[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.
> 
> 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?

I tend to agree with you, but I also think there are some exceptions.

I tried to find a DVD burner for my Powerbook and came up empty.

I looked into external USB/Firewire drives, and my research implied that
some kind of firmware mod was required.

Then I found a company that sold replacement internal DVD drives for
Powerbooks, so I ordered one, removed about a thousand tiny screws on my
Powerbook, replaced the internal CDROM drive with the DVD drive.  

It's standard ATAPI, so no problem, right?  WRONG!!!  Mac OS-X (10.3 at
that time) didn't see the drive at all.  Since I had my Powerbook dual
booted, I booted Ubuntu Linux, and it found the drive without a problem.

I called the tech support people where I bought the drive (who's main
business is repairing out of warranty Apple desktops and notebooks), and
he initially thought the drive they sent me was bad.  Then I explained
that Linux recognized and used it just fine.  He then proceeded to tell
me that my problem was caused by Mac being dual booted, and Linux on
that unused partition was some how screwing up OS-X somehow ...
The drive was then returned for refund, and I gave up.

> > > 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! :)

Hell yes!  :-)   I've never bought a laptop with my own money!

> > 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.

It's a REAL PAIN.  

The Linux on laptop sites are all so outdated, that it's impossible to
find a model listed that can currently be purchased _new_.

> > 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.  

Yes, I've used that trick before in the past.

> Since they sell laptops with Linux installed and
> 'everything working'.   

I've yet to see a laptop with everything working in Linux, but most of
the time it's good enough.

> > 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).

If OS-X had a workspace switcher, I'd be happy with the desktop.
If that latest Evolution ran, I'd be happy with the apps.

But as it stands, I manage fine since this is NOT may main desktop
machine.  I only use it when I'm not at my home or work Linux desktop.

> > 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.

Notice I said "less hassle".  

Instead of installing a bunch of third party RPM's for mplayer, when I
find a plugin that doesn't work, like Real Player or Windows Media
Player, I can just click on the link which takes me to a real.com/M$.com
page, I download the plugin, and I'm in business.  And of course,
Quicktime is installed by default.

And I REALLY like the fact that ALL the hardware is fully supported.
It's really nice to just shut the lid and have it go to sleep, and power
management works, and have the sound works, and the internal modem work,
and the internal wireless network work, and the fancy touch-pad
scrolling works, and ...

> > 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'd be very interested, but I don't know how many others would be.

> > > 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'.

Excluding the regular KLUG meeting attendees that use Mac's, I really
don't know that many others.  The few I do know are web developers, and
that stresses the word "slightly" because they are tech savvy with HTML.

> > > 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?

That would make it easier.

> > > 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).

Yes, it's less work to bitch, than to do something about it.

Which is why I'd like to make it as easy as possible to switch, 
and as cheap as possible ...  Hence OS-X on existing x86 hardware.

> > 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.

Yes, GNOME is #1 in my book.

> > 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).

See easy/cheap as possible comment above.  :-)

> > > 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.

I think it can be done.  Maybe "seamless" isn't the correct word.  How
about a nice GUI installer (with a lot of usable defaults), and after
that Windows [apps] just run ...

 - BS