[KLUG Advocacy] Apple using Intel chips ...

[Greg Mason]

> 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?

G4 machines use PCI. PowerMacG5s use PCI-X. All Macs use either EIDE  
drives or Serial-ATA. Video is a bit different because while they are  
the same exact hardware, they have different firmwares on them. This  
is because Macs use Open FIrmware, while PCs are stuck using the old  
BIOS system.

USB and FireWire devices "just work" unless you get REALLY obscure  
stuff, and that generally won't work right on a PC anyways...
> 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.


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

Part of the reason Apple went with Intel. Their current G4 PowerBooks  
are severely lagging behind Intel's chips, because IBM hasn't gotten  
their act together with a low-power G5 chip, and probably never will.
> 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've switched from Linux to OS X. First was Jaguar, 10.2.3 on a G3  
iBook. In Jag, there were a few things I missed about Linux. Now, the  
only thing I miss is a magical keystroke to get me to a command  
prompt when  Finder freezes (happens once in a blue moon), and I  
can't log out.

> 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.

VLC and MPlayer OS X, all the way...

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

I generally see people buy a machine, it gets slow (usually the fault  
of Windows, not the hardware), and go out, buy a new one and throw  
their old one away. Don't you just love the disposable society we are  
in?

>>> 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'.

hey now!!!

>>> 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?

Um, no. One argument that I heard (before the Intel announcement),  
was that since all the
>
>
>>> 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.

Some people still don't even know what Windows is. Just like people  
that can't tell different kinds of cars apart, except for color.

>>> 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).

There have been a few people that have complained to me about their  
Windows boxes, and I tell them about the Mac (being the Mac zealot I  
am), and some say "eww, Macs" and others genuinely think about  
switching. I'd like to think at least some of it has to do with how  
fed up they are.

> 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.

How many machines are running GNOME in Best Buy, though?

>> 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.



>>   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...

I don't know about that. There's a certain user experience you get on  
a Mac that you don't get anywhere else. One tiny example of that is  
the strict UI guidelines Apple has set forth for software.  
"preferences" is always in the same place in the menu bar (and it's  
not "settings" or "options", always "preferences"), "Quit" is always  
in the same place (and it's not "exit"), and so on and so forth. Last  
time I check (but might be wrong), Linux wasn't so strict, which is  
nice for developers, but not so much for end-users.

>>> 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.

Whatever you'll get with Intel Macs will be HELL of a lot nicer than  
the kludgy Virtual PC that is on Macs now. Sometimes VPC is like  
running a 400Mhz machine with XP on it, sometimes it's like running a  
100 Mhz machines with XP on it... If there's no more translation of  
Intel -> PowerPC happening, on top of all the virtualized hardware, I  
imagine things will become a hell of a lot less kludgy, and something  
that's a lot more useful.