

Limited hardware support (my wife and I were very careful when buying a printer to find one with Mac support)

Limited software/gaming support (my wife was very sad when all her Sims games wouldn't work on Mac and Sims 2 took forever to be ported to Mac)

Minority desktop marketshare (single or double digits)

Often compared to Windows

Basic operation requires you to think different(ly) from Windows

Users don't run as root by default

Both can work on PPC architecture (well, at least for the next year or so)

Both can use Linux software (Mac via Fink/X11)

Things Mac OS X and Linux don't have in common

You can pick up a Mac OS X-preloaded computer at Best Buy

Almost everyone knows what you're talking about if you mentioned Mac or Apple

No one ever complains that Mac isn't "ready for the desktop"

Linux is open source

Linux has more variety

[macgyver2]

Limited hardware support (my wife and I were very careful when buying a printer to find one with Mac support)
If I may inquire, what did you end up buying?

[xequence]

You can pick up a Mac OS X-preloaded computer at Best Buy
And you can buy just the OS at futureshop ;)

Almost everyone knows what you're talking about if you mentioned Mac or Apple
Youll probably get some "isnt that the company that makes the ipod?" responses if you ask who knows about apple :P

[aysiu]

If I may inquire, what did you end up buying? It was a Brother printer. I forget the model #.

[drizek]

Frys (big PC store) sells linspire boxes, so does walmart.

when i went to bestbuy, i saw neither macs nor linux boxes.

[aysiu]

Frys (big PC store) sells linspire boxes, so does walmart.

when i went to bestbuy, i saw neither macs nor linux boxes. The Mac Mini just arrived there. Apparently in the past Best Buy used to carry a whole bunch of Apple computers, but they later had a falling out with Apple. Now, they're carrying Mac Minis.

I wish I had a Frys closer to me. The point isn't really "Best Buy," per se. It's more that a major retailer carries it. There are far more Apple stores than Linux stores.

[poofyhairguy]

Frys (big PC store) sells linspire boxes, so does walmart.

when i went to bestbuy, i saw neither macs nor linux boxes.

In fact, recently my local Best Buy pulled Apple stuff off the shelves. I guess the Minis didn't do as good as everyone hoped.

[KingBahamut]

The Mac and Linux being Unix Based thing is completely argueable.

MacOSX, based entirely on Darwin , or commonly referenced as BSD code. Most BSDers wont avow themselves as even remotely related to Linux in anyway. Likewise, Linus himself doesnt really have a positive outlook on BSD, for which ultimately Darwin, and OSX is largely based.

To go back to a conversation on ABC news with Linus I quote


What's your opinion on the various BSD's vs Linux? BSD
proponents still claim the BSD networking code is
cleaner/faster than the Linux code and that BSD in general
is more scalable. In your opinion, is any of this still true?

Linus Torvalds at 2:47pm ET
No.
What did you expect me to say, seriously?
Actually, I think the major lack in BSD is the lack of
interest and the fact that they haven't really gotten people
worked up about their cause. A lot of them seem to be
fairly old-fashioned ("we cater to the /original/ UNIX
people") or just to have given up on the market. They aren't
hungry enough, I think.

Just this fact alone causes neither one to avow the other as viable. So to put a comparison up of one next to the other, and what one vs the other has is kinda paradoxical to me. Neither product can be compared to the other.

And Xequence, does that mean if I go down to Futureshop, that the salesman is going to try to soak me for the most overpriced Piece of Crap they have, only for me to go home and BOOM!! land in the middle of a Dark Technology Continent with my nifty helpdesk guy as my Guide?

Because if it is, theres no way Im blowin smoke up my USB Ports.

[xequence]

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/subclass.asp?logon=&langid=EN&catid=22154

Its on their website =O

If only futureshop would sell ubuntu computers...

[drizek]

The Mac Mini just arrived there. Apparently in the past Best Buy used to carry a whole bunch of Apple computers, but they later had a falling out with Apple. Now, they're carrying Mac Minis.

I wish I had a Frys closer to me. The point isn't really "Best Buy," per se. It's more that a major retailer carries it. There are far more Apple stores than Linux stores.
yes, that is true. and at frys, they had a whole aisle for apple and only 2 or 3 linspire boxes.

but its cool to see linux in a store, especially when the default desktop looks much more attractive than the windows box next to it, with a more attractive price as well.

[aysiu]

yes, that is true. and at frys, they had a whole aisle for apple and only 2 or 3 linspire boxes.

but its cool to see linux in a store, especially when the default desktop looks much more attractive than the windows box next to it, with a more attractive price as well. Yeah. I'll have to make the trek out to a WalMart or Frys at some point, just to have a look/see.

[Lord Illidan]

The Mac Mini didn't attract me so much style wise.. It is just a small block with rounded edges. I prefer style aka Alienware style..but that's just me..

Same for the Ipod, I went for a Creative Zen Micro, cheaper, and if the battery fails, at least I can recharge...and music quality is the same...and don't start about style, I want to hear it, not stay staring at it..

[nocturn]

Frys (big PC store) sells linspire boxes, so does walmart.

when i went to bestbuy, i saw neither macs nor linux boxes.

Here in Belgium, getting a Mac is not easy, but doable. Getting a Linux-preinstalled system is very hard (not suitable for novice users, defeating the preinstall point).

[Brunellus]

The Mac Mini didn't attract me so much style wise.. It is just a small block with rounded edges. I prefer style aka Alienware style..but that's just me..

Same for the Ipod, I went for a Creative Zen Micro, cheaper, and if the battery fails, at least I can recharge...and music quality is the same...and don't start about style, I want to hear it, not stay staring at it..

Alienware's cases are over the top--the desktop equivalent of a Chrysler Imperial with tailfins, chrome, whitewalls, and curb-feelers.

Don't even get me started with the whole XTREME case-modding phenomenon, which strikes me as another manifestation of Idiot Ricerboy Syndrome. You wouldn't need a kilowatt power supply and enough fans to run a hovercraft if you didn't put so much goddamn bling in your system!

I'll say this for Apple--they do like clean lines, and manage to build boxes that are clean and easy on the eyes.

as for portable music, I carry an iRiver H340. Not as sleek as an iPod, but it does ogg. I'll vote for open codecs with my wallet.

[poofyhairguy]

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/subclass.asp?logon=&langid=EN&catid=22154

Its on their website =O

If only futureshop would sell ubuntu computers...

Yeah, for some reason its just not in the store anymore.

[zxee]

Alienware's cases are over the top--the desktop equivalent of a Chrysler Imperial with tailfins, chrome, whitewalls, and curb-feelers.

Don't even get me started with the whole XTREME case-modding phenomenon, which strikes me as another manifestation of Idiot Ricerboy Syndrome. You wouldn't need a kilowatt power supply and enough fans to run a hovercraft if you didn't put so much goddamn bling in your system!

I'll say this for Apple--they do like clean lines, and manage to build boxes that are clean and easy on the eyes.

as for portable music, I carry an iRiver H340. Not as sleek as an iPod, but it does ogg. I'll vote for open codecs with my wallet.

I agree, and what's wrong with having a processor (PPC,risc) that consumes less energy and is still comparable in real performance to the energy wasteful peecee?
Looks like Jobs decided that big numbers sell more than actual performance. I have a homebuilt athlon 1Ghz cpu and I also fool around with old-ish macs. I'm typing this on a G3 imac 500Mhz. The imac is close in performance to the athlon but it is definately faster running OS 9 than running ubuntu. The imac is also perfectly quiet-no fan. In going to intel Apple will have to do liquid cooling to disipate the excess heat-makes no sense to me.

[Brunellus]

I agree, and what's wrong with having a processor (PPC,risc) that consumes less energy and is still comparable in real performance to the energy wasteful peecee?
Looks like Jobs decided that big numbers sell more than actual performance. I have a homebuilt athlon 1Ghz cpu and I also fool around with old-ish macs. I'm typing this on a G3 imac 500Mhz. The imac is close in performance to the athlon but it is definately faster running OS 9 than running ubuntu. The imac is also perfectly quiet-no fan. In going to intel Apple will have to do liquid cooling to disipate the excess heat-makes no sense to me.

price. Apple hardware is just so damned expensive--and there aren't any other PPC alternatives out there.

Is anyone else really amused at how the imac--the 'gotta have it' of '98, as I recall--has really crashed in value? locally they're going for around a hundred dollars, US, used, while their x86 counterparts, without monitors, sell for at least a hundred and fifty.

I'd get one to experiment on, but I just don't have the space.

[WildTangent]

In going to intel Apple will have to do liquid cooling to disipate the excess heat-makes no sense to me.
they already have liquid cooling on the Powermac G5

-Wild

[zxee]

they already have liquid cooling on the Powermac G5

-Wild

Yeah I knew that of course obtaining a G5 is going to require deep pockets.
I'm more interested in the somewhat affordable G3's OR G4's, but Apple's decision to abandon PPC will undoubtably change production and cost of those chips.
I was just lamenting here and hopefully not taking the thread too far off.
I agree, again, with Brunellus PPC is costly and that's been cited as the biggest reason that Jobs when to intel.
Also slot loading imacs on ebay are going for, on average, more than $100.
I like that they have firewire and everything else I need plus low power use and that quiet factor. The real old imacs ( tray loaders) are very cheap but then they're kind of slow to have any value unless you want to do mega-modding.

[DJ_Max]

The Mac and Linux being Unix Based thing is completely argueable.

MacOSX, based entirely on Darwin , or commonly referenced as BSD code. Most BSDers wont avow themselves as even remotely related to Linux in anyway. Likewise, Linus himself doesnt really have a positive outlook on BSD, for which ultimately Darwin, and OSX is largely based.

I was going to post the same thing, but you beat me to it.


and there aren't any other PPC alternatives out there.
Wrong. Apple doesn't/didn't even make their processors, IBM/Freescale does/did. Apple processors are based on the IBM POWER CPU's. IBM/Freescale and Genesi Pegasos (http://www.pegasosppc.com/) are two companies that sell computers under the PPC architecture.


Is anyone else really amused at how the imac--the 'gotta have it' of '98, as I recall--has really crashed in value? locally they're going for around a hundred dollars, US, used, while their x86 counterparts, without monitors, sell for at least a hundred and fifty.
iMacs have always been aimed at schools and educational purposes, and aren't very expandable, reason why the value isn't as high. It make sense. I forgot how much I paid for mine though, I got it at a pawn shop. But of course, a computer of that age would be around that price, especially the first iMac.

[KingBahamut]

DJ Max this is a fact that many individuals ignore , or arent aware of. If we look into the reasons why, we find a number of things.


NewsForge: I want to ask you a few uninformed questions about the similarities, differences, and synergy -- if any -- between the Linux kernel and the BSDs.

Torvalds: I really don't much like the comparisons. In many ways they aren't even valid, since "better" always ends up depending on "for what?" and "according to what criteria?".


NF: BSD is still considered by some to be more "technically correct" than the Linux kernel. Do you think the BSDs are better technically than the Linux kernel?

Torvalds: Linux has a much wider audience, in many ways. That ranges from supporting much wider hardware (both in the driver sense and in the architecture sense) to actual uses. The BSDs tend to be focused in specific areas, while I have always personally felt that any particular focus on any particular use is a bad thing.

Which one is "better"? To me, Linux is much better, since to me, the important thing for an OS is how well it performs under different patterns, be they embedded, server, or desktop, or just some totally crazy person in a basement trying something new.

But some people disagree with me, and like to limit their work to specific areas, and like the fact that developers have one cohesive goal, and don't care about anything else. Some people consider the Linux development model "too permissive," in other words -- they want the project to concentrate on X, where X is some random area that they care about.

Which mindset is right? Mine, of course. People who disagree with me are by definition crazy. (Until I change my mind, when they can suddenly become upstanding citizens. I'm flexible, and not black-and-white.)

however we see DeRaadt say....


NewsForge: What are some of the similarities, differences, and synergy -- if any -- between the Linux kernel and the BSDs?

Theo de Raadt: Well I am sure by now you all know that Linux is just a kernel, while OpenBSD is a complete Unix system: kernel, device drivers, libraries, userland, development environment, documentation, and all the tools you need to continue doing development. That said, based just on completeness of functionality, it is not handled like a Linux distribution, not at all.

When we find that a change must be made to the system (security or otherwise) we can therefore force such a change into the system by changing it all the way from userland through the libraries down to the kernel. We can change interfaces as we want to. We can move quickly. Sometimes changes are even made which break previous executables; but if we need to, we can choose to make such decisions.

This gives us great flexibility to move forward fast. If something is designed wrong, and the fix depends on changes in more than just the kernel, we can fix it by. We change all the required pieces in the right places. We don't need hacks in the wrong place to fix a problem.

and then again....


NF: The BSDs are still considered by some to be more technically correct than the Linux kernel. Linus Torvalds has said in the past that it's not all about technology. Do you think the BSD project you work on is better technically for some or all uses than GNU/Linux (in general)?

Theo de Raadt: I don't know. I have never run Linux.

Christos Zoulas: NetBSD's code is cleaner and better documented. Everything has man pages, including the kernel functions. Linux instead depends on FAQs, HOWTOs, and sparse documentation that comes in many different formats. On the other hand, NetBSD lacks functionality that Linux has, such as suspend/resume support for ACPI and accelerated graphics drivers.

On the integration front, NetBSD is easily available from a single CVS repository and lets you build the complete system from the top, unlike Linux, where the mode of operation is to try to graft pre-built binaries packaged by some random person into your system. We can also cross-build any NetBSD platform from another NetBSD platform, and even other OSes such as Linux or Windows. This allows us to be able to build binaries for the slower platforms in hours instead of days.

Finally, Linux distributions come with a wealth of pre-built and installed binaries into the base OS, where NetBSD depends on pkgsrc and building the extra packages on demand. This makes the Linux distributions feel bloated, but with today's disk sizes this is not a big issue. To the casual user it just adds the burden of having to fetch and rebuild some things she/he needs.

I'd say that for the systems programmer NetBSD is better, but for the end user who needs those features Linux is better.

I think that both projects, especially Linux, can do with better quality control and testing. Every Linux 2.6 release so far has had bugs that were fixed in the next minor release, while others got introduced. NetBSD has not suffered so far from such serious regressions, perhaps because the code has not been re-factored aggressively. While there are significant efforts now to add regression tests for Linux, NetBSD has had them for quite a while, and we keep adding more. Related to that, both projects should be stress-testing their code more. Running I/O and filesystem benchmarks and adding a lot of regression tests will help tremendously with development.

So what you see here is a very clear differentiation between the two. Neither like each other, and neither wants to associate with the other. While one, De Raadt, might sound as militant as Stallman, and the other, Linus, might sound more open, what is very clear here is the divide between the two of them. For Apple to fall into this equation, we would have to examine Jobs take on linux........


It is Apple's hope that MacOS X will be seen as a kinder, gentler Linux that just costs a few hundred dollars more.

[DJ_Max]

DJ Max this is a fact that many individuals ignore , or arent aware of. If we look into the reasons why, we find a number of things.





however we see DeRaadt say....



and then again....



So what you see here is a very clear differentiation between the two. Neither like each other, and neither wants to associate with the other. While one, De Raadt, might sound as militant as Stallman, and the other, Linus, might sound more open, what is very clear here is the divide between the two of them. For Apple to fall into this equation, we would have to examine Jobs take on linux........

So what you see here is a very clear differentiation between the two.
Right, also, one of the reasons Linus made Linux the way it is, is because that's his opinion on what a good OS should consist of. While the BSD team wanted a clone of commercial OS, UNIX.

I'm glad you found that article, it's a very important read

[KingBahamut]

Try mah best DJ, doesnt always work the way I want.

And some dont like what I have to say, but got no reason not to say it.

=)

[WirelessMike]

I agree, and what's wrong with having a processor (PPC,risc) that consumes less energy and is still comparable in real performance to the energy wasteful peecee?

Actually, Energy consumption and heat were a couple of the biggest factors in Apple's decision to go Intel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Intel_Transition
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4617139.stm
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/22/technology/techinvestor/tech_biz/

I hope IBM continues to make and support the powerpc chips, but I can't argue with benchmarks that prove Intel chips simply outperform comparable PowerPC chips in "performance per watt," and neither did Steve Jobs--


"Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do," said Jobs. “When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PowerPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt, but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do,” he explained.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate/index.php

[KingBahamut]

Seems like Jobs is yet again going against his word. I seem to remember he swore hed never put an x86 chip in any equipment his company would produce. Of course , this is obviously not the case. Not to flame Jobs mind you, but it seems its alot more about money than it is about innovation. Moves like this one only prove my firm belief that there are an entire generation of people growing up that believe that x86 is how computers work and TCP/IP is how networks have always worked, this view is , among other things, severely retarded in nature.

[WirelessMike]

Seems like Jobs is yet again going against his word. I seem to remember he swore hed never put an x86 chip in any equipment his company would produce. Of course , this is obviously not the case. Not to flame Jobs mind you, but it seems its alot more about money than it is about innovation. Moves like this one only prove my firm belief that there are an entire generation of people growing up that believe that x86 is how computers work and TCP/IP is how networks have always worked, this view is , among other things, severely retarded in nature.

I can't disagree with that, either. That's why I hope IBM does continue to promote the powerpc chip. I believe it's simply a matter of time and resources. Both AMD and IBM already proved a chip doesn't have to be x86 to operate efficiently. I hated that AMD sold out by buying into the architecture in the end. I still prefer them to Intel. There are other factors, as you all know well.

[KingBahamut]

Sure....
AMD's slowly developing relationship with Sun I find very interesting, and oddly, a mixture of Sparc and Opteron would be a fascinating thing, and likely even more powerful than any Intel based chip to be made. Thats why I thought Jobs change was a boneheaded one, largely because I feel that AMD out performs Intel.

Intel is slowly slipping and for them to fall victim to Apple's whinning about price with respect to Processors (Cant find the link, but there was an ars technica article that discussed this at length). Let Apple slowly severe its relationship with IBM, one that in my opinion wasnt nessecarily a good move, Cell tech would have worked very nicely into the iPod, but that doesnt look like its going to happen now. On top of that the PPC roadmap shows a steady increase in both performance and cooling. Apple just couldnt wait long enough.

[wmcbrine]

Seems like Jobs is yet again going against his word. I seem to remember he swore hed never put an x86 chip in any equipment his company would produce.Sounds apocryphal to me. I know lots of Apple devotees have said it, but did Jobs, really?

Of course he did say numerous times that the PowerPC was better. And at the times he said it, it was (usually? often?) true. But things change.


Both AMD and IBM already proved a chip doesn't have to be x86 to operate efficiently. I hated that AMD sold out by buying into the architecture in the end.Huh? When did AMD ever sell a non-x86 processor? They've been cloning since at least the 286 era. (With AMD64, they're taking the lead, but they're still operating within the x86 framework.)

[blinksilver]

tThis may be a suprise to most, but OS X is actually not FreeBSD derivatitve as apple has you thinking, its actually the evolution of NeXT (steve jobs little thing after apple fired him) with the freebsd Userland tools kinda slapped on there, under the hood I would make a far wager that linux and freeBSD have more in common then FreeBSD and Darwin.

[drizek]

tThis may be a suprise to most, but OS X is actually not FreeBSD derivatitve as apple has you thinking, its actually the evolution of NeXT (steve jobs little thing after apple fired him) with the freebsd Userland tools kinda slapped on there, under the hood I would make a far wager that linux and freeBSD have more in common then FreeBSD and Darwin.
darwin is opensource, so wouldnt you be able to tell how similair it is to bsd?

[zxee]

Actually, Energy consumption and heat were a couple of the biggest factors in Apple's decision to go Intel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Intel_Transition
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4617139.stm
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/22/technology/techinvestor/tech_biz/

I hope IBM continues to make and support the powerpc chips, but I can't argue with benchmarks that prove Intel chips simply outperform comparable PowerPC chips in "performance per watt," and neither did Steve Jobs--

I Thought about your response for awhile-if this were "real world" true versus the reknown reality distortion field then powerbooks and ibooks wouldn't have the long battery use times that I've actually experianced. And there are no intel based laptop manufacturers that even claim to have the battery use time that apple has. Also I saw lots of reference to intel laptops that run very hot while researching laptops. I would have to know more about the income source of those providing the benchmarks-one is an apple provided link. Am I a cynic? Maybe, but whose word is impecable? Mr iCon?

[mstlyevil]

Yeah. I'll have to make the trek out to a WalMart or Frys at some point, just to have a look/see.
Xandros at Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3380786&cat=41937&type=19&dept=3944&path=0%3A3944%3A3951%3A41937)

Check this out at Wally Worlds Web Site.

[mstlyevil]

The link got messed up. It should work now.

[Brunellus]

Xandros at Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3380786&cat=41937&type=19&dept=3944&path=0%3A3944%3A3951%3A41937)

Check this out at Wally Worlds Web Site.
I should also say that MicroCenter is actually selling Linspire desktops....as in "right there on the showroom floor, next to Microsoft"

don't know how much traffic they generate. Linspire's KDE is windowslike enough to fool most....

[WirelessMike]

I Thought about your response for awhile-if this were "real world" true versus the reknown reality distortion field then powerbooks and ibooks wouldn't have the long battery use times that I've actually experianced. And there are no intel based laptop manufacturers that even claim to have the battery use time that apple has. Also I saw lots of reference to intel laptops that run very hot while researching laptops. I would have to know more about the income source of those providing the benchmarks-one is an apple provided link. Am I a cynic? Maybe, but whose word is impecable? Mr iCon?

You make an excellent point. After looking back over these references, myself, I must agree that these benchmarks seem to be based primarily on high-performance desktops (server-grade processors, at that!). The results appear to be carried over to predictions of laptop performance, which is a bit unfair in retrospect. That's not to say, though, that tests haven't been performed and plans for next gen chips noted...
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050610.gtcentrinojun10/BNStory/TechReviews/

Here is mention of actual battery life expectencies on a variety of laptops, including the Powerbook, by CNet:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3121_7-5127099-4.html

I don't think you're a cynic. I think you feel that Apple has made a mistake and I can't say I completely disagree.

I do, however, stand by my original comment that several online references, including quotes by Steve Jobs, himself, as referenced in my original post, show that power consumption and heat were, indeed, contributing factors to Apple's decision, regardless of our opinions.

In recognition of your accurate observation that there is a lack of variety in public benchmark evidence to back that decision in regards to the laptop market, I amend my opinion on the matter, since Apple contends that it is primarily the future of the laptop that convinced them to consider such a drastic change, so there should be a wealth of public benchmark evidence to validate those reasons, but these tests and their results are few and difficult to find.

[mstlyevil]

I think behind the scenes Apple and Job's are looking away from being an alternative to
a Windows machine to eventually selling Macs with Windows already installed. The success they had with Ipod has probally convinced them to go more mainstream to grab up more shares of the hardware market. Steve Jobs already said that there3 is nothing stopping a person from using Windows on a Intel Mac.

[KingBahamut]

Mostly,

That is a Bastardization I hardly see ever happening. Gates and Jobs have such an extreme amount of distaste for one another, it seems very unlikely that they will ever work in conjunction with one another.

If such a thing were to occur, I suspect that Time would actually stop.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/11/14/business/14music.184.jpg

[WirelessMike]

Mostly,

That is a Bastardization I hardly see ever happening. Gates and Jobs have such an extreme amount of distaste for one another, it seems very unlikely that they will ever work in conjunction with one another.

If such a thing were to occur, I suspect that Time would actually stop.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/11/14/business/14music.184.jpg

I understand, though, that Jobs did cancel the hit on Gates and is no longer willing to pay the original bounty...

[mstlyevil]

Mostly,

That is a Bastardization I hardly see ever happening. Gates and Jobs have such an extreme amount of distaste for one another, it seems very unlikely that they will ever work in conjunction with one another.

If such a thing were to occur, I suspect that Time would actually stop.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/11/14/business/14music.184.jpg

When Apple about folded four or five years ago, Jobs asked Gates to help bail out Apple and Gates complied. They held a joint news conference and Gates handed Jobs a Check. The two have made up years ago and are working together on many joint (albeit secret) projects.

[zxee]

Actually, Energy consumption and heat were a couple of the biggest factors in Apple's decision to go Intel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Intel_Transition
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4617139.stm
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/22/technology/techinvestor/tech_biz/

I hope IBM continues to make and support the powerpc chips, but I can't argue with benchmarks that prove Intel chips simply outperform comparable PowerPC chips in "performance per watt," and neither did Steve Jobs--

Hi, WirelessMike, Read your 2nd post which strangely didn't show up on my 1st run through the thread.
Thanks for considering my opinions. When I read my post below (dis-regard) I sound like a "hothead"
So I'm going to cool off. I liked the alternative PPC was/is but I am suspicious of the reasons for this move to intel. The real reason couldn't be a great sounding excuse to orphan tons of hardware? No..they wouldn't do that :---)

I don't agree with that . I had posted my reasons which included real world powerbook/ibook battery use time (which exceeds intel laptops plus that intel based laptops do get mentioned in forums as being quite hot running). Someone chose to remove my post however probably because I questioned the integrity of benchmark creators and a specific ceo. It's kind of a 1984 thing because for years someone tells you ppc is low power and a great performer but then does an about face.

Added later: Apologies to the board I see that my orginal post is here only it's not in correct sequence.
I think I'm spending too much time in front of the computer. ](*,)

[DJ_Max]

tThis may be a suprise to most, but OS X is actually not FreeBSD derivatitve as apple has you thinking, its actually the evolution of NeXT
Right, NeXT is a BSD 4.x UNIX-based operating system. NeXT was replaced by Rhapsody. It would be better to say OS X is an optimized version of Rhapsody, which is UNIX based as well. It's kernel is based on Mach & BSD 4.4.

[wmcbrine]

When Apple about folded four or five years ago, Jobs asked Gates to help bail out Apple and Gates complied.This is a widespread myth. The investment was only $150 million, a tiny fraction of Apple's annual revenues, now or then. It did not bail out Apple, nor did Apple need bailing out. They had $1.2 billion in cash at the time.

The investment was basically part of a complex settlement for patent/copyright infringement, and it also got Internet Explorer bundled as Apple's default browser for a while.

Re: "performance per watt", the Intel advantage over IBM is supposed to be with future processors (according to their respective roadmaps), not current ones. But there is a big difference between the power-hungry, dead-end Pentium 4, and the more efficient Pentium M. The P-M was designed as a laptop CPU, but now Intel is abandoning the P-4 design in favor of P-M-based architectures for the whole line. (The P-4 was a triumph of marketing over engineering -- designed to make it easy to boost the clock rate, not necessarily to be truly faster. The P-M has much higher performance for a given clock rate.)

Current Mac laptops all use G4 processors (from Freescale, not IBM), which are an old and (by today's standards) underperforming design. Apple can't switch to G5s, because G5s draw too much power and generate too much heat for a laptop. So the G5 is confined to the desktop, and Mac laptops are relegated to the slow lane. They get great battery life, but they're just about maxed out on speed. The Pentium M, or an evolution of it, may offer a way forward.

[kthakore]

I am sorry to say this but I love apple for keeping all our desktops from being monopolied to windows.