New Mac Stuff/Designs/Refresh

[Silverwind]

Since discovering that some PC OSes can actually be good, I'm seeing a lot of things that are making me lose faith in Apple.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/features.html

How is a non-removable battery environmentally friendly? In five years, the computer won't retain a charge and it'll either be sold off, thrown about, thrown in landfill or you can pay Apple to replace the internal battery. It'll be obsolete in five years anyway, so you'll want to dispose of the entire machine. That's what bothers me about Apple hardware. It's all disposable. Want a new, faster machine? Go and buy a whole damn system and throw out your old one. What a waste.

And another thing; why is it that Apple hardware is still expensive? We were promised that the price of Apple hardware would drop when they switched to Intel.

Where's the massive price drop? Plus, reducing the fit and finish and build quality of Apple hardware isn't a way of saving money. Same old story again; we're all waiting for Apple to make a cost-effective computer, and Apple are waiting for us to buy their expensive computers before we get to see the cheap stuff.

Their support department is absolutely rubbish. I was told I couldn't have my iSight replaced or repaired and that I'd have to part-ex my 2006 machine for a new one and copy the contents of the hard disk over (this was me talking to a tech support guy who sounded like he was in an Indian call centre of all places). I found an unofficial hack that made the iSight work again. Unofficial software making Apple's "just work" software actually "just work"...

Ah, I dunno. Maybe the X in Mac OS X is the number of years that Apple is behind in all aspects.

Nah, Apple are only peculiar Hardware-wise. Their OS is the best in the world.

I think you can send your computer to Apple to upgrade the graphics card, and certainly common upgrades like RAM and bigger HDs are easy. I'd gladly support Apple by purchasing an iMac rather than building a PC with the same specs for cheeper. If everyone did that Apple would go bust, and then we'd be stuck with Windows.

Support Apple: Save our kids from a dark future of Microsoft crappyness.

[Telstar5]

They can't. Apple would need to release their operating system to work on any PC as Microsoft do with Windows - there would be too many pissed off Mac users out there who would be frustrated being stuck on one version of an OS. Besides, the iPod is keeping Apple alive more than the Mac platform. How many people do you know with iPods? Now take that figure and compare it with the amount of people who own and run Macs. Can you see what I'm getting at here? \ Also, if you can run Windows on a Mac using Boot Camp, then doesn't that make Apple hardware essentially a generic x86 PC with a lockout chip?

Even if Apple did go bust, there are a lot more options other than Windows. You would see a Mac OS compatible system based on Linux or some such geekery which you could download and install on as many systems as you like released maybe a year or two after Apple's bankruptcy.

Hell, Microsoft and Apple could BOTH go bust. Everyone would complain, but again; you've got things like Linux, BSD, and thousands of other free and open source operating systems which will eventually replace proprietary, closed systems like Mac OS and Windows anyway.

I think what you mean is support open source: save the world from the dark future of proprietary crappyness!

[Silverwind]

They can't. Apple would need to release their operating system to work on any PC as Microsoft do with Windows

Oh? That's a shame. In fact I remember Jinx complaining that my Sims games wouldn't run on her newer MacBook a year or two back.

there would be too many pissed off Mac users out there who would be frustrated being stuck on one version of an OS.

Yeah, with me leading the group. My friend's always on at me at how PC games run on any version of Windows whereas Mac dropped support for OS 9 games, but that's exactly why Microsoft suffers: they don't upgrade their gaddy system enough! Supporting old games comes with supporting old glitches.

Besides, the iPod is keeping Apple alive more than the Mac platform. How many people do you know with iPods? Now take that figure and compare it with the amount of people who own and run Macs. Can you see what I'm getting at here? \

Yeah, iPod's are certainly selling like hotcakes. I think they have 90% of the MP3 market or something? I'm not particularly interested in music players though, I just love the operating system. Mac sales have sky rocketed since 2007 and I think Apple have nearly 10% of the market now (which doesn't sound much, but not long ago they only had 3% or something).

Also, if you can run Windows on a Mac using Boot Camp, then doesn't that make Apple hardware essentially a generic x86 PC with a lockout chip

I don't understand why anyone who's used OS X for anything would want to use Windows again, so I don't think it matters how good a PC a Mac is.

Even if Apple did go bust, there are a lot more options other than Windows. You would see a Mac OS compatible system based on Linux or some such geekery which you could download and install on as many systems as you like released maybe a year or two after Apple's bankruptcy.

Nah, nobody is on par with Apple. Take the "iPhone killers" that are all the rage in media these days. I keep hearing about them and how cool they are, but I've never actually seen a phone anywhere near as cool as the iPhone. I've seen plenty of people with iPhones though.

I think what you mean is support open source: save the world from the dark future of proprietary crappyness!

No, no I don't. I love open source and free world technology, but letting everyone edit everything is generally a stupid idea for any project in my opinion. It makes it too easy to bypass security. I'm amazed at what Linux has accomplished, but if it became the main stream OS I'm sure hackers would turn eager attention to it.

[Telstar5]

Well, Linux itself has to be very tightly controlled. Nothing makes it into the kernel without a proper project leader (who is Linus Torvalds I believe) - it's used on too many high-priority systems to be a security risk, and if we wanted to, we could cut bits out of the kernel and compile it ourselves if we don't like the look of a certain piece of code. How can we trust large multi-national conglomerates to not leave vulnerabilities in systems? Microsoft have a deal with the British government, something that lets investigators bypass security measures employed by the operating system to give the feds a good look inside all your personal files with a USB stick. Granted, if the Police want to see your hard disk contents, there'd better be a good reason for it; but say your computer had been used remotely for naughty purposes without you knowing. There'd be all the proof in the world that it was you, and no evidence to say it wasn't someone else operating under your name. What's to say that Apple aren't going to do something like this in the future without being able to see exactly how the operating system works by viewing the code?

10% market share is pretty outstanding, it has to be said. But will we all be saying the same great things about Apple when it reaches 60%? One of the reasons that Mac OS sells so well is because it's secure and only has a small market share. When it gains a hell of a lot more popularity, we'll be seeing all sorts of horrible code being written for the Mac, taking away one of its selling points. Then again, high market share is a good thing too. What I was getting at about the "generic x86 PC" was the fact that the hardware is just a stock PC motherboard in an Apple case. You can buy a single board fanless PC for about $90USD. Bring your own keyboard, mouse and monitor... and you have yourself a potentially very cheap Mac Mini. It all depends on whether or not Apple wants to have a successful OS or not. Give it time, Apple will eventually release OS X for normal Intel motherboards, and they'll gain MUCH more market share, as customers would only need to install it on the PC they just bought, Whendoes-Tax free. Sure, they'd lose out on the £899 hardware sale, but if they sell OS X for £99, they would have many more users buying an awful lot more of Apple software for use on their non-Apple systems. They'd make a fortune by selling OS X for use on all generic x86 PC's, not just their own.

Of course, I still think that Mac OS is one of the most elegant and simple operating systems I've ever used, but I do have my doubts...

[WarHampster]

OS X is the best OS ever, no one here will argue with that.

Macs are PC's with outdated hardware with OS X preinstalled, and they cost thousands of dollars more than they're worth. Essentially the only thing that extra money is getting you is the assurance that the OS will work perfectly on the hardware. However, it is now possible to easily install any version of OS X on a generic PC.

[Silverwind]

Macs are PC's with outdated hardware with OS X preinstalled, and they cost thousands of dollars more than they're worth.

Macs != PCs.

It's a shame the new iMac's are quite expensive (as I'd love to buy one myself) but I don't think they're outrageously expensive considering what you get. The single component structure makes them sturdier than ever and the new glass screen is fitted without incasement making them truly awesome to behold. Apparently Apple have done something behind the scenes with the display as well so that you get the same quality image from all angles. Now that sounds cool.

Furthermore iLife comes with the new Macs, and that's half of the software you'll ever need as a media developer. You'd have to spend several hundred additional simoleons to cram your PC with equal quality software.

However, it is now possible to easily install any version of OS X on a generic PC.

OSX runs best on Macs. Windows runs best on Macs. Roguesoft develop for Mac. Three sufficient reasons to buy Mac.

[Tireas Dragon]

Windows runs best on Macs.

Sad but true.

[Gan]

I remember when they stated that on the front page of PcMall(Or was it PcWorld)?


-Gandolf

[Silverwind]

I know PC world did for sure, but it could well have been both. PC world are always praising Apple stuff.

[WarHampster]

Macs != PCs.

I beg to differ.

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

The processor and RAM are generic units that you can buy and use in any PC. The same goes for the hard drive, and the GPU options are just outdated NVIDA or ATI models. The only things that differentiates it from a PC are it's case, firmware, and display.

[Silverwind]

The only things that differentiates it from a PC are it's case, firmware, and display.

Those are the differences I pointed out.

[WarHampster]

In that case you agree with me... on a hardware level macs and PCs are the same.

[Silverwind]

In that case you agree with me... on a hardware level macs and PCs are the same.

Well no, as I've just pointed out the framework of the new iMac is entirely different to previous Macs or PCs. It's a solid aluminium component. I'll certainly trust you if you're saying the chips are cross platform, as I don't know much about them. *rarely upgrades*

[Gan]

Though yet again, their internal structure is way different from other pc structures allowing easier cooling, smaller framework, faster processing, more simplicity, and easier upgrading(last one's for the Mac Pro). Plus stronger and more damage resistant with less of the cruddy pc hollowly plastic feeling.


-Gandolf

[Silverwind]

faster processing,

Wouldn't that come down to the chips and whatnot?

Plus stronger and more damage resistant with less of the cruddy pc hollowly plastic feeling.

Yeah, I mean I've always found my old iBook sturdy, but having a single piece frame is brilliant. I don't know how they manage to work with it though.