Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today

George Graves wrote:
> In article <1126845618.296594.180350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> imouttahere@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > > Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> > > Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry.
> >
> > Isn't it already? What's the big deal about slapping an Apple logo on
> > an x86 box?
>
> No, it isn't "already".

Apple has announced they're getting out of the hardware industry as a
proprietary maker, and becoming an Intel OEM.

> And the "big deal" is that an X86 Mac is not
> about "just slapping an Apple Logo on an X86 box" It's about slapping an
> X86 processor inside of a Mac

thing is, this involves a lot more than just the processor: the
chipset. Ever since the 2nd generation power macs Apple hardware has
been steadily been devolving -- first PCI, then USB, AGP, now the
chipset and CPU. What's left?

> and if you don't see or understand the
> difference, then you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss something
> that you don't "get".

What I don't get, and what you haven't provided any light on, is how an
Apple x86 box is going to be different than an eg. Dell x86 box.

Interestingly, Apple has recently let out of the bag that SSE3 will not
necessarily be available. Since SSE3 has been available on all Intel
CPUs since last year, it almost looks like Apple is leaving the door
open to a wider licensing approach.

> > > A no hardware
> > > Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
> > > same reasons.
> >
> > I disagree. NeXT was caught between the dual hammers of Macintosh at
> > its competitive peak and the Windows 3.x/95 boom. Not to mention SGI,
> > which was feeling its oats in the early 1990s.
>
> NeXT ported its OS to Intel and stopped building boxes. Crickets
> chirped, potential users yawned, and the masses bought Windblows.

Part of the response was due to the high licensing costs NeXT was
forced to pursue due to its shaky financial health.

> Apple is a HARDWARE company.

....soon no longer making their own proprietary hardware.

> The last time they even tried to share the
> hardware market by allowing clones, it almost killed them off.

The difference today is that they are not subsidizing the clones by
having to do all the R&D, or having to do all the hardware QA. That's
Intel's job, and *APPLE* itself has become the "cloner".

Apple really doesn't have all their eggs in the high-margin workstation
basket like they did in the mid-1990s. Thanks to the iMac, iPod,
aggressive software development, iTMS, the high-margin workstations are
an afterthought as far as profit to the company goes.

> Now you
> are advocating that Apple let just any cheap Intel box run OSX?

Pretty much any box capable of running Quake3 well, yes. So every
machine built this decade.

> That would be even worse for Apple than the cloning venture

Nah. Cloners were crimping the late, great Apple's style of hardware
innovation. Remember the GeoPort, the AV macs?

By going x86, Apple Computer Inc has essentially thrown in the towel on
PC hardware innovation, delegating it to Intel.

> > As of now, the Apple of old is dead. SGI is circling the bowl, and
> > Windows is dominant as it has ever been, yet Vista is a pretty big
> > gamble for the company.
>
> Once again, you show your lack of understanding. The "Apple of old" is
> not dead, it's still the same innovative company that it has always
> been.

Apple *Computer*, Inc. is dead. Steve just killed it. Welcome to
AppleSoft and iTunes.

> Some innovations work for them (iPods) and some don't (you are
> aware that Apple produced the FIRST consumer digital camera, are you
> not?).

Good point. Apple has had a talent making innovative/stylish
peripherals over the years (ImageWriter, LaserWriter, AppleTalk
networking, the QuickTake, the iPod).

> Apple has always been about one thing: The tight integration
> between hardware and software. It's still about that.

Well if Windows can run on their hardware, they're no longer in the
hardware game as far as I'm concerned.

> > x86 is the settled standard. Person buying an x86 box has two choices:
> > Linux or Windows. Apple could and should IMV join this game, instead of
> > trying to maintain a Mac-label boutique ghetto in x86 land.
>
> You are wrong. This would be the worse thing that could happen. OSX
> would just be another OS choice, like Linux and NeXT before it. People
> would no longer differentiate between Macs and PCs and most would just
> stick with the Windows OS that came with their box.

You still have failed to answer how an Apple x86 box will be different
than a Dell x86 box.
Both will run Windows, implying great commonality.

Once the Mac goes x86 OS X will be already "just another" OS choice.
The difference will be that Apple will be requiring OS X chooser to
choose Apple-brand x86 hardware too.

> It would cut Apple off from it's main revenue stream.

Apple could still offer Apple-brand x86 hardware, but if you fear
Apple-brand hardware can't survive in direct competition with licensed
OS X for generic x86, that says a lot about how "special" Apple-brand
hardware will be, doesn't it?

> Without the cash for R&D, Apple would no longer be innovative as it now and eventually be >marginalized out of business.

The main innovation on the PC hardware front we've seen out of
Cupertino since 1998 has been the size, color, and/or backlighting of
the Apple logo.

If Macs were actually across-the-board better than x86 PCs today you'd
have a point. We've got marginal things like better power management,
better boot UE, firewire target disk mode, auto-sensing ethernet ports,
cool integration with the display.

But it remains to be seen what of the above will survive once the x86
boxes come out.

As a user, you should know that the bigger the platform, the more
software will be written for it.

Selling the OS X DVD to everyone would provide an immense boost to the
OS X userbase, doubling or tripling it overnight.

I'd trade that for Apple-branded hardware. No prob.

> > > > Looking at financials, Apple's making 30% gross margin on an average
> > > > $1500 hardware sale, or $300 per machine.
> > >
> > > Where do you get that 30% figure? I was under the impression that
> > > Apple's gross margins were about half that.
> >
> > No, Dell's are 18-20%. For 3Q05 Apple posted a 29.6% gross margin. This
> > includes 1/3 of sales that were iPods, and those come in at 22%
> > apparently, software is only 10% of sales so doesn't have much an
> > effect on gross margin.
>
> That's right, software doesn't have much of an effect on gross margins
> because Apple is a HARDWARE company. You just answered your own question.

A hardware company with large fixed costs making hardware. One whole
building on the Apple Campus (AC6) was devoted to hardware engineering.
These days, this engineering work can be done by Ive himself, picking
out the Pantone color of the plastic and which wat to mount the LCD.

> > Getting sales churn on a 200M unit market looks more profitable than
> > servicing a 20M market.
>
> It would not be.

200M x 10% market penetration x $100 license = $2 billion dollars per
year.

Looks more to me.

I believe that Apple can get 10% penetration with OS X in open
competition with Windows and Linux since I think it's better than both.
You, for some reason, lack this estimation of OS X.

> > Now that Apple's ditching their own design work
>
> Where do you get that from? You seem to be convinced that all an
> Intel-based Mac would be is an Acer motherboard stuck in a Mac case.
> This is incorrect.

If it runs Windows, it's a generic motherboard.

> > I feel no strong need
> > to buy a Mac anymore. "Intel Inside" is "Intel Inside" is "Intel
> > Inside" as far as I am concerned, and I think I can do a better job of
> > putting together an x86 box than Apple can.
>
> And that thinking is why you don't "get it" at all. But don't come
> running back here and complaining about how poorly OSX runs on your home
> brew Winbox. You have been told that an Intel based Mac is NOT a Windows
> machine

:) But they are...

> and that you choose to ignore that admonition and run a hacked
> version of the OS on some cobbled together PC is your problem, not
> Apple's, not OSX' and not the Mac supporter's on this forum.

"Cobbled together"?

What is cobbled together about x86, George?

The components:

1) CPU (Intel)
2) Chipset (Intel)
3) Video card (ATI or NVIDIA)
4) SATA hard disk
5) ATAPI optical

That's not any more cobbled together than Macs.

The wildcard here is the BIOS, but this is booted out of early, and as
far as we know Apple machine will have a standard Intel BIOS (hopefully
EFI).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: XGrid Question
    ... My USB MP3 player and Camera did ... The Mac Mini uses DVI, the vga adapter is only there for people ... > does not support much of the hardware I currently own. ... If it wasn't for Apple, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: When is a Mac no longer a Mac?
    ... > Lots of users care about hardware. ... It didn't come from Windows. ... >>> So what about Mac today is still Mac? ... Local Talk is "dead", Apple Talk isn't. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Do Macs require IP troubleshooting like PCs do?
    ... that Apple controls 100% of the OS and 100% of the networking hardware ... Not the mac. ... On my Mac Pro, the network hardware is made by intel, and not Apple. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today
    ... not because Apple hasn't TRIED. ... You don't think that twice the going rate for hardware is ... >> Except that the $699 Dell is neither equal to nor better than any Mac. ... vendor) box palatable is to run Linux instead of Windows on it. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: So, now that Vista is finally shipped.
    ... Apple made a lot of money from iPods and PCs. ... They didn't change the mac into what used to be its rival, ... based on CPUs other than the x86 series from Intel. ... Apple may never reach the profits of Microsoft. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Loading