| Author |
Message |
    
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8526
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:58 pm: |     |
http://tinyurl.com/862oq
As a unix-bigot, I find this news very exciting.
|
AlleyGater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 679
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:12 pm: | |
Very cool. I'm happy to see this trend too. The way I see it some of the brightest minds in the computer world (the old school UNIX guys) are at least taking a look at the Mac OS (probably just to hear what the buzz is about or to see if it REALLY is UNIX under the hood) and what they are seeing is impressing the hell out of them. A strong Unix backbone, with a really easy to use, intuitive user interface. If some of those people switch, well that would be a very good trend for Apple's future. What a great endorsement and suddenly the future looks just that much brighter for Apple. |
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8529
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:23 pm: | |
The unix and linux have failed miserable, many times, at creating a good user interface. They have succeeded at making fantastic programmer interfaces. Apple has finally done a good job at putting a good user interface on unix. Now what could be bad? 
I also read a fun article written by a linux expert, chronicalling his experience buying and trying a G5 Powermac. In the end, it wasn't that deep and had no big insights, but the good news was that it was overall a good experience for him.
Tom Reingold
|
slipknot (slippy)
Citizen
Username: Zotts
Post Number: 131
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 7:20 pm: | |
I love the unix bit, and the apps you can get are great, open source and all, I wonder how the intel move will affect some innovation in the future though. |
AlleyGater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 681
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:37 pm: | |
I suspect that the switch to intel hardware is going to be relatively seamless. Apple usually does a great job at changes like this, where the user almost doesn't even notice the difference.
Also keep in mind, who really cares if INTEL IS INSIDE? seriously it's a non issue. The computer works or it doesn't. That simple.
Lastly, it will be nice to be able to not have to be so involved in the megahertz war. Right now, people don't understand how fast a G5 chip really is. It's like comparing Apples to Oranges (pun NOT intended). Most people see that Apple G5s have lower numbers than the Intel machines so they assume WRONGLY that the Apple hardware is slower. In the future the comparisons will be more like Oranges to Oranges since Intel will make the chips for both companies, and hopefully the megaherz ratings will be relatively comparable for both types of machines. I see this is a HUGE bonus. |
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8549
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:41 pm: | |
I hope giving in to that misperception isn't the main reason. That would be a big shame.
I fear clone makers will come in and imitate Apple at lower prices, undercutting Apple with inferior products.
I fear MacOS being ported to generic PC's, which would also be less reliable than the current generation of Apples. Many reliability problems with Windows is with the hardware, not the software. Many other reliability problems stem from the diversity of hardware, making device drivers and a reliable OS hard to write.
Are these fears rational?
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6995
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:47 pm: | |
The MacOS will run on a special version of the Intel chip. People won't be able to install the Mac OS on a PC. |
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8550
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:51 pm: | |
That's the initial plan, Dave. But what makes it special? It doesn't pay to design a radically different processor. So it will be minimally different. And hackers and computer makers will discover the difference and make the port. And if the technological barrier to doing this is small, that reduces the legal barrier, too.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6996
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 3:07 pm: | |
I'm sure Intel can make a chip that's minimally different and that can't be meddled with by ordinary hackers. |
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8555
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 3:11 pm: | |
Sorry, Dave, but that's absurd. These processors are general purpose devices, designed to be understood. If AMD can reverse engineer an entire Pentium, I'm sure there is enough manpower on the globe to discern the difference between a general purpose Pentium and a made-for-Apple Pentium.
IBM tried to stop the clone makers for the first few generations of PC's. They had to give up eventually.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6997
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 3:27 pm: | |
Apple could have its chip test what devices are attached and require them to be of specifications they set. |
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8558
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:01 pm: | |
Sure, and hackers could find the code that does those checks and bypass it. Remember copy protection and the ways people got around it?
You remind me of people who try to invent a foolproof lock, such as on a car. Only in some ways, this is easier to thwart than a car.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6999
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:11 pm: | |
I guess there will always be people able to get around restrictions, but what percent of the market actually does that, I wonder?
With the cost of Apples dropping, the rationale not to buy a system from Apple decreases. |
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8560
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:16 pm: | |
I guess it depends on the difference between the slopes. I.e. how far apart are the price curves of the Apples and the clones, and also, is there a difference in slope? If the clones drop in price faster, people will tend to prefer them over the genuine article.
Note that in the PC world, no brand is considered more genuine than another any more.
|
AlleyGater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 683
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:28 pm: | |
Tom, people in the Apple community should have such problems. Really. The idea of someone reverse engineering the Apple hardware seems so far from my mind that I almost think it would be great. I love the idea. I say don't worry about it Tom. The Apple computers will have proprietary chips. As for the reason that Apple switched. Well it was simple. First Motorola and then later IBM was unable to meet the speed improvements that they promised Apple. Time and Time again, the deadlines would fall behind and the customers would be unhappy because even though we KNEW the hardware was fast, we were promised it would be faster. Over time, I think Apple realized that they needed to look elsewhere if they wanted reliability on delivery dates. Whether you like Intel or not, they certainly have a track record of performing. Would it have been better to go with another company that "thought different"? Maybe, but myself I can see that there are some advantages to using Intel (as I pointed out above). Only time will tell. But I think it's sorta exciting. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 7000
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:33 pm: | |
Also, Apple's selling point isn't only their great software; it's also the highly appealing industrial design (and endurance) of Apple products. |
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8563
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:35 pm: | |
For the most part, I am ambivalent about what processor is inside my computer, for the reason you cite. One reason this switch saddens me is that I don't like to see any entity dominate an entire industry. Intel has enough momentum that it is now the only company with enough resources to deliver promises on time. That's a good testament to the free market system, but absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I am generally opposed to giantism in industry. I am similarly dismayed by all the bank mergers.
But at least I don't hate Intel as much as I hate Microsoft. I actually don't hate Intel at all.
I guess you don't remember all the Apple ][ clones back in the mid 1980's. Apple did manage to sue them and get them to stop. There were computers called Orange and Apricot, etc.
I think legal cloning might become more likely as Apple's marketshare increases. But that's just a guess.
Anyway, back to the original topic, as a unix-head, I've been disappointed for 20 years with how unix never took hold on the desktop. But it was our fault, collectively. The various flavors of unix were not good enough, and there were too many, and they weren't sufficiently different for one to be much better than the others. Now we have OSX which melds the best of all worlds, and I am encouraged.
|
Nonymous Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 8564
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:37 pm: | |
Dave, I'm impressed with Apple's durability, but does the public really know about it? |
AlleyGater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 685
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:44 pm: | |
I think Apple's quality has dropped personally. I'm sad to say it, but it's true. I've seen too many dead computers right out of the box and hard drives that die too quickly, or motherboards that need to be replaced often. It is the way that these companies compete. If Apple wants to sell hardware as cheaply as Dell, then they need to cut corners. Shame really. Hey but look on the bright side, the boxes they come in look pretty. |
monster
Supporter
Username: Monster
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:40 am: | |
One reason that you see more dead computers out of the box, is because there are simply more computers produced.
Apple has stated that they will not allow Apple "clone" computers to be produced again.
The word on Apple is out there, I'm consistently being asked about Macs from Windows users, even die hard users, and they love to let me know when they buy one.
I've also ran across a few Unix geeks that love to play in the Terminal in OS X. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page