[KLUG Advocacy] Apple using Intel chips ...

[Adam Tauno Williams]

> > > 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.

Except for the 'core machine'.  I think this is already true.  Most USB
devices work on Macs (camera's, storage, ...) and Mac uses the PCI bus
(or at least the ones I've seen).  I've seen specs for a few Mac models
that use 'PC' video chipsets.  Can a hard-core Mac person comment on
this?

> > > 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.

Okay, but they care, thats why they make these decisions.  The market
share of the ipod is doomed, almost inevitably, to decline.  The
subscription music service will soon face an array of new competition.
Using the cash flow from things like ipod to revamp their core platforms
seems like a smart thing to do.

> > Their platforms
> > > 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.

Ah, you're one of those! :)

> 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.

All true,  finding a solid laptop is tough these days.

> My second and equally important criteria was good Linux support.

One trick I'm going to use next time is to look at the relabeled laptops
sold by EmperorLinux.  Since they sell laptops with Linux installed and
'everything working'.   It really really really pains me to say this,
but we have a flotilla of the newer Dell D-series (D600, D800) and, by
golly, if those things aren't holding up like champs.  Not a one has
gone kerflunky and the keyboards feel really solid.  I almost break out
in hives just saying it, after all the previous Dell laptops that have
flowed through here (absolute total crap, every-single-one).

> 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.  

Yep.  I never even booted XP on my current laptop.  I think I used
VMware for four minutes yesterday to find out what an option was called.

> 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.

I played with an OS-X box for awhile.  It is a nice desktop.  (I still
prefer GNOME [notably evolution, beagle, tomboy, and monodevelop -
beagle and tomboy are the best things for the desktop since automounter]
but OS-X apps might catch up).

> I'm happy running OS-X.  (in some cases I'm happier because some things,
> like multimedia apps, run with less hassle)

Funny, my Linux laptop will play videos the Mac guy a couple cubicles
over can't.  But I think this has allot to do with what one has
installed.

> > 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.

Ah.

> 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).

Ok.  I honestly don't think many people are interested in such a thing.
But I could be wrong.

> > > 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. 

I have a friend in Canada, I'm thinking of buying my next laptop through
them.  They can get them without Windows! *(@(*&!^$&*!@^#(&^(*&$^(*&#@!
$(*&$(*#!&

> > 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.

Emphasis on the 'slightly'.

> > 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".

Can we just shoot all gamers?

> > 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.

Ok.  I just don't think most people even perceive the
Firmware/CPU/OS/Applications delineations. 

> > Possibly.  I think you need to offer something very compelling to get
> > people of off Windows.  
> More compelling than eliminating viruses and spyware?  

Yes.  People bitch, but they are more than willing to live with it.
People ALWAYS bitch (just not normally in a useful direction).

> Or dependability?

They don't know what they have isn't dependable.  I think the minority
of people who understand the above two points have already left windows.
Everyone else is won on features - what can you do?  Against Windows
2000/XP I firmly believe that current GNOME has an advantage here.

> 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)

Maybe, I doubt it.  They aren't unhappy enough to motivate an action
(that seems to take a GREAT deal of unhappiness for most people).

> I even think this would help Linux in the _long_ run. 

Absolutely, I agree.

>  IMO OS-X is a lot
> more like Linux that Windows is, and OS-X runs most OSS software.

Yep.

>   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...

Yep.

> > 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.

That's hard to do.  Is VMware seemless?  Is WINE seemless?  Not by a
long shot.

> > > 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!!!   :-)