Cheap and plentiful is what the PC business is all about.
Wealth transfer from customers to shareholders is what Apple is all about.
Open your local Best Buy flyer and you're likely to see some variation on this:
An entry level MacBook Pro pictured next to a totally tricked out PC notebook with the latest quad core i7, a fancy discrete video chip with tons of VRAM, double the RAM, double the storage, etc.
The kicker? In almost every case the high end PC carries a lower price tag than the entry level Mac.
I like OS X and the aluminum unibody case is very practical, but there's no denying that Mac buyers pay a huge premium for them.
Huge premium?
Your PC you can't even give it away and put the MBP in eAy you get back at least a few hundred $s and the user experience is priceless.
Btw it takes a geek to troubleshoot a downed PC and now who would want to do that. Yes, the Apple Store will take away most of the headache a Manuser face.
The PC resale value is you can't even give it away whereas the MBP will get you back at least a few hundred dollars and the user experience is priceless.
Btw if you get into trouble with the PC who will troubleshoot for you?b
If Apple were to switch to ARM processors across their entire line up, would Apple really be at a disadvantage in regards to software? I think not. iOS has far more software available than OS X although iOS software would need considerable effort to fully meet expectations.
You're confusing the processor with the OS. iOS software won't run on an ARM Macintosh any more than Windows software will run on an Intel Mac.
It would make it easier/faster to virtualize iOS on Mac OS if Mac OS was running ARM (in the same way that the switch to Intel made it possible to run Windows much faster under VMWare), but is anybody actually crying out to use iOS apps on Mac? It might be fun in a few cases, but it would be a novelty at best. iOS apps are designed for a touchscreen, not a mouse and keyboard.
If Apple did switch to ARM, it would be much quicker and easier for developers to recompile their existing Mac software for ARM than it would be to port over iOS applications. iOS apps rely on a completely different set of APIs (okay, not completely different, but different enough) to Mac apps, and would require a total UI redesign for the desktop.
Fortunately, after the Intel switch, most Mac software is now written in pure C/Objective-C without any assembly. That means that converting it for an ARM Mac would be a simple case of recompiling it in Xcode and making a FAT binary (like the old Universal apps for PPC/Intel, but for Intel/ARM instead). By adding a rosetta-style x86 emulation layer Apple could probably make the switch to ARM as painlessly as they managed the switch to Intel.
I still don't see a very strong business case for it though. The disadvantage is that they lose Windows interoperability (still a big safety net for switchers and business users, even if they never end up using it in practice) and all Mac software needs to be re-compiled and re-released by the developers. The advantage is... sticking it to Intel?
Put a glowing apple logo on the back and the thing will sell
Kidding
Or a pear logo like they do on the kids' TV shows. "We're not copying. See-a pear is nothing like an Apple."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Now wait a minute... the PC manufacturers have to answer to shareholders too. They are all in business to make money.
True, but the difference is that Apple is actually doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
You're confusing the processor with the OS. iOS software won't run on an ARM Macintosh any more than Windows software will run on an Intel Mac.
Bad example. Windows software DOES run on an Intel Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear
Except Apple is one of the biggest users of Intel chips. And in the 'ultra book' class Apple is the leading purchaser. So why does Intel favor one user over another?
Intel should not be pissing off one of their biggest customers, and one of the FEW companies that can turn the world against Intel compatible cpus.
That's what confuses me about the whole thing. Not only is Apple one of Intel's top 5 customers, but Intel is struggling to put out an Atom chip that will replace ARM in tablets and phones - and Apple would clearly be a huge target for such a chip. It just doesn't make sense for Intel to be so obvious about going after Apple.
The only logical thing would be if (as someone said above), Intel expected to lose Apple's business, anyway, but that just doesn't seem likely.
Comical - even Intel wants to copy Apple! Their strategy however is a failed one - a duplication of why PC makers don't make any money.... Intel is pushing them to continue their race to the bottom by pushing them to make them cheaper! Idiots all!!!!!
They've gotten their money's worth from PA. Just the iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV use enough A-series chips to make it worthwhile.
I'm sure they'll continue improving the ARM chips, but they have a long way to go to catch up to Intel - and Intel is continuing to improve at the same time. Plus, Intel is apparently getting closer to releasing a chip that would compete well with ARM.
All points you make are well taken and true. However, another take on this is that Apple doesn't have to compete with Intel's chips because Apple can design, and more importantly, optimize their chips to work exceptionally well in their ecosystem. CPUs no matter who makes them are at the point where they are almost powerful enough to do what ~90% (my guess) of what average consumers use their computers for.
IMO Apple devices do not need as much power in their chip as Intel does in their chip designs simply because Apple moves beyond legacy tasks while Intel's chips must still support a bloated legacy x86 codebase. I'm sure you remember Jobs' debate on not needing higher clock speeds. Apple is merging their iOS with most of the desktop Mac's productivity tasks that most people use every day, and OSX will eventually be cross platform with iOS. I'm betting that Apple's OS engineers are working very close with PA Semi to achieve this goal.
It won't happen tomorrow but it might not be years away either. My point is I don't believe Apple's version of ARM is in competition with Intel designs. Apple will leave Intel. It's only a matter of time, and Intel knows it. Apple's proprietary chips makes perfect sense from the POV of security, piracy, optimization, economy of scale, profit, integration, and the list goes on. I can see a Apple firmware way of upgrading your iOS or OSX system that is on a A(x) SoC before the end of this decade.
All points you make are well taken and true. However, another take on this is that Apple doesn't have to compete with Intel's chips because Apple can design, and more importantly, optimize their chips to work exceptionally well in their ecosystem. CPUs no matter who makes them are at the point where they are almost powerful enough to do what ~90% (my guess) of what average consumers use their computers for.
Not only that, just imagine what a 2GHz quad core ARM chip can do, or even higher, though they might need to rework the core designs to scale. The handheld device world has been sticking near 1GHz for power consumption reasons. ARM works very well in those constraints, if you give it more resources it could do pretty well, a lot of things short of pro media and engineering applications.
I'm not advocating it, but I don't think it's unrealistic for it to happen and still be successful.
We don't need to get into a line-item comparison between Windows laptops and MacBooks. But you're right... you can get some killer hardware for cheaper than a Mac.
So do you think that a Hackintosh is the best bet?
All points you make are well taken and true. However, another take on this is that Apple doesn't have to compete with Intel's chips because Apple can design, and more importantly, optimize their chips to work exceptionally well in their ecosystem. CPUs no matter who makes them are at the point where they are almost powerful enough to do what ~90% (my guess) of what average consumers use their computers for.
IMO Apple devices do not need as much power in their chip as Intel does in their chip designs simply because Apple moves beyond legacy tasks while Intel's chips must still support a bloated legacy x86 codebase. I'm sure you remember Jobs' debate on not needing higher clock speeds. Apple is merging their iOS with most of the desktop Mac's productivity tasks that most people use every day, and OSX will eventually be cross platform with iOS. I'm betting that Apple's OS engineers are working very close with PA Semi to achieve this goal.
It won't happen tomorrow but it might not be years away either. My point is I don't believe Apple's version of ARM is in competition with Intel designs. Apple will leave Intel. It's only a matter of time, and Intel knows it. Apple's proprietary chips makes perfect sense from the POV of security, piracy, optimization, economy of scale, profit, integration, and the list goes on. I can see a Apple firmware way of upgrading your iOS or OSX system that is on a A(x) SoC before the end of this decade.
Good points.
And CPU performance isn't that important any more.
iOS (Mac OS X) really shines (even literally) because of the GPU cores.
And GPUs for ARM SOCS are exceptionally good (think of PowerVR).
Intel on the other hand isn't that good at integrated GPUs, so they do have something to worry about.
The current iPad has the GPU performance desktop systems had a few years ago, think of it.
It's obvious that Apple can't rely on Intel as a key supplier when its representatives diss Apple's products. After courting Apple for all those years until Apple finally made the transition to Intel, is this how Intel pays Apple back? Cloning the products that Apple has developed and competing with one of its largest and prominent customers?
So then you expect Intel to sit by and watch their other customers disappear into obscurity because just one of their customers just happens to be Apple. I agree that these Ultrabooks are a desperate attempt to stop the leak of PC customers moving to OSX but it doesn't mean some aren't at least decent. I quite like the Asus Zen and HP Folio. Did you know the Asus includes a bag and all of accessories that you have to pay for if you bought a MacBook Air. I hate Windows to but it might make a good Linux machine, I'll wait till the prices get down to the 800 mark.
So do you think that a Hackintosh is the best bet?
I only tried doing it once with my Lenovo X61, it ran surprisingly well with OSX 10.4. The pointing stick that's common on Thinkpad's was a bitch to get working but I prevailed. It's possible and you could make one heck of a machine for under 600 bucks. I'm not recommending it but for those one a budget and need higher specs then a Mini can give it is a possibility.
It's a fun weekend project even if you don't plan on using it, just to say that you've done it.
It might be faster, cheaper and have a better battery but that's not the whole story and that's the problem with other company's products. It's how it works, the feel of the device and how it ties in with other things.
The Ultrabook will run Windows and therefore it'll never trump the air or iPad.
So then you expect Intel to sit by and watch their other customers disappear into obscurity because just one of their customers just happens to be Apple. I agree that these Ultrabooks are a desperate attempt to stop the leak of PC customers moving to OSX ...
Why would Intel have a problem with "customers" moving to OS X? They're still customers. OS X runs on Intel silicon, remember?
Like others I'm left to wonder if this kind of public announcement doesn't signal something Intel knows that we don't. Otherwise, why go out of your way to piss off a customer?
What's happened is this: Apple goes Intel, Intel praises Apple and Apple's innovative designs, sort of suggesting PC parts assemblers might try to be innovative as well (Intel has a long history of mostly goofy "reference platforms" that attempt to goose just that). PC business goes to hell. In a desperate effort to rekindle the old fire, Intel very openly uses the briskly selling MacBook Air as a template for their stupid marketing category "Ultrabook" (actually offering discounts to PC parts assemblers in an effort to hit Apple's price points), which means they are in the very bizarre position of paying a bounty in an effort to get the larger share of their market to copy the design of their minority share. Then they go on record as claiming the fruits of those efforts will eclipse the Air because Windows is so awesome and "choice."
So if they weren't going out of their way to enrage Apple and all but guarantee that they'll lose them as a customer at the first opportunity, then they're either very stupid or insane. I have no idea if or when alternates to Intel will become viable, but does anyone doubt that Apple will jump ship the instant they do? Or that Apple will pour money into making that possible? And who can blame them? This isn't run of the mill hurly burly of doing business, it's a very deliberate, astonishingly brazen slap in the face to your own customer.
I mean, too bad you didn't have any chipsets that would word for mobile, Intel, are you going to punish Apple for that? Because I don't see any other phones or tablets on the market using your stuff (least not any that get decent battery life and aren't built like a tank).
No doubt MS/parts assemblers have signed up for some Intel based tablets, hence Intel is hoping/betting that they can return to the halcyon days of Wintel hegemony, but if they're wrong-- if Windows 8 tablets fail to take the market by storm, if "Ultrabooks" just cannibalize the existing PC market instead of propelling sales, if Apple decides that ARM has something with enough power to run an Air...... then they've made a really terrible wager.
On that last point, for those that point out the steep performance delta between x86 and ARM silicon-- consider that the whole rise of tablet (i.e. iPad) computing can in part be explained by the fact that desktop hardware has long since outpaced the vast majority of use cases. What, exactly, are Intel's tick-tock releases of ever more powerful chips actually doing for the average consumer? Is your email opening faster? Faster web pages? Office getting that much needed boost?
What if a new ARM based Air were the new MacBook, intended for light to moderate consumer use, with thinner and lighter MacBook Pros retaining Intel for now? And the Air got 15 hours of battery life and instant on and a month of standby? And cost $700.
What Intel is now realizing is that the new battleground isn't in basic CPU grunt, because for most people and most tasks we've had plenty of that for a while. It's battery life, weight, size, temperature, and fast booting. Same things as is driving mobile, in other words. And they still don't have an answer on the market.
Apple engineers were involved in designing and miniaturising the CPU used in the MBA, which forms the basis for Ultra Books. IIRC, Apple was ready to go elsewhere for CPUs if Intel was unwilling to deliver.
When the MBA motherboard and CPU were shown, Intel enjoyed a lot of the credit and publicity. Without Apple and MBA, there would be no Ultra Books.
Apple engineers were involved in designing and miniaturising the CPU used in the MBA, which forms the basis for Ultra Books. IIRC, Apple was ready to go elsewhere for CPUs if Intel was unwilling to deliver.
When the MBA motherboard and CPU were shown, Intel enjoyed a lot of the credit and publicity. Without Apple and MBA, there would be no Ultra Books.
Intel had designed the SFF CULV earlier but they had not put it into production because there was no market for it. Apple reportedly contacted Apple knowing about this chip or requesting something like it which started the ball rolling so they do get credit for making this a reality for Intel, but Apple appears to have had no influence on the design.
These two idiots didn't provide one plausible reason why so-called Ultrabooks will be better than any Apple offering. They said that Intel will provide volume pricing on components that will translate to the aggressive pricing of future Ultrabooks making them more desirable to "mainstream" consumers. But won't Apple have access to those same components at those same prices (not to mention huge cash reserves to buy in volume) thus making their future notebook offerings equally price competitive?
They also mention "an OS that people have come to love over the years". So now people hate iOS and OS X? News to me. Is that why the iPhone and iPad are the best selling mobile devices on the planet? Is that also why Macs have been on steady incline in direct opposition to the entire personal computer industry which has been on steady decline (ironically due in some part to the popularity of Apple's mobile devices) for the past five years?
And of course iOS and OS X don't have very many Apps available to the platform. Guess they never heard of the "App Store". Have no idea what they mean by "Legacy Apps". Seems like a term they made up to try to sound like they were actually saying something viable.
They also mentioned things like battery life blah, blah, blah, and we all know how hard Apple works at maintaining battery life on all of their products. Apple engineers go above and beyond any other company with regards to things like battery life, green technology etc... so those are all non issues. For all we know, Apple may be working on a solar powered notebook. If any company was going to do it, it would be Apple.
These two idiots need to crawl back into their lab and not be allowed out again to ever speak to the press because they obviously live in a vacuum.
These two idiots didn't provide one plausible reason why so-called Ultrabooks will be better than any Apple offering. They said that Intel will provide volume pricing on components that will translate to the aggressive pricing of future Ultrabooks making them more desirable to "mainstream" consumers. But won't Apple have access to those same components at those same prices (not to mention huge cash reserves to buy in volume) thus making their future notebook offerings equally price competitive?
They also mention mention "an OS that people have come to love over the years". So now people hate iOS and OS X? News to me. Is that why the iPhone and iPad are the best selling mobile devices on the planet? Is that also why Macs have been on steady incline in direct opposition to the entire personal computer industry which has been on steady decline (ironically due in some part to the popularity of Apple's mobile devices) for the past five years?
And of course iOS and OS X don't have very many Apps available to the platform. Guess they never heard of the "App Store". Have no idea what they mean by "Legacy Apps". Seems like a term they made up to try to sound like they were actually saying something viable.
They also mentioned things like battery life blah, blah, blah, and we all know how hard Apple works at maintaining battery life on all of their products. Apple engineers go above and beyond any other company with regards to things like battery life, green technology etc... so those are all non issues. For all we know, Apple may be working on a solar powered notebook. If any company was going to do it, it would be Apple.
These two idiots need to crawl back into their lab and not be allowed out again to ever speak to the press because they obviously live in a vacuum.
Actually, Apple was named one of the least green companies in America partially do to them using coal burning plants to power their data centers and their none use of recycled materials. Though they do have a recycling program for old Macs so that is defiantly a move in the right direction.
I'm still only getting 4.5 hours on my MacBook Air plus they had to double the size of the battery in my iPad to keep their 10 hour time thus waisting more energy then the previous iPad not to mention making it heaver and thicker.
Now these are the prices we have to pay for either having the thinnest MacBook or the fastest tablet and I don't mind paying a little penalty if it means I get the best possible solution for me. Apple though is not always the best at everything and all this energy kissing their ass or defending their honour can be better used in discussing how we can use our machines better.
Comments
Cheap and plentiful is what the PC business is all about.
Wealth transfer from customers to shareholders is what Apple is all about.
Open your local Best Buy flyer and you're likely to see some variation on this:
An entry level MacBook Pro pictured next to a totally tricked out PC notebook with the latest quad core i7, a fancy discrete video chip with tons of VRAM, double the RAM, double the storage, etc.
The kicker? In almost every case the high end PC carries a lower price tag than the entry level Mac.
I like OS X and the aluminum unibody case is very practical, but there's no denying that Mac buyers pay a huge premium for them.
Huge premium?
Your PC you can't even give it away and put the MBP in eAy you get back at least a few hundred $s and the user experience is priceless.
Btw it takes a geek to troubleshoot a downed PC and now who would want to do that. Yes, the Apple Store will take away most of the headache a Manuser face.
The PC resale value is you can't even give it away whereas the MBP will get you back at least a few hundred dollars and the user experience is priceless.
Btw if you get into trouble with the PC who will troubleshoot for you?b
If Apple were to switch to ARM processors across their entire line up, would Apple really be at a disadvantage in regards to software? I think not. iOS has far more software available than OS X although iOS software would need considerable effort to fully meet expectations.
You're confusing the processor with the OS. iOS software won't run on an ARM Macintosh any more than Windows software will run on an Intel Mac.
It would make it easier/faster to virtualize iOS on Mac OS if Mac OS was running ARM (in the same way that the switch to Intel made it possible to run Windows much faster under VMWare), but is anybody actually crying out to use iOS apps on Mac? It might be fun in a few cases, but it would be a novelty at best. iOS apps are designed for a touchscreen, not a mouse and keyboard.
If Apple did switch to ARM, it would be much quicker and easier for developers to recompile their existing Mac software for ARM than it would be to port over iOS applications. iOS apps rely on a completely different set of APIs (okay, not completely different, but different enough) to Mac apps, and would require a total UI redesign for the desktop.
Fortunately, after the Intel switch, most Mac software is now written in pure C/Objective-C without any assembly. That means that converting it for an ARM Mac would be a simple case of recompiling it in Xcode and making a FAT binary (like the old Universal apps for PPC/Intel, but for Intel/ARM instead). By adding a rosetta-style x86 emulation layer Apple could probably make the switch to ARM as painlessly as they managed the switch to Intel.
I still don't see a very strong business case for it though. The disadvantage is that they lose Windows interoperability (still a big safety net for switchers and business users, even if they never end up using it in practice) and all Mac software needs to be re-compiled and re-released by the developers. The advantage is... sticking it to Intel?
... As for the iPad, Intel dismisses the tablet because it doesn't have the tactile feedback that comes with a keyboard. ...
I hope (for Intel that) this is a misquote.
If true its incredible. It makes clear that Intel has no clue at all.
J.
To paraphrase Steve Jobs: If we can't make it better, we won't make it.
I thought Johnny Ive said that this is Apple's philosophy. Are you sure Steve said this?
Put a glowing apple logo on the back and the thing will sell
Kidding
Or a pear logo like they do on the kids' TV shows. "We're not copying. See-a pear is nothing like an Apple."
Now wait a minute... the PC manufacturers have to answer to shareholders too. They are all in business to make money.
True, but the difference is that Apple is actually doing it.
You're confusing the processor with the OS. iOS software won't run on an ARM Macintosh any more than Windows software will run on an Intel Mac.
Bad example. Windows software DOES run on an Intel Mac.
Except Apple is one of the biggest users of Intel chips. And in the 'ultra book' class Apple is the leading purchaser. So why does Intel favor one user over another?
Intel should not be pissing off one of their biggest customers, and one of the FEW companies that can turn the world against Intel compatible cpus.
That's what confuses me about the whole thing. Not only is Apple one of Intel's top 5 customers, but Intel is struggling to put out an Atom chip that will replace ARM in tablets and phones - and Apple would clearly be a huge target for such a chip. It just doesn't make sense for Intel to be so obvious about going after Apple.
The only logical thing would be if (as someone said above), Intel expected to lose Apple's business, anyway, but that just doesn't seem likely.
Put a glowing apple logo on the back and the thing will sell
Kidding
My windows pc died last week(haven't used it for months since I got my ipad)
Only use it maybe for iTunes synching
I tried to fix it but to no avail.
I might buy the Mac mini just so I can still have a desktop
This will be my first mac
Go for it! Should have done it a long time ago! Congrats and welcome if you do!
They've gotten their money's worth from PA. Just the iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV use enough A-series chips to make it worthwhile.
I'm sure they'll continue improving the ARM chips, but they have a long way to go to catch up to Intel - and Intel is continuing to improve at the same time. Plus, Intel is apparently getting closer to releasing a chip that would compete well with ARM.
All points you make are well taken and true. However, another take on this is that Apple doesn't have to compete with Intel's chips because Apple can design, and more importantly, optimize their chips to work exceptionally well in their ecosystem. CPUs no matter who makes them are at the point where they are almost powerful enough to do what ~90% (my guess) of what average consumers use their computers for.
IMO Apple devices do not need as much power in their chip as Intel does in their chip designs simply because Apple moves beyond legacy tasks while Intel's chips must still support a bloated legacy x86 codebase. I'm sure you remember Jobs' debate on not needing higher clock speeds. Apple is merging their iOS with most of the desktop Mac's productivity tasks that most people use every day, and OSX will eventually be cross platform with iOS. I'm betting that Apple's OS engineers are working very close with PA Semi to achieve this goal.
It won't happen tomorrow but it might not be years away either. My point is I don't believe Apple's version of ARM is in competition with Intel designs. Apple will leave Intel. It's only a matter of time, and Intel knows it. Apple's proprietary chips makes perfect sense from the POV of security, piracy, optimization, economy of scale, profit, integration, and the list goes on. I can see a Apple firmware way of upgrading your iOS or OSX system that is on a A(x) SoC before the end of this decade.
All points you make are well taken and true. However, another take on this is that Apple doesn't have to compete with Intel's chips because Apple can design, and more importantly, optimize their chips to work exceptionally well in their ecosystem. CPUs no matter who makes them are at the point where they are almost powerful enough to do what ~90% (my guess) of what average consumers use their computers for.
Not only that, just imagine what a 2GHz quad core ARM chip can do, or even higher, though they might need to rework the core designs to scale. The handheld device world has been sticking near 1GHz for power consumption reasons. ARM works very well in those constraints, if you give it more resources it could do pretty well, a lot of things short of pro media and engineering applications.
I'm not advocating it, but I don't think it's unrealistic for it to happen and still be successful.
We don't need to get into a line-item comparison between Windows laptops and MacBooks. But you're right... you can get some killer hardware for cheaper than a Mac.
So do you think that a Hackintosh is the best bet?
All points you make are well taken and true. However, another take on this is that Apple doesn't have to compete with Intel's chips because Apple can design, and more importantly, optimize their chips to work exceptionally well in their ecosystem. CPUs no matter who makes them are at the point where they are almost powerful enough to do what ~90% (my guess) of what average consumers use their computers for.
IMO Apple devices do not need as much power in their chip as Intel does in their chip designs simply because Apple moves beyond legacy tasks while Intel's chips must still support a bloated legacy x86 codebase. I'm sure you remember Jobs' debate on not needing higher clock speeds. Apple is merging their iOS with most of the desktop Mac's productivity tasks that most people use every day, and OSX will eventually be cross platform with iOS. I'm betting that Apple's OS engineers are working very close with PA Semi to achieve this goal.
It won't happen tomorrow but it might not be years away either. My point is I don't believe Apple's version of ARM is in competition with Intel designs. Apple will leave Intel. It's only a matter of time, and Intel knows it. Apple's proprietary chips makes perfect sense from the POV of security, piracy, optimization, economy of scale, profit, integration, and the list goes on. I can see a Apple firmware way of upgrading your iOS or OSX system that is on a A(x) SoC before the end of this decade.
Good points.
And CPU performance isn't that important any more.
iOS (Mac OS X) really shines (even literally) because of the GPU cores.
And GPUs for ARM SOCS are exceptionally good (think of PowerVR).
Intel on the other hand isn't that good at integrated GPUs, so they do have something to worry about.
The current iPad has the GPU performance desktop systems had a few years ago, think of it.
J.
It's obvious that Apple can't rely on Intel as a key supplier when its representatives diss Apple's products. After courting Apple for all those years until Apple finally made the transition to Intel, is this how Intel pays Apple back? Cloning the products that Apple has developed and competing with one of its largest and prominent customers?
So then you expect Intel to sit by and watch their other customers disappear into obscurity because just one of their customers just happens to be Apple. I agree that these Ultrabooks are a desperate attempt to stop the leak of PC customers moving to OSX but it doesn't mean some aren't at least decent. I quite like the Asus Zen and HP Folio. Did you know the Asus includes a bag and all of accessories that you have to pay for if you bought a MacBook Air. I hate Windows to but it might make a good Linux machine, I'll wait till the prices get down to the 800 mark.
So do you think that a Hackintosh is the best bet?
I only tried doing it once with my Lenovo X61, it ran surprisingly well with OSX 10.4. The pointing stick that's common on Thinkpad's was a bitch to get working but I prevailed. It's possible and you could make one heck of a machine for under 600 bucks. I'm not recommending it but for those one a budget and need higher specs then a Mini can give it is a possibility.
It's a fun weekend project even if you don't plan on using it, just to say that you've done it.
The Ultrabook will run Windows and therefore it'll never trump the air or iPad.
So then you expect Intel to sit by and watch their other customers disappear into obscurity because just one of their customers just happens to be Apple. I agree that these Ultrabooks are a desperate attempt to stop the leak of PC customers moving to OSX ...
Why would Intel have a problem with "customers" moving to OS X? They're still customers. OS X runs on Intel silicon, remember?
What's happened is this: Apple goes Intel, Intel praises Apple and Apple's innovative designs, sort of suggesting PC parts assemblers might try to be innovative as well (Intel has a long history of mostly goofy "reference platforms" that attempt to goose just that). PC business goes to hell. In a desperate effort to rekindle the old fire, Intel very openly uses the briskly selling MacBook Air as a template for their stupid marketing category "Ultrabook" (actually offering discounts to PC parts assemblers in an effort to hit Apple's price points), which means they are in the very bizarre position of paying a bounty in an effort to get the larger share of their market to copy the design of their minority share. Then they go on record as claiming the fruits of those efforts will eclipse the Air because Windows is so awesome and "choice."
So if they weren't going out of their way to enrage Apple and all but guarantee that they'll lose them as a customer at the first opportunity, then they're either very stupid or insane. I have no idea if or when alternates to Intel will become viable, but does anyone doubt that Apple will jump ship the instant they do? Or that Apple will pour money into making that possible? And who can blame them? This isn't run of the mill hurly burly of doing business, it's a very deliberate, astonishingly brazen slap in the face to your own customer.
I mean, too bad you didn't have any chipsets that would word for mobile, Intel, are you going to punish Apple for that? Because I don't see any other phones or tablets on the market using your stuff (least not any that get decent battery life and aren't built like a tank).
No doubt MS/parts assemblers have signed up for some Intel based tablets, hence Intel is hoping/betting that they can return to the halcyon days of Wintel hegemony, but if they're wrong-- if Windows 8 tablets fail to take the market by storm, if "Ultrabooks" just cannibalize the existing PC market instead of propelling sales, if Apple decides that ARM has something with enough power to run an Air...... then they've made a really terrible wager.
On that last point, for those that point out the steep performance delta between x86 and ARM silicon-- consider that the whole rise of tablet (i.e. iPad) computing can in part be explained by the fact that desktop hardware has long since outpaced the vast majority of use cases. What, exactly, are Intel's tick-tock releases of ever more powerful chips actually doing for the average consumer? Is your email opening faster? Faster web pages? Office getting that much needed boost?
What if a new ARM based Air were the new MacBook, intended for light to moderate consumer use, with thinner and lighter MacBook Pros retaining Intel for now? And the Air got 15 hours of battery life and instant on and a month of standby? And cost $700.
What Intel is now realizing is that the new battleground isn't in basic CPU grunt, because for most people and most tasks we've had plenty of that for a while. It's battery life, weight, size, temperature, and fast booting. Same things as is driving mobile, in other words. And they still don't have an answer on the market.
When the MBA motherboard and CPU were shown, Intel enjoyed a lot of the credit and publicity. Without Apple and MBA, there would be no Ultra Books.
Apple engineers were involved in designing and miniaturising the CPU used in the MBA, which forms the basis for Ultra Books. IIRC, Apple was ready to go elsewhere for CPUs if Intel was unwilling to deliver.
When the MBA motherboard and CPU were shown, Intel enjoyed a lot of the credit and publicity. Without Apple and MBA, there would be no Ultra Books.
Intel had designed the SFF CULV earlier but they had not put it into production because there was no market for it. Apple reportedly contacted Apple knowing about this chip or requesting something like it which started the ball rolling so they do get credit for making this a reality for Intel, but Apple appears to have had no influence on the design.
They also mention "an OS that people have come to love over the years". So now people hate iOS and OS X? News to me. Is that why the iPhone and iPad are the best selling mobile devices on the planet? Is that also why Macs have been on steady incline in direct opposition to the entire personal computer industry which has been on steady decline (ironically due in some part to the popularity of Apple's mobile devices) for the past five years?
And of course iOS and OS X don't have very many Apps available to the platform. Guess they never heard of the "App Store". Have no idea what they mean by "Legacy Apps". Seems like a term they made up to try to sound like they were actually saying something viable.
They also mentioned things like battery life blah, blah, blah, and we all know how hard Apple works at maintaining battery life on all of their products. Apple engineers go above and beyond any other company with regards to things like battery life, green technology etc... so those are all non issues. For all we know, Apple may be working on a solar powered notebook. If any company was going to do it, it would be Apple.
These two idiots need to crawl back into their lab and not be allowed out again to ever speak to the press because they obviously live in a vacuum.
These two idiots didn't provide one plausible reason why so-called Ultrabooks will be better than any Apple offering. They said that Intel will provide volume pricing on components that will translate to the aggressive pricing of future Ultrabooks making them more desirable to "mainstream" consumers. But won't Apple have access to those same components at those same prices (not to mention huge cash reserves to buy in volume) thus making their future notebook offerings equally price competitive?
They also mention mention "an OS that people have come to love over the years". So now people hate iOS and OS X? News to me. Is that why the iPhone and iPad are the best selling mobile devices on the planet? Is that also why Macs have been on steady incline in direct opposition to the entire personal computer industry which has been on steady decline (ironically due in some part to the popularity of Apple's mobile devices) for the past five years?
And of course iOS and OS X don't have very many Apps available to the platform. Guess they never heard of the "App Store". Have no idea what they mean by "Legacy Apps". Seems like a term they made up to try to sound like they were actually saying something viable.
They also mentioned things like battery life blah, blah, blah, and we all know how hard Apple works at maintaining battery life on all of their products. Apple engineers go above and beyond any other company with regards to things like battery life, green technology etc... so those are all non issues. For all we know, Apple may be working on a solar powered notebook. If any company was going to do it, it would be Apple.
These two idiots need to crawl back into their lab and not be allowed out again to ever speak to the press because they obviously live in a vacuum.
Actually, Apple was named one of the least green companies in America partially do to them using coal burning plants to power their data centers and their none use of recycled materials. Though they do have a recycling program for old Macs so that is defiantly a move in the right direction.
I'm still only getting 4.5 hours on my MacBook Air plus they had to double the size of the battery in my iPad to keep their 10 hour time thus waisting more energy then the previous iPad not to mention making it heaver and thicker.
Now these are the prices we have to pay for either having the thinnest MacBook or the fastest tablet and I don't mind paying a little penalty if it means I get the best possible solution for me. Apple though is not always the best at everything and all this energy kissing their ass or defending their honour can be better used in discussing how we can use our machines better.