Mac OS-X / Vista Gain Share

They've had far, far more than one bad PC model. Try googling for Road Apples.

And, as far as I'm concerned, the old Apple (the good Apple) is dead. The new Apple is just as bad with proprietary lock-in as Microsoft ever was.

 

I'm not sure I buy that. The old Apple was about as proprietary as you could get. You could only use Mac RAM, Mac cards (NuBus), Mac drives (SCSI w/ apple firmware), Mac peripherals (serial or scsi, no parallel port), Mac keyboards & mice (adb), Mac processors (moto), and mac software. By comparison today you can use pretty much any drive out there, most expansion cards will either already have a driver or can be made to work with a hacked linux driver, they use standard ram, standard intel processors, standard peripherals, they distribute the SDK freely for anyone to use, plus you can recompile and use the vast majority of free linux stuff (on the free built in compiler), or even run windows if you feel like it. They also give you a fully loaded OS for $129, instead of giving you 14 flavors with different bits enabled and disabled. The standard OS even includes more or less all of the services found in the $500 server version, just w/o the handy configuration & management tools. They are also very hands off in terms of software protection, and who has access to updates. The vast majority of the services are built on open source standard components. The built in web server is Apache. The built in windows support is based on samba. The built in dhcp server is dhcpd. The built in compiler is gcc. The list goes on. And with most of these things, if you don't like apple's flavor, you can just download and compile the open source one and replace it. I've gone that recently with gcc (so I could upgrade to the latest version and use fink), and dhcpd so I could support the network boot settings on the built in tftp server and boot a remote diskless linux media player over the network.

There are certainly plenty of fair knocks against apple, they aren't perfect by any means. They don't offer a huge number of configurations, so there is a decent chance you will pay for stuff you don't need. They really only offer higher end machines, choosing to keep upping specs rather than lower prices. They are very tight with keeping Mac OSX only on Mac HW, on the other hand if they let it run on anything it would probably be as flaky as windows. Their lower end machines (mini, imac) are targeted at the non-tech market. Things are designed to be easy to use and attractive first, and powerful or configurable or upgradeable second. Which is not to say they can't be powerful, configured or upgraded, it just takes a bit more skill and effort to hack a mac. Honestly I don't consider any of these to be nearly as big a deal as the amount of crap most people put up with from MS and the PC manufacturers.

Rob

 

One of the funniest things about the last few pages of posts here - comparing an Apple mouse against a Logitech one... as far as i'm concerned, Logitech is the 700lb gorilla in the room when it comes to mice and keyboards. No one comes close. Dell mice are generally small and generic, Microsoft mice are huge and cumbersome, Apple mice a little plain (and in some cases ergonomically horrible). You get what you pay for... and when you buy a Mac, you're paying for the computer, the mouse just happens to come along for the ride. FWIW, i've been using Logitech mice almost exclusively on my own computers for probably 7 or 8 years now - the only times i don't are when i don't have a spare one for a server i don't use much... then i just go to my spare parts bin and pick up one of the worthless other mice i've picked up over the years.

 

+1 to that. I've got three machines on my desk, a Dell running Win2k, a Sun running Solaris, and an ancient iMac (graphite) running 10.4 and all three have Logitec optical scroll wheel mice. I do a fair amount of drafting type work, so we're pretty picky about mice. I use a wireless mighty mouse occasionally with my MBP at home and its ok but not great. The "virtual" three button feature works well enough when I'm hosting a remote linux session, but its not as intuitive as a a real 3 button. In general I like the whole "click the whole" mouse idea, but the ergonomics are generally not great. I'd probably upgrade it to a logitec wireless if I used it more, but I mostly get along fine with the trackpad. Like the two finger scroll a lot!

Rob

 

Has Apple bitten off more than it can chew ?

Has Apple Bitten Off More Than It Can Chew? | Gadget Lab from Wired.com

 

How refreshing: an Apple fan who doesn't feel obliged to defend everything Apple makes!
:thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

What would be refreshing is to see people not attacking Apple products because they are Apple. Note how the cube and mice discussion came up to show that Apple has made at least some not so good products.

Again, the number of epic fails are more numerous on the Windows side. Anyone remembers BOB? or Windows Me? Anyone remembers BOB? Or Windows Me? Even the Zunes have been a business failure.

 

I'm not at all attacking Apple products because of Apple. If you would be able to overcome your overly defensive position, you would realize that. Why would I? I own several Apple products, including a shiny new Macbook Air. I always judge the products by what they are, and not by any blind brand zeal, positive or negative.
In fact, I usually carefully balance any negative remark about Apple with something positive, in order not to stir too many feelings. The negative mighty mouse remark came with the remark that the touch pad of the Air is one of the best I have ever seen. I can even go further: it is the best I have ever seen. But that doesn't change a single iota to the fact that the mighty mouse is one of the worst mouses I have ever used.

So, and? I certainly don't feel obliged to defend MS at all cost!!!

 

Everyone has epic failures? Remember the Pippin or the Quadra 630? Or the Newton connection utilities suite (I sure wish I couldn't)...

Sure, on the windows side there have been more epic fails... but given the relative paucity of products on the apple side, I'd say the percentage is higher on apple's side.

FYI -- I have bought many apple products. All I'm trying to say is that they're a FAR from perfect company and are not quite as 'innocent' as people like to think they are? DRM, FTW anyone?

 

True, but at the same time it was that decision that allowed them to sell computers and software that just worked - You didn't have to worry about driver compatibility issues or anything like that, while in Windows drivers are a PITA and cause a lot of the stability problems.

Thats not to say that i particularly liked their decision... I'd love to be able to (legally) build my own computer and dump OSX on it... it would be cheaper than buying one from them and probably suit my needs better.

 

Actually, they yanked the license from Power Computing and the various clone makers because they were churning out better quality computers that were faster than most macs at a lower cost.

 

There is some stuff giong on right now concerning Mac clones. Google "psystar" for more information.

 

Yeah... they started making them and Apple's shutting them down.

Basically, the gist is this: psystar started making clones, they modified OSX (copyrighted material) and then sold them commercially. Frankly, they don't have a leg to stand on here - without proper licensing from Apple, what they did is blatantly illegal. And Apple is taking them to court.

 

Apple's trying to shut them down, they didn't modify OSX in any way shape or form, I think MacX86 & Psystar is helping Mac to spread and Apple should thank them !

 

I am not sure what you mean by "they modified OSX". As far as I know, the trick they apply is to first install an emulator of the EFI BIOS, which effectively makes OSX think that it's an Apple computer. With that in place, they are able to install OSX directly from the disc (at least this is what they say). Ironically, the EFI BIOS was developed by Intel as an improvement over the traditional BIOS that is still used in Windows PC's

What they are really infringing on is Apple's EULA, which simply says that you can only install OSX op Apple hardware. So, the really interesting question will be whether this position will stand in court.

 

Apple vs. Psystar complaint excerpts: ‘Invaluable good is being eroded’ | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com

See the above link for excerpts from the court filing... the part i was referring to was Apple's claim that Pystar computers run a “modified unauthorized version of the Leopard operating system.”

 

I certainly can't argue with that... I will say, however, that Apple's decision was made back at the relative dawn of home computing. Being an entirely new industry, the cost of entry was relatively low - you weren't competing against established brands. For that reason, there was a very wide field of players that all provided similar function but required different drivers. Today, the industry has matured quite a bit. We have only two major players for CPU's (and they're more or less compatible with each other from a software perspective). Likewise, there are only a few major players for graphics cards, ethernet cards, sound cards, and a plethora of other devices. Due to the maturing of the industry and the decrease in players involved, Apple would run a lower risk of driver problems if they opened up their OS now as opposed to 20 years ago.

Of course, being a hardware and a software company, Apple would most likely be sacrificing one business to grow another. Their big marketing boost right now is that you can only get OSX on their computers, so both sides of the business benefit from Microsoft's reputation and problems. If they opened it up, the hardware side would suffer as they realize a vastly increased competition.