I have a question about MACs.

[Bazoukas]

Now knowing that you MAC folks are gun ho like us Linux guys are, i will ask you, not to jump on me. The time I spent on MACs is very limited and it looks intresting but I have these questions.


  a) Why would you lock your self on specific Hardware? I heard alot about the power of the G CPU. But Doesnt that limit your choices or your needs to slam a biger CPU in it (I brought this as an example)?  
  For example Right now I am on 1.5 Ghz AMDXP. When I will have money I will slam that 2GhZ with out changing the mobo.

    As far as the OS goes, is it 100% Open Source? Or is it that just some part of it is Open Source. And if its closed source, isnt that like MS (with out the BSOD of course).

   Some months ago I read that owners of MACS had to pay for upgrades (I am not sure about this, so I may be talking out of my ass now). If this is true, isnt that a rip off? And if not, why?

  And why they dont release the OS for all platforms? What is the purpose of locking it in a specific set of hardware (i am looking for an arguement besides performance)? In other words, what is the logic behind this?


  Thats it. And please again remember that I am clueless about MACs. I recently left the Dark side and i am now 100% Linux user.

[hm_murdock]

Why not release the OS for other hardware platforms? Because Apple is a computer hardware company. They stay alive by selling computers.

This is also the reason that we love our Macs so much. Apple makes a complete solution. Using a Mac is more like having an appliance. It just works.

The speed and upgrade thing is getting to be a problem though. I, personally am having problems justifying getting another Apple computer right now, and have decided to skip them and get a used PC this time around, but if the PPC970 is gonna hit by this time next year, well then, most certainly I'll be looking at Apple again.

Upgrades have commonly been easy. Pop out a daughtercard and put a new one in. On Applefritter.com, I saw where someone added a dual processor card to a G4 cube. Not bad!

[Pissed_Macman]

Why would you lock yourself on specific hardware? I understand what you're saying, but Mac OS is not the only operating system that will run on Mac hardware. Right now I'm also running Linux Yellow Dog. But people who don't know about Linux (this used to be me) think Windows is the only alternative and feel like they are forced to use Mac. And I've never heard of one person who wasn't happy with Mac OS (except for maybe people at schools and in work places).

Mac users only have to pay for major upgrades. For example: We all had to pay for Mac OS 10, but 10.1.5 was free. Now we have to pay for 10.2. Kind of a bitch, I have some ussues with Mac hardware and software prices, but not enough to give them up.

Why don't they release the OS for other platforms? I have wondered about this as well. My best guess would be legal ussues, maybe Apple doesn't feel like monopolizing, or maybe there's something in the software itself that doesn't like PCs. Maybe someone else can give you a better answer to this one.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Macman / bOb ]

[TheQuirk]

It's because Apple gets most of it's money from selling hardware - not software. A lot of people switch to Mac because of the great OS. Think about it. . .

Scenario A: Person buys G4 tower with Mac OS 10.2. Apple makes a $1000 profit.

Scenario B: Person buys a high-end, x86 tower with Mac OS 10.2. Apple makes a $30 profit.

Which seems more favorable? Yeah, thought so.

[voidmain]

So what about all those people who would have given them a $30 profit not giving them anything because they won't buy the whole package? Seems Microsoft's made a pretty good business out of selling software only. Apple could get a piece of that action for sure.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Pissed_Macman]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
So what about all those people who would have given them a $30 profit not giving them anything because they won't buy the whole package? Seems Microsoft's made a pretty good business out of selling software only. Apple could get a piece of that action for sure.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

Agreed

[Calum]

apple computer have always been in the business of selling workstations. They don't sell software or hardware per se. This approach is so far removed from the linux approach that it is unlikely that the two concepts could ever be married.

Apple have always wanted to make their computers as easy to use as a toaster. They have acheived quite a degree of success in my opinion, and from what i hear, people who like to tinker are now satisfiied with OSX too.

The biggest thing about apple computer that i see is as follows:
linux has made leaps and bounds in user friendliness, but look at OSX. it is almost seamless from what i hear (from an 'easy UI' point of view), and the screenshots suggest so as well. How long did they take to do this? It just shows me that linux could easily compete with not only windows, but macOS if it wanted. seemingly the passionate linux developers are not so UI orientated as apple are though.

It's just a different world. Personally i think that although Apple charge high prices for a partially closed source system on proprietary hardware, at least they try to be honest. And that is a very big deal for me.

Personally i don't think i would buy a mac unless it was second hand, and now that OSX is out i'd want a mac that could run it, so i might be waiting a while for an OSX compatible second hand mac at a decent price i think.

[psyjax]

quote:a) Why would you lock your self on specific Hardware? I heard alot about the power of the G CPU. But Doesnt that limit your choices or your needs to slam a biger CPU in it (I brought this as an example)?  
  For example Right now I am on 1.5 Ghz AMDXP. When I will have money I will slam that 2GhZ with out changing the mobo.

As Macman pointed out, you can run many other OS's on Mac Hardware aside from Apple OS's. Also, I find the quality of Apple hardware to be top notch. They are well built, solid machines, designed to work perfectly with the software to be installed on them.

Upgrading is not an issue, probably just as simple as on a PC. Also, as Jimmy James stated, lately the speed lag on Apple's side has made it hard to justify prices for the CURENT crop of Mac's.

None the less, the new IBM made PPC chips will be coming out and they will surely be worth the price.

Personaly, my dual 800Mhz is the nicest computer I have ever owned or used. I don't care that it dosn't even top 1Ghz, I don't see the need for such excessive speeds.

 

quote:As far as the OS goes, is it 100% Open Source? Or is it that just some part of it is Open Source. And if its closed source, isnt that like MS (with out the BSOD of course).

The major part of the OS, that being Darwin, OSX's UNIX core is totaly open source. Aqua/Quartz, is the GUI wich sits on top of Darwin. It is closed source.

However, unlike M$, it is fully documented and accesible to any hacker. It's very easy to tinker with and Apple provides many tools to do so.

So no, it's not like Windows without a BSOD. If you don't wanna pay for the UI, just download the latest version of Darwin, drop X11 and KDE on it and have done with it.

oooo... did I mention you can run KDE or GNOME at the same time as the Aqua/Quartz GUI? Well you can, pretty cool huh  
 
 

quote:Some months ago I read that owners of MACS had to pay for upgrades (I am not sure about this, so I may be talking out of my ass now). If this is true, isnt that a rip off? And if not, why?

Apple has been very fair about this in the past. They don't force you to pay for every little adjustment, their prices have historicaly been very resonable (I don't care what you think, Jag was worth the price    ). Also, each major release is well supported for a good long while, Jag just had what could easely be considerd a major upgrade yesterday. Totaly free of charge. Fixed tons of issues with iApps, speeded the OS up more etc.

 

quote:And why they dont release the OS for all platforms? What is the purpose of locking it in a specific set of hardware (i am looking for an arguement besides performance)? In other words, what is the logic behind this?

There is a version of OSX for x86. Apple has been developing it at the same time as the Mac version. Search the forums for an Orielly article I posted on the subject, it's a good story. Calld project Marklar or something.

[Calum]

is that true? or is it classic vapourware?
what benefit would this bring to Apple Computer?

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by [calum@localhost]$:
is that true? or is it classic vapourware?
what benefit would this bring to Apple Computer?

Marklar is true. No one knows what they are gonna do with it though.

the story is great.

[krucz]

i would like to hear from someone who's used a 2+ GHz P4 or other non-G4 machine, as well as a fast G4. i've used a 700MHz G4 and a fast P4 (don't know that actual speeds, don't care enough) and i dont' feel that the PC is any faster, despite the variance in clock speeds. benchmarking shows this to be true in amny regards too, but benchmarking isn't real life. i was wondering if anyone has had experience doing the same thing on a Mac and a different platform.

personally, i haven't paid for anything not made by Apple in 15 years. wait, i got a Motorola Starmax clone! ack! what was i thinking...

[TheGreatPoo]

MacMan:  How are you liking Yellow Dog?  Do you know much about it?  I have a performa 6360 and would like to put Yellow Dog on it but am not sure of Hardware compatability.  I think it would be compatible with everything except my 400MHz G3 Sonnet Crescendo processor upgrade.  What do you think?

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by krucz:
i would like to hear from someone who's used a 2+ GHz P4 or other non-G4 machine, as well as a fast G4. i've used a 700MHz G4 and a fast P4 (don't know that actual speeds, don't care enough) and i dont' feel that the PC is any faster, despite the variance in clock speeds. benchmarking shows this to be true in amny regards too, but benchmarking isn't real life. i was wondering if anyone has had experience doing the same thing on a Mac and a different platform.

personally, i haven't paid for anything not made by Apple in 15 years. wait, i got a Motorola Starmax clone! ack! what was i thinking...

I am a switcher and I still have a PC 1.7 Athlon with a Geforce 4 Ti 4400, u know, for games.  I also have a PowerMac G4 733 Quicksilver.

The Quicksilver is slower at easy tasks, like opening programs, word processing, and web browsing, etc, etc
The Quicksilver really excels when it comes into contact with complication, like Photoshop, and Flash MX.

However some complex tasks are better on PC's, mostly gaming
And Some Simple tasks are better on Mac, like browsing HD and copying files. (I was appolled at my PC, running Win2000, I was copying a file from a cd to the HD, it took 100% of my CPU and all of my other programs ran slower, this is unheard of in OSX)  I have not used OS9 enough to know if that has always been unheard of on the Mac.

P.S. OS 9 sucks ass

[TheGreatPoo]

quote: P.S. OS 9 sucks ass

It's not that bad!  Of course I am only saying that because I have no choice but to run it.