[KLUG Advocacy] Apple using Intel chips ...

[Bruce Smith]

> > I have taken a recent liking to OS-X, and if I could buy x86 OS-X and
> > install it on existing PC's of mine, I and/or my company would be
> > purchasing some copies.
> 
> I think they would loose their just-works niche.  Support ever device,
> chipset, etc...  Seems like a mighty high goal for such a small company.

Right, I think they need a HCL, but that needs to consist of common
hardware that exists in the PC world today.  Not some custom new
hardware that only works with Apple software.

> > IMO, Apple should forget about PC hardware sales (unless they merge with
> > Intel as Cringely predicts), and sell software (and IPOD's and that
> > kinda crap as long as people buy them).
> 
> I don't know, I think the portable device and what not is an easy market
> to get run out of, competition is only now picking up for such things
> (things that really challenge the ipod and the like).  

It would seem to make good business sense to keep the IPOD's as long as
it's making them money.  Other than that, I don't really care.

> Their platforms
> gives them an ongoing market presence with some motivations for loyalty
> - and a platform to integrate things like the ipod into.

Yup.

> > OTOH, if I need to buy a Apple-only Intel PC to run the new OS-X, then I
> > don't get it.  What's the point of switching to Intel?
> 
> You bought a PowerPC box to run OS/X?  

Not to be picky, but my employer bought the Powerbook for me.
I could have went with any brand laptop, Intel or PowerPC.
I picked the Apple, my company paid the bill.

As far as my reasons why I chose the Powerbook:

My first and most important criteria was the laptop had to have a
reputation for dependability.  I was initially looking at Thinkpads
because they seem to be the top of the list in x86 laptops.

My second and equally important criteria was good Linux support.

Then I got to thinking about ways of avoiding the M$/XP tax.  All of my
previous laptops came with some version of Windows, and I learned that I
_never_ required it to do my job.  

That got me thinking about a Powerbook.  It has a reputation for
dependability.  As far as I could tell it ran Linux OK.  I've always
wanted to give OS-X a try, and there is no M$ tax.  Even if I didn't
like OS-X I wouldn't be out any more than if I would have bought a
laptop running XP.  Seemed like a win-win-win situation.

As it turned out, Apple switched some hardware components the same month
I bought the Powerbook and the new hardware was not as Linux compatible
as I'd hoped.  But OS-X comes with a lot of GNU software, and I was able
to add all the other OSS I needed to do my job.  At the moment I don't
even have Linux on the Powerbook.  I'll probably try dual booting it
again in a few months when the software drivers catch up.  Until then,
I'm happy running OS-X.  (in some cases I'm happier because some things,
like multimedia apps, run with less hassle)

> What difference does it make if an Intel CPU is inside?

In this particular case it makes no difference at all.  
But that's because it wasn't my money spent on the Powerbook.

OTOH, if it's my money ...
I'd be MUCH more likely to buy a $130 copy of OS-X to dual boot at home
on my existing x86 box, than I'd be to buy a $2000 x86 Apple-only PC.
I'd even shell out a few bucks to replace a cheap component or two in my
PC to run OS-X.  (i.e. buy a new video card on the Apple x86 HCL).

> > I would probably buy the Apple-only Intel PC's when I need a new PC, as
> > long as Linux runs fine on it, just to avoid the M$-tax and get an OS
> > that I find somewhat useful.  But that's not going to generate near as
> > much sales from me since my upgrades don't happen very often.  OTOH, if
> > I only had to buy the OS and use my old hardware, I could see some
> > immediate software purchases on my part.
> 
> Then the question is are you representative of the Mac target market.

Probably not.  

> My experience with Macites indicates not.  Techies they are not.

True, but I tend to think of them as _slightly_ more tech-savvy than the
average Windows-weenie.

> > > "By the way, the new Apple OS for the Intel Architecture has a
> > > compatibility mode with Windows (I'm just guessing on this one)."
> > > And this would be the dumbest thing Apple, Intel, or Apptel, could ever
> > > do.  M$-Office is a potent trojan.  They need to get people OFF
> > > Microsoft, and who makes all those crappy applications?  The OS is
> > > peanuts,  Office is the killer.
> > Unless he's talking about something like VMware, which would be much
> > easier on Intel hardware.
> 
> Sure, I don't see a reason that something like WINE wouldn't work.  But
> it doesn't turn people into Macites, it makes them into people running M
> $-Office on some wierd platform.  

It also takes away the excuse that "my game/other-program won't run, and
that's why I can't switch".

> It is very easy for them to just go back to using a Windows PC.

Which is fine.  I'm in favor of choice.  May the best OS win!   :-)
I'd just like to see the contest played on equal hardware.

> > > "If Intel was able to own the Mac OS and make it available to all the
> > > OEMs, it could break the back of Microsoft"
> > > Yeah, Ok.  How?  If Windows moved to the PowerPC everyone would be
> > > buying PowerPC boxes in droves.  It is about the applications.
> > If Apple started selling OS-X that would run on existing PC hardware
> > (with a reasonable HCL), and included some kind of VMware/Wine/...
> > package that ran Windows software in it's own chroot environment (that
> > can easily be trashed and restored), then people may seriously consider
> > buying OS-X instead of Windows when they upgrade OS's or buy a new PC.
> 
> Possibly.  I think you need to offer something very compelling to get
> people of off Windows.  

More compelling than eliminating viruses and spyware?  Or dependability?
In my experience a lot of M$ users are unhappy, but they think that
Linux is too complicated or they don't want to spend the time to learn
Linux.  Maybe they would give OS-X a try? (as long as they don't have to
buy a complete new PC)

I even think this would help Linux in the _long_ run.  IMO OS-X is a lot
more like Linux that Windows is, and OS-X runs most OSS software.  So it
would tend to follow that it would be easier for a OS-X user to switch
to Linux than a Windows user.  And as Linux improves in the desktop /
looser-friendly area. people's basic instinct to save money kicks in...

> Maybe this would work.    But the history of
> things that tried to emulate windows and/or cohabitate ain't pretty.

I'm making the basic assumption that Apple will find a way to run M$
software seamlessly.  Otherwise you are correct, people won't go for it.

> > Especially if they can get some if the big boys, like Dell, to buy in
> > and start offering a choice of OS-X & Windows.
> 
> Now that would make M$ sweat.

Oh yeah!!!   :-)

 - BS