Back in June, when Apple boss Steve Jobs announced the platform change to the x86 architecture, some Apple-watchers could not believe their ears. Had Jobs not preached for years that Intel's architecture was much too slow? But Apple's slogan is not 'Think Different' for nothing. Its decision to support the x86 architecture lies in the unsatisfactory performance of the incumbent PowerPC processors -- particularly in the lucrative and growing notebook market, where the IBM/Motorola-designed PowerPC chips clearly lag behind Intel's CPUs.
Mac OS X will not be available on any old x86 PC, though, as Apple wants to retain control over its hardware platform. From the company's point of view, this is an understandable position, as the margins on Apple-branded computers are much higher than is usual for standard x86 PCs.
Were Apple to put the x86 version of its operating system on general release, Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones. This would put enormous pressure on the price of Apple's own computers -- something the company is naturally keen to avoid. Apple would prefer to manufacture and sell its own high-margin Macs, while denying companies like Dell the chance to endanger its hardware business. This is the motivation behind Apple's decision to restrict the x86 version of Mac OS X to its own hardware.
When Steve Jobs announced the platform change, he publicly demonstrated Apple computers with Intel processors running an x86 version of Mac OS X. The OS is bound directly to the hardware by a special security chip. However, some developers have succeeded in circumventing this coupling, allowing the operating system to be installed on any x86 system, as this test report shows.
Talkback
Just an ordinary user here, but I kind of think Jobs is right to keep it on the Apple hardware. The pressure on price would also be a pressure on quality, and while Apple machines may be high margin, I've had mine go on and on while the PCs of my friends fall apart around me (never mind how much they swear over the software). But people will buy cheap, it's always tempting, and then the whole brand is tarnished by cheap crappy hardware that fails and leaves a bad feeling. Jobs has been down that great software on any hardware road with Nextstep too, which I remember as a thing of beauty, and it didn't go anywhere for him then. Buy the Mac. Life's too short.
"So far, mainly because of performance and price issues, the Apple platform has failed to tempt many Windows users."
ROFL!
Other than that a fairly normal ZDMSNET review...
As I read your article I felt that an important item in Application performance was omitted. You briefly mention Rosetta emulation for the PPC applications. Rosetta is used for PPC programs and they do run significantly slower. x86 programs are not through Rosetta and are a lot faster. iTunes is still being compiled and released as PPC and not x86. If the Rosetta/PPC version is that much slower (not much) than the x86 version will be much faster than that at release. If you want to really test performance closer to final version speeds, test using an x86 application running natively against the Windows version. Your article is somewhat misleading because of this.
Why are you comparing iTunes performance? This is kind of the worst choice one could have done... iTunes apparently still is a PowerPC application, meaning it gets emulated by the integrated Rosetta emulator. (Check Information on application to check that)
Now you wrote:
Mac OS X x86's slower speed in this test is possibly due to the Rosetta emulation environment, under which some x86 programs run.
This should be:
iTunes on Mac OS X x86's slower speed in this test is actually due to the Rosetta emulation environment, under which this PPC application (among others) runs.
That's it. It's not that Apple is actually running x86 programs under the Rosetta emulator. Rosetta translates PPC calls to x86 calls.
I understand why Apple tries to keep Development System from public, since this is nothing more than bad press on something that's not ready for the public...
Just my 2 cents
Saying that the only reason OSX only runs on Apple hardware is to keep margins up is not entirely true. It also makes it much easier to integrate the software in with the hardware, to make it run faster, more reliably, and easier to use. In other words, it helps with the overall user experience, which is what Apple is all about. Windows and Windows applications are saddled with all kinds of crud because of the all important requirement of backward compatibility with all the random hardware out there. Apple will not have the same problem. The result is that Macintosh software -- both the OS and the applications -- optimized for Intel processors on Apple designed hardware -- is going to beat the heck out of Wintel software.
Do you know EULA ???
Who Cares?
Your tests and your conclusions are totally bogus. You could have easily skipped this article. You did not say which build of OS X you installed but I'm sure it wasn't one from Apple with their blessing and it probably wasn't current. They've already tightened that little loop hole. And by the time the final release if finished you wouldn't be able to install it on a generic box anyway, so why bother commenting on it? As one of your readers stated earlier that's the reason Apple keeps this from the public and I whole heartedly agree. You need better research, testing a little more integrity before you go posting bad press without the true facts in hand.
wow all the steve jobs ass licker fangirls come out of the closet. Go back to blowing that hippie fag while he charges you $5000 for a machine made of 99% off the shelf parts.
What a poorly written article!
Among other things, its a bit stupid to suggest that Apple's restricting Mac OS X from generic PCs because 'their own margins are higher than other PC makers'.
If Apple were only interested in short term cash, then licensing Dell would be the first thing to do, since margins on software are obviously higher than the very narrow margins possible in hardware sales.
Specious speculation is not fact, even if you present them as such.
This isn't even a story. You simply followed some web instructions to install an outdated version of pirated software, and aided a developer in violating their NDA contract for some ad clicks.
Along the way, you offered some ignorant misinformation (clearly you know nothing about Rosetta, despite much of its details being widely known) and wrote a lot of personal fanboyism as if it were facts you had researched.
ZD is a leader in ensuring tech journalism stays in the toilet, as long as they can profit from worthless web advertising next to their sensationalism.
I could care less if OS X will run on Dells, and other WinTel PCs.
What does matter?
New Intel Apple macs (iBook, Powerbooks, iMacs, Mac minis etc.) *need* to support dual boot to Windows XP/Vista.
If they do that you can bet my hard earned dollars are going to a new Powerbook AND iMac ASAP.
I admit, I'm disappointed in this article. I've seen the developer box (my company has 9 or so in-house) and its performance is really quite good. The non-x86 applications are not particularly fast, but that's what you get when running PPC-to-x86 instruction translation.
Please, stop with the FUD. If you're going to test applications' runtime, you'll be stuck with apps that are x86 binaries without any OS-specific code. iTunes fat binary running under direct translation will _never_ be as fast as a native binary.
I realize that ZDNet tends to be something of a FUD / marketing tool for MS, I had hoped that if they were to write anything, it would at least be fully researched and factual.
Kelly
The statement that the 80x86 version of Mac OS X looks good at this "early stage" is somewhat odd. Mac OS X has had an 80x86 version under development for almost five years now, based on Jobs' statements at WWDC.
Mac OS X itself is more or less ready for release on 80x86 platforms; at this stage, it's really only waiting for 80x86 Macintosh hardware to be released to the marketplace, and should take off once the number of 80x86 drivers and Universal Binary applications reaches critical mass.
"The margins on Apple-branded computers are much higher than is usual for standard x86 PCs" because buyers will pay for quality--not just backlit keyboards and built-in cameras, although those are terrific features on PowerBooks and iMacs--but because the whole widget, which Apple controls, just works. Those who have worked both platforms--read the Apple Slashdotters for abundant evidence--will agree that "It's the software, stupid," which also happens to play on beautiful machines.
Apple Hater....don't you realise that all computer's are built from "off the shelf" part's?...the difference is that all Apple computer's are all built from the same "off the shelf" part's...using software designed for just those "off the shelf part's"....unlike the other crowd...all sort's of part's...some of wich wouldn't even make it to the shelf....depending on whose machine you buy/build...
I really can't believe some of the opinions that this article is disappointing. Take it for what it's worth. What an exciting time in history we are in with the potential of righeousness coming back in this business. I'm so totally amazed that we may have an alternative for the masses - without the high price as it stands.
As true diehard Apple user's defend a great product - both the software and (off the shelf, hand-picked) hardware, let's not forget the fact that many Windows users need and want an alternative - an affordable one.
As Steve Jobs only knows his strategy, let's not be fooled by the security on the software. I truely believe his intent is to release the operating system to the x86 platform in the near future and allow that choice in the marketplace. With such a lucrative market, why not?
Even if OSX was developed for a few chipsets designed to work very well, an alternative at an affordable price is needed. If it doesn't come from Apple then they're missing a huge opportunity. Apple with it's simplicity is the perfect choice for the alternative, as Linux was and still is designed against the masses. It's a great op for development and technical folk, but not for the average user. Although I have installed Fedora, Mandrake, etc, and love Linux, the too many flavors / choices complicate the decision to buy from the masses.
Windows make a standard because everyone uses it. People use it because the market is seeded with it. If Apple can also seed the market as well - even with a carefully listed product compatibility list for effecient application operation, look out MS.
I bought a mini mac to check out OS X but i found that it was much more limiting to work with than Windows.
I couldn't stand the inconsistency. For instance, sometimes when you close the last window of an application it quits the application. Other times it doesn't and there's no good indicator that the program is still running. Windows programs that do that will minimize to the system tray, a good indicator...
Other inconsistencies that i've noticed are that the keyboard doesn't work the same in different applications. For instance, the END key or HOME keys work like they should in some apps, but not in others. Also, you can't even CUT and PASTE files, you can only COPY and PASTE files. And you cant create new folders in the "common file dialog".
Windows does not have this problem. Application startup times and boot time were also dismal compared to my similarly spec'd PC.
Basically, if you're a power user or a business user, I don't think that OS X is for you. OS X isn't built for this, it's built for simpler users.
Rotten Apple: Your part of your post you said that your Mac mini was too slow, and suggested that if you are a power user to use a PC instead. Dude, if you are a power user, why did you get a Mac mini? A typical mac power user would find the Mac mini slow also. The Power Mac G5 would be the computer for a power user, and if you try that one, you may find it more to your liking.
As far as your other issues, with the inconsistencies with closing windows with the buttons and other times it quits the program, I agree with you on that. It should be more consistent with the close buttons.
I have found that most of the apps I use, do have the option to create a new folder from within the save dialog box, so I don't see that issue. Not sure what app you are using but all the OS X apps I use, that option is available.
Perhaps the reason you cannot cut and paste a file, instead of copy and paste the file is because the interface is easier to work with multiple windows at once, and it is just easier to drag the icon into another Finder window, or hold it on a closed folder and after a few seconds the folder with 'spring' open and you can do this to drill down to where you want to move the file.
Re. the comments about Rosetta: unfortunately there was an error in the original ZDNet Germany article (of which this is a translation). Both articles have now been amended.
As some said, what's the legitimity of such news? I mean, that it seems that the test was done with a pirated and modified version of the x86 version of OS X to permit it to install on the ""test"" box. So, it break the EULA.
Them, the test is done with iTunes on encoding mp3, wich is, if i'm not wrong, kinda Altivec intensive. But, Rosetta don't run Altivec instruction... So, it's more like an emulated G3. It'd be - more - fair if it was done with the x86 binaries, on a legal test box (where the system hasn't been modified at all).
I'm really happy that osx will not run on an ord. PC. Reading some of the comments here; the PC people just don't deserve it, and they would only influence the platform in a bad way. Apple is all about excellence and no compromises. The PC world would demand too many compromises; in hardware, quality, etc.
Either you choose Apple with OSX or you stay away from it.
p.s.: what is also annoying is the constant whining over price.
Yes, at first glance the mac seems quite expensive, but that only
at first glance. Included in this price is excellent software, first class product elements, and you're having a system that virtually never breaks down, has no viruses, and therefor maintenance cost are close to zero. Add the service and guarantee from apple, and the high value apple products have even after several years, and you might even come to the conclusion its cheaper.
It is true that Apple has a higher margin on their hardware than the PC manufacturers. That is possibly because they spend so much on R&D for hardware as well as software, hence the reason that their hardware looks so good and generally is of much higher build quality than the ATX boxes slung together by other manufacturers (Dell not included as a lot of their boxes are really neatly put together).
Having read the article once it had been amended, I found it interesting and informative and not too misleading. Like some of the other posters here, though, I am more keen on dual-booting Windows and Mac OS on my Mac than I am in dual-booting a 'Windows' PC (what will we call them when Mac can do both?)
Hopefully more people will realise that Mac OS-X is a good way to go - Windows has had its chance for far too long now and messed people around. I appreciate that it is difficult writing a mammoth OS that can accommodate many different permutations of hardware, but then that is why Mac OS is so much more elegant and stable.
I just wish there weren't so many fanatical Mac and PC users. It should be a mutual exchange of information rather than a name-calling exercise. I still reckon most PC users suffer from Stockholm syndrome.
I personnally installed the crack version then upgraded it for testing OSX platform .
And I want to be the first to buy it even it's costly .
It's very fast and easy to use .
I'd like a lot the Dashboard feature and others .
very impressive .
I'd also like a lot the shell , you cd on pkg and other file like any dir .
it's very impressive but for a beta after two weeks of use and a lot of software install no crash at all .
very less bugy than windows .
also the batery amon is in persent with a very good precision (ex 83%) .
install are easier than on windows.
on my laptop it toke only 40 min to install I do not now how it can take 2H in your.
Wow...talk about shabby "journalism." I find it odd that you would even attempt to compare a "finished" product (XP) to an illegally cracked version of an early build of a new OS. What the heck is the point of that?
It's like staging a race between a dragster and a 57 Chevy up on blocks.
Do your test again when OS X is finished and running on Intel chips the way it's supposed to, I believe you will find that will be a fairer comparison.
In the meantime, spare us your criticism of OS X...it's a helluva lot better than Windows any day.
I guess the bottom line of this article shows that a hacked version of MacOSX running on your favorite platform is better than the finished XP product designed for you platform
Interesting article. I would like to point out that you can skip the "registration" process in a Mac OS X install by simply hitting Cmd-Q from the screen. This is normally "Quit" but in this particular case it brings up a window offering you the opportunity of skipping registration.
I see no reason why this trick wouldn't work in the x86 installer.
A good article.
It accurately describes the current state of OS X on a PC, which is actually a better experience than would be expected at this point. That's news.
It points out a few benefits of OS X compared to XP. It doesn't go into detail about the benefits of XP over OS X - which there are of course. It would take a large book to exhaustively cover the advantages/disadvantages of the 2 operating systems, so why expect a brief article to do so?
And it mentions that iTunes (and other applications) running under emulation isn't as fast as iTunes running natively. Big deal. Eventually iTunes and other key OS X apps will all be running on Intel processors natively. But not yet.
iTunes on that build of OS X 10.4.x is being emulated through rosetta because it is not a universal binary. So the Application lagging is cleary to be expected and not to be confused with a native x86 OS X binary.
Well, I really think this is quite irresponsible, especially because this is expressly forbidden in the contact you signed with Apple. What's worse is that you're doing this on a web site that is publish by big publisher, and Apple may send in their lawyers and sue for damages.
I'm an OS X users since the late nineties, yes, that's before the beta was publicly released, and I can attest to the fact that OS X needs improvement, but please don't hobble it by running it on unsupported hardware. PLEASE!
Free iPod anyone? http://ipods.freepay.com/?r=22990096
Just lousy journalism.. if you can call it that at all.
It's highly illegal.. don't forget that. Most of the article is fluff for anyone who has ever installed OSX legally. If you wanted to write up something useful, do some real comparisons with the legal test hardware, and then, compare those tests with your illegal cracked software. Find out what difference it has. That might be interesting. Otherwise, Kai Schmerer, prepare for a legal battle.
You could have at least linked to http://osx86project.org/.. they at least have some interesting information.
Dear Rotten Apple,
You wrote that you tested mac mini and found it much more limiting to work with compared to Windows. I'm sorry to hear that and totally understand some of your points, but let me clear some things.
You said that programs quit inconsistently, this is true although there are guidelines for that in Aqua Human Interface Guideline. Programs that are document based (Safari, Word, Excel, etc.) don't quit when the last document is closed, programs that have one main window (Calculator, System Preferences) should quit unless the other way makes sense (like iTunes) or the program continues to do something even when the main window is closed.
There is a very good way of knowing whether a program is running or not. This is false: if they are running, they exist on the Dock, otherwise if not they don't. Easy. Don't clutter your dock up with unnecessary icons, launching programs is easier and faster using LaunchBar, QuickSilver or Spotlight.
You further state that "END and HOME keys do not work as they _should_" (emphasis mine). I must disagree, they work just like they _should_ according to the Aqua HIG. Pressing HOME scrolls to the beginning of the document. If a program does otherwise, and I'm sure they exist, it breaks the HIG and should be fixed.
If that is the way they function on Windows or not is another question, I actually don't know how they work in Windows but I'm quite certain that there are good shortcuts for similar functionality.
As others already have said, there is create new folder button in the standard _save_ dialog, of course an application can choose not to use it.
Your complaint about application startup times is partly valid, it is still quite slow. But how often do you really start new applications? Not that often. And the complaint about boot time, totally irrelevant. I boot my Mac very seldom, there is usually no need to but installing OS updates. And bare in mind that mac mini is low end machine built with laptop parts. Both boot performance and application startup are sensitive to hard drive speed, faster drives, faster times. I bet you know how notoriously slow laptop drives are. Also OS X likes to use memory, more memory the merrier.
So your complaints come down to HOME and END keys do not work like on Windows and Finder does not work like Windows.
In my opinion it is quite unreasonable to expect a non-Windows OS work just like Windows on every small detail, why not just use Windows instead?
Jobs wants control of the tech and experience more than the profit. If Dell made OS X machines, Apple would have to negotiate with them when it was time to drop legacy technology. Furthermore, supporting a OS on cheep hardware would be a hassle and expense that Apple would prefer to leave to companies like MS.
Hey, why not say this again? The argument never ends.
#1 - He's right, Apples are more expensive. Whine about 'maintenance-free' all you want. IBM makes/made Apple's hardware. IBM makes PC hardware. They're not that different. Even the software's not so terribly different. They've had versions of OSX running on PC since the early days. The point is that if you spent $2,500 on PC equipment, you could have a damned fast, damned stable machine. End of story. Not to mention that if you DO have Apple issues, it'll cost you several hundred dollars (parts+labor) to replace a friggin hard drive. That's bullocks. And they DO break. Google for "Apple horror stories" and see what surfaces.
#2 - If you have any problem with PC stability on a regular basis, you either have cheap hardware or are a moron. It's NOT that difficult. You get what you pay for.
#3 - If you have constant problems with Spyware, Malware, Viruses, etc...see #2. I use NO extra software for protection, just off-brand browsers (Opera, Firefox) and common sense. PC upkeep may be hard if you're unwilling to format once in a while to regather all your resources (I do the same with OSX - any OS gets cluttered if you're not anal about organization), but any computer user waving opinions around should know enough about their machines that this is not a problem. Watch your downloads/attachments. Watch your running services. Watch your commit charge, statups, and CPU usage. Viruses are scary to PC users like changing a tire is scary to some drivers - you may not be a mechanic, but you should know how to protect and work with your investments in a common-sense sort of way. Again, end of story.
That being said, it sure would be nice to run OSX on my PC. :P The Dev Build runs like wildfire, and if I had the Intel Mobo, I might use it more often. I'm interested to see what happens. But yes, this article was rather useless, and anyone who cares has read and re-read osx86project.org. Toodles!
I must admit it's interesting to see the number of posts from upset Apple users - particularly when you think how much of a minority they are. Inferiority complex perhaps?
as a marketing manager you sure dont know the mac market, its currently outgrowing the pc market or at least thats what market research firms are saying. and im not some apple fan boy. i'll give props where they are due, apple is making some considerable advances with the hardware/software mix and people are buying in. If this wasnt the case, more apple stores wouldnt be being built, and have you ever been in one of those things on a weekend? my god.
It was definitely a mistake to compare iTunes' performance, since iTunes is emulated on x86 right now.
I don't know if Quicktime is native yet, but if it is, you might try comparing the performance of some kind of Quicktime Pro processing on OS X/Intel and Windows.
Unbelievable. Publishing on the Internet evidence that you have an illegal copy of Mac OS X... just for your stupidity alone you deserve the iron-fisted smack-down headed your way.
Phatt138...I own a G3 266...bought in 1998/99...Have been upgrading it using part's from the "British computer fair's" conputer fair locally...(if you have never heard of it, check it out)...basicaly all "PC" stuff....memory, hard drive's, usb card, external usb/hard drive case's, etc, etc...all at well below high street price's (approx 1/2- 2/3 cost)...the only thing's that can't be got are apple compatable graphic's card's, PPC chip's...if you are buying your "PC" part's at high street price's (PC World etc.)....then i'm sorry to say...you're a MUG...full stop...but then again a lot of people say that Apple only use "PC" part's without thinking about what they are saying!!!...it's actually true in a lot of case's...That's why I hope that Apple goes with generic Intel part's, and not "Apple" Intel part's...like the "Apple" graphic's card's...("Tweaked" by Apple)...if this happen's, then almost everything available to the "PC" will be available for Mac...that's when the fun will really start...and cheap...
Registering IS optional:
Command + Q
when the registration form appears and an dialogue with the option to skip registering appears.
Argh, why did you test iTunes?? I'm not interested in OS X vs. XP on the same hardware (of course they're going to be about the same speed when both run natively).
I'm interested in OS X on x86 vs. OS X on PPC. And pretty much every Apple application *except* iTunes is already Intel native, so you could have tested any application (iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, Safari, etc) on OS X x86 and benchmarked it against OS X PPC (running on, say, an iBook, or a Mac Mini). That would have actually been interesting.
The OS X vs XP thing is completely uninteresting, esp since iTunes is being emulated anyway.
Lazy guy wrote:-------------
Other inconsistencies that i've noticed are that the keyboard doesn't work the same in different applications. For instance, the END key or HOME keys work like they should in some apps, but not in others. Also, you can't even CUT and PASTE files, you can only COPY and PASTE files. And you cant create new folders in the "common file dialog".
------------------------------------------
Your comments are kinda pointless. CUT and PASTing files is unnecessary when you can, while dragging them, MOVE or COPY or DUPLICATE them. Not much investigation there, huh?
You CAN create new folders in the "common dialog" box used to save files. You neglected to click on a (REALLY OBVIOUS) right-facing triangle that expands the dialog and the expanded dialog has NEW FOLDER as a button right at the bottom.
Frankly, I don't think you bought a Mac Mini. If you did you would know what you are taliking about. All the complaints you have show you have never spent more than 10 minutes with the system and are complaining that it isn't "just like Windows." What you miss is that, in a lot of cases, THAT IS THE POINT. Regrettably, people who have walked for a month with a ROCK in their shoe will miss it when it is removed. Next time, if you cannot understand an operating system function, I understand HELP from the HELP MENU can be HELPFUL to the naiive novice with no patience.
FUD spreader wrote:-------------------
Not to mention that if you DO have Apple issues, it'll cost you several hundred dollars (parts+labor) to replace a friggin hard drive.
-------------------------------------------------------
So you are so "literate" that PC maintainance is a "cake walk" but you cannot replace a STANDARD ATA HARD DRIVE? Well, if it is under warranty, it is FREE, no cost. If it is out of warranty, you go to (where-ever) and buy a replacement drive. 4 screws, plug in two cables and reinstall. You know *nothing* about what you are talking about. You are a no-nothing "expert" slinging around opinion on topics you don't understand. Get a clue.
Gotta love the pinheaded reasoning of PC users!
On one hand, "Apple just uses PC components anyway, so they are nothing special!" On the other hand "Everything about a Mac has to be purchased from Apple."
Both opinions are wrong, but the opposition of the two arguments tells the story of the lousy logic better than I could. Just read the comments. The "stupid" jumps right out at you.
"...you're having a system that virtually never breaks down, has no viruses, and therefor maintenance cost are close to zero..."
I'm always amazed that Mac loyalists can get away with saying things like this. All one needs to do is to head over to the support forums at apple, appleinsider, macworld, etc. etc. and read people's posts about problems with their hardware and software.
Look for complaints about Apple support, especially problems getting satisfaction under AppleCare warranties, and you will find many, many, unhappy people. Apple itself seems to have bought into the "they never break" myth to the degree that their QC and support are going downhill fast.
Time will tell--apparently there are a million "switchers" this year, and we'll see if those folks really think it was worth the trouble and expense.
Tired-of-Whining... I must've been unclear...
Obviously you should be able to replace a hard drive. That's the whole point. My logic is that if people complain about computer support/stability issues, they must not know how to fix it. Is that not a reasonable assumption? And if you were said user, and DID need to pay Apple to fix it, it would cost you big bucks. Right? Plus, 32 screws to remove a powerbook harddrive is no small feat, let me tell you. I was responding to the misleading statement that PC's are unstable and Macs never have any problems. It's untrue on both counts. They are both computers, made with the same assembly processes, and have similar cost/effectiveness ratios. A good product is a good product, regardless of whose logo's stamped on it.
As for the money/knowledge issue, I'd NEVER pay someone else to do anything to my computer, which is exactly what I was getting at. People with stability issues are buying prepackaged Emachines, etc. Building a PC yourself ensures that you know everything that goes into it and have control over quality. If you WERE to somehow FIND a way to spend $2,500 on a PC, it'd be a real winner. That's all I said. I could give a crap less about "Winspreading"... OSX is superior. Isn't that what this whole post is about? But the idea that you can compare the thousands of off-brand piss-poor PC models to multi-thousand dollar Apple masterpieces is silly. There's too much variability.
I built my computer from nothin for under $1,200 and have never seen a bluescreen or had anything but flawless performance. 3.4ghz, 6800 Ultra, SATA RAID 0+1, whole 9. It's not tough. And no, I didn't buy any of it for list price, thank-ya-very-much. : P
What is with all the negative comments. This review was commentary. There was a big flag that said...this is on pre-release software! The review was fair. Based on this build the performance is decent and the PPC optimized apps run slowly under emulation. And of course it said gee this is pretty good, and the finished product should be great.
So there is no FUD..and it isn't official....so it should be taken with a grain of salt.
So get over the negative comments about iTunes performance and wait until we get a real product. Thank can be officially tested. This review isn't any different thant the constant feedback on the various builds of Vista/Longhorn/Office/Whatever over time.
You wrote:----------
My logic is that if people complain about computer support/stability issues, they must not know how to fix it. Is that not a reasonable assumption? And if you were said user, and DID need to pay Apple to fix it, it would cost you big bucks.
-----------------------
That is, in fact, faulty logic. Let's try the equivelent: "Anyone that wants a reliable car must not be smart enough to repair a car!" Make sense? No, it doesn't.
Not wanting to tinker with computers does not equal "being too stupid to repair a computer." Your "pride" at having assembled your computer betrays your particular prejudice: you LIKE to tinker with computers.
I work with appllications and data about 99 percent of the time. I buy a computer, I use a computer. I buy a camera, I use a camera. I buy a car, I use a car.
I don't want a old Harley that you have to wrench on, I would buy a new bike that doesn't require wrenching. I don't want a view camera that requires I carry sheet film, I want a digital SLR.
I don't want an Escort that has to be started with pliers, no matter how cheap. I would get no pride from going to a junkyard and assembling a car from the pieces. It would be a waste of time to me. No pride. Just time spent that I could have been driving.
You don't understand that. You probably never will.
I understand your pride in taking a bag of parts and making a computer, but I don't SHARE it.
People who brag about how cheap and easy it was to assemble their own computer, in my years of experience, always, 100% of the time, whitewash the troubles that have doing it and ignore money they spend to finally get it to work. Those facts would dispute how "cheap and easy" it is.
Anyone who says that the average cheap PC and the average Mac are the same is drunk. One of the techs here slashed his wrist on the chassis of a PC because it had a knife-edge piece of sheet steel facing into the chassis. He had choice words to say about the quality of that PC. Sure, the box was cheap, but it was also CHEAP. You would never see that on an average Apple Computer. You won't appreciate that. You have pride in being the guy who doesn't slash his wrist because he is "handy and clever." But you don't get that I don't need to be "more clever" because I can actually "get Windows to see a printer", unlike the average schmuck. I have a Mac. I plug it in, it goes. Nearly always.
We bought Dells here. They shipped with lots of stuff; headphones, speakers, blah, blah. BIIIIIG pile. All junk. All had to be replaced. But that comes out of a different pocket. Cheap computer that "keeps on taking."
Dude, I have dissassembled and repaired more kinds of equipment than you have ever seen. I'm nearly 50. Embroidery machines, movie cameras, bicycle derailluers, video game consoles, dvd players and every piece on a computer that is repairable. That is why I am 100% certain that screwing around with it is a waste of time. And for me money.
You want to mess around with it in your spare time, fine. I don't have any. I have a good paying job, a family, a life. I buy a computer, I use a computer. Macs are like that. Bags O' Parts PC computers are not. If you say different, you are lying to me or to yourself.
Maybe some day your time will be worth enough money that your hourly rate will be more than some Malaysian workers and their robots. But with your view of your worth, I doubt it.
Comment:------------
Look for complaints about Apple support, especially problems getting satisfaction under AppleCare warranties, and you will find many, many, unhappy people.
------------------------
People who have a Mac have ONE COMPANY to call: Apple. On our PC's, any company you call blames the others. "No, it's the I/O card, no it's the video card, no it's Microsoft's fault, no it is the PC assembler's problem, etc. etc. FOREVER in a circle."
Apple sells millions of computers. Some people will be unhappy. It is inevitable.
And they, like everyone else, depend on vendors who sometimes screw up. Happens!
Try running a billion dollar company. Wait, try running TWO at the same time. Oh, that's right, you don't MAKE stuff, just spend your time tearing down what others do.
Get a life, get a job, get a clue.
You think Apple is bad (Consumer Reports says No.1, 3 years running) try GATEWAY. Or ACER. Or COMPAQ or PJQ Joe's brand computer. Try their customer service. Hope you have a headphone on your phone and hours of time to wait.
PC users= misery loves company. "No one could be having a better experience than us or that would make us foolish and I don't want to look foolish. That means that someone is lying.
What makes more sense: Tens of millions of people are wrong...or YOU ARE? Law of averages favors you.
WOW!
A lot of angry Santas here. Listen, in my opinion, either camp (Windows and Mac) have their advantages. I sell both Macs and PC's. It is nothing close to glamorous but it is a means to graduation. I have come to learn a few things about either platform. Yes PC's are cheaper out of the box, look at the specs. Compare an equally priced Mac and the specs have smaller number. Why? Basically the Mac OS does not need the same kind of processing power to get the same job done. OS X may be slower in certain avenues, such as copying Discs. The Disc burning capabilities on a PC far outweigh the disc burning on a Mac. If that is something that makes you proud of your machine then get a PC. What makes a Mac so attractive to many of my customers is that they don't want to think about their computer, they want to think about their project, their work, their life.
I understand that many of my PC based fans enjoy the tinkering and expect to tinker. Well, in my opinion, that is their right to like PC's. I don't think anyone wishes to take that away ffrom them; Just like Harley Davidsons. However, many of you are expecting many people to fit into one camp or the other. I for one enjoy my Mac and don't ever care of owning a PC. It works for me. Other co-workers of mine perfer PC. They like the specs of their machine and almost don't care of the crashes or extra virus protection (Notice I am making a general statement. This is not true for all PC users. I am sure each PC user has their own special reason for staying PC) or all of that stuff that PC users have grown accustomed to. My only gripe in all of this is most of you are condeming the other side without considering the other persons needs for their computers. As for me, I am happy when I can set up a customer with the proper computer. Most of the time in my location it is a mac, sometimes not. Most of the Mac switchers don't even care about all the hype, and I think they come to realize a lot of the "uber geeks" deffend their beliefs as if everyone in the world was against their Computer bias.
The truth is, if you are a gamer, computer hardware hobbiest, or even just like mainstream technology, get a PC. If you enjoy all the above and more, get a mac. Macs are undoubtably more stable than PC's are. Not because of the hardware mind you. Because of the OS. Check with Wall street journal, consumer reports, Money Magazine and other magazines will give a nice neutral article on Macs.
Dedicated mac users will deffend their decision to use a Mac because to them, the Mac satisfies most of thier needs unlike Windows machines. Windows users enjoy some benefits and those benifits are more important to them than the other camps arguments. Let's face it, we do not fit into a cookie-cutter society. I am glad you PC users are happy with your machine. I am happy with my Mac because for me, it is important not to have to think about protection and downloads of extra software for my mac to function at its best. I am also glad that right out of the box when I get a mac, I don't have to do much else but plug it in and I imediatly on some kind of GUI smiling at me as to say "welcome, I will not give you trouble. I am good looking!" I welcome those beautiful benifits. I am also a nerd and I love messing with the Free BSD Kernel in Macs so I can get under the hood and tinker with some fun stuff. I also know Macs are not created by some devine power, they are made by humans. That means they are not perfect. However, if we were to make an absolute scale of some measurement and place PC's and Macs on this absolute measurement in terms of stability, Macs would be on the end closer to perfect than PC's are. Most of the PC companies are in only for the Money. Apple, the same! But their business plan is probably to serve an underserved market that is quickly growing in society. Non geeks working with geek machinery. Since I turned this into a novel, I will shut up. I also understand that many people readi
This article reads like a review of a warez product. It sickens me to see such blatant disregard of legal and moral standards, and for no demonstrable purpose at all.
Ethically, it just blows my mind: What you have deigned to do is illegal, and for an such a high-profile publication to stoop to such poor standards of journalism spreads a message that this sort of behaviour is passively condoned.
The issue of the future of the Intel Macintosh computers is a hot topic among the tech-savvy and IT gurus. For ZDNet (or any other publication) to discuss the matter is understandable; to probe the issue is justifiable; to speculate upon the future of Apple's decision is inevitable. However to illegally download, install, evaluate, and publish a review of pirated software is *clearly* crossing a line.