Help me out here, give me a few examples, I'm slow. How does Apple 'tweak' the hardware?
That point was sort of a continuation of the last point. They tweak their hardware by providing 512MB of RAM standard on all models because Tiger would be too slow otherwise, etc.
I thought it was clear. My g/f has a 1999 iMac, running Panther, connected to USB printers, scanners, and a digital camcorder I bought last year.
If I had a 1999 PC I doubt very much it could run XP. Remember, Win98 did not have video support, so to connect my camera I'd have had to upgrade the OS. A 1999 PC would probably not have had firewire as standard (actually, the one I had didn't. I bought a firewire card for it before I realised win98 couldn't cope with video).
That's why Macs have a longer productive timescale. I expect it to continue.
But I am biased!
To be fair, Windows 2000 will run just fine on a box from 1999. And depending on what you have, XP should be possible - even though you might have to scale it back to the "classic" GUI style on the lower-end machines. But I think it's safe to say that Tiger will run more smoothly on a comparable Mac...of course!
Accross its platform abandon parallel ports in favor of USB and Firewire.
Abandon floppy disk in favor of CD-ROM.
These are basic tools that are used by everyone. Apple was able to adopt these technologies before the industry at large did.
Apple can choose when to adopt new technology when it feels it is the right time. Such as with expensive high end technologies (PCI-e, SLi, Crossfire) that few people will use.
Many PC geeks complain that Apple has not yet adopted PCI-Express. When in truth PCI-e is not something currently needed for the average consumer.
I'm sure Apple has its own timeline that it will adopt such high end technology. Probably when it is more common place. And by that time the industry will be on to PCI-Express 2.
A 2005 Power Mac G5 with unswappable CPUs, no PCI-express, and a two-harddrive limit.
A 2005 Alienware Aurora with space for four hard drives, swappable CPUs, and support for PCI-e and SLI.
The Powermac is about $600 cheaper? Or about $1500 cheaper if you actually order an SLI graphics package? And you don't have to disconnect the neon lights!
SLI is useful for gaming and high framerate needs, but gross overkill for production boxen considering no high-quality production renderers can actually use it. $1500 for a difference between 400 and 480fps just seems so much wasted $$. I will grant there is an extreme limited number of 3D movie production artists who might stress the preview pane that can use this extra power.
I agree, but I also don't think it will be a huge problem. At least not particularly more egregious than, say, having the iTunes DRM cracked. The people who crack the code to run Mac OS X on PCs are likely not the same people who would walk into an Apple Store and buy a Mac anyway. It gives me an uneasy feeling thinking of OS X running on a crickety whitebox PC, but I guess that's what we may have to get used to.
The real Issue here is the threat an easily copied Mac OS is to the future of Apple. Apple is a hardware company and needs to sell computers for a profit. An easly hacked Mac OS will keep many switchers and others out of apple stores. Why buy a pricy mac when you can have a better operating system on the hardware you already got for free?
Quote:
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Hey, leave politics at the door. I love fox news. It's the other news agencies that are biased.
I'm sorry for your brain wash. They even admit now they are biased.
The real Issue here is the threat an easily copied Mac OS is to the future of Apple. Apple is a hardware company and needs to sell computers for a profit. An easly hacked Mac OS will keep many switchers and others out of apple stores. Why buy a pricy mac when you can have a better operating system on the hardware you already got for free? I'm sorry for your brain wash. They even admit now they are biased.
But it's not easily copied. And probably won't ever be. And one will always have to struggle building or buying a computer with hardware that closely resembles that inside an Apple computer or struggle finding hack drivers provided by shady and possibly evil programmers.
The amount of people that can install on 'hardware you already got for free' without any hassle is very, very small.
The ones that will go through the trouble of installing OS X on their PC are the same people that build their own computers, pirate Windows, pirate their games, pirate music and movies, live in the basement of their parent's house...stopping them using serial numbers or chips is futile. They have never paid for software and have never had the intention of paying for software. It's like these guys never existed.
The real Issue here is the threat an easily copied Mac OS is to the future of Apple. Apple is a hardware company and needs to sell computers for a profit.
That assumes Apple will continue relying heavily on the profitability of hardware sales. They may eventually be forced to change that strategy if the market for computer hardware demands it (e.g. lower margins).
Quote:
An easly hacked Mac OS will keep many switchers and others out of apple stores. Why buy a pricy mac when you can have a better operating system on the hardware you already got for free?
I agree that "free" could become a concern if it's as easy to do on Apple Intel hardware as, say, getting a pirated copy of Windows has been. But most business and many mainstream consumer computer users won't go that route because of legal, support, and other reasons. And the mainstream hasn't embraced legally free versions of Linux to run on their PCs.
Also, we don't know yet what Apple's future Intel-based products will look like or if they'll be "pricey".
I doubt Apple is demanding that sites remove certain OS X on x86 material because they feel it's a direct threat to future sales. Seems more likely the indirect influence of such material could mislead naive people into thinking "gee, I can run OS X on my PC" is a trivial endeavor, which might negatively impact potential future sales. They want to minimize the suggestion of the possibility, or something like that. Plus there's the usual legal fluff.
Right now it appears that some people will inevitably run OS X hacked for non-Apple hardware. But I don't think that matters (much) as long as it remains a minority.
It's conceptually pretty simple: If Apple wants their Intel-based hardware business to profit they'll have to make products that enough people will buy, regardless of what happens with any non-Apple hackery. Everything else that doesn't follow that agenda is just a side show. There's always potential for Apple to make decisions that will kill their computer hardware business though they've survived enough mishaps in spite of themselves.
Now, if they do indeed choose to license OS X that opens its own set of issues, many which have already been discussed.
Quote:
I'm sorry for your brain wash. They even admit now they are biased.
Not surprising since everyone's biased... whether it's blatant, subtle, or somewhere in between. Does that matter if you have decent bias detection and differentiation skills?
[edit: I saw kim kap sol's post (spot-on, IMO) after composing mine. Damn, I hate being a victim of redundancy, again! ]
I couldnt agree nore...I look forward to the day when I can walk into an Apple store and buy Mac OSX for clients/customers/friends/falilies/my x86 hardware and ditch windows.
Windows as it exists today is a good corporate os for the most part if properly administered and maintained...but even there Apple and linux become more attractive by the day.
From a consumers point of view, shrink wrapped OSX would be insainly great, all new PCs in the last year have 2+ ghz proc, at least 256mb ram (EASILY upgradable (unlike my god damned Mini) to 1 gig+) and in many cases a DVD burner, so why should a switcher just toss all that? particularly when the old PC hardware can pretty much whip an equily priced PPC mac when mac is compared to BSD unix on x86...
Mac Mini - $499
1.25 GHZ 166 FSB
512 MB ram
40 gig
DVD READER/ CD burner
NO KB, Mouse, display
VS
Dimension 3000 $549
Celeron 2.6 GHZ, 533 fsb
512
80 gig
DVD BURNER (superdrive for you apple marketing junkies)
Includes KB, Mouse and 15 inch LCD...
The ONLY reason I bought a Mac a few months back was OSX because their hardware, on a proformance/$ scale is right up there with a room full of vacume tubes. I would have GLADLY paid $200 to run OSX on a freshly built (by me) rig that would keep pace with the top of the line G5 for about half the price...and MANY MANY others are in the same boat.
MWSF 2007:
Steve: "Hell has froze over once again, tomorrow, in all Apple Stores, we will have a shrink-wrapped "Beige Box" OSX for $199 ($299 for Family 5 pack, $179 students) !!!"
Apple could continue to design its own chipset. Apple uses an Intel chipset with some of its own design specifications.
That would cost more than using a generic Intel chipset, but should be cheaper than building it entirely as Apple does now.
This would allow Apple to continue its control of its hardware destiny, as well as bind OS X to Mac only motherboards.
Somewhere into the future if and when Apple decides to license OS X. They also sell the ther own chipset to its partner OEM's.
That continues to bind OS X to Apple approved motherboards.
No, better is for Apple to use Intel chipsets, much cheaper, Apple does not have to use them all. If you have not noticed Apple has to make their own chipset for the PowerPC. On Intel it would be wise to use an Intel chipset. A little info, when Apple made the PC boards they used total Intel chipsets, and the Apple branded computers were the only ones that had no problems with upgrading. Visit the web sight, Intel has their hands in everything and it would be easy for Apple to say the they support these two or three chipsets and still allow the PC makers to make different products.
... so why should a switcher just toss all that? particularly when the old PC hardware can pretty much whip an equily priced PPC mac when mac is compared to BSD unix on x86...
Because, plain and simple (again), Apple is still in the business of selling their own computer systems for a profit. Unless that changes they're not going to make it convenient for their potential hardware customers to run OS X on non-Apple Intel hardware. Seriously, does anyone think they'd be able to sustain a profitable hardware business at the same time they're selling OS X systems (a potential nightmare for random "off-the-shelf" configurations, as previously mentioned)? Will any of the "X on non-Apple x86" advocates here answer that question without ignoring reality?
And even if Apple could somehow control which third party hardware was supported would that really be lucrative? Too many variables, something which Apple isn't known for.
Let's come up with some fresh ideas about this instead of just rehashing the old ones.
Because, plain and simple (again), Apple is still in the business of selling their own computer systems for a profit. Unless that changes they're not going to make it convenient for their potential hardware customers to run OS X on non-Apple Intel hardware. Seriously, does anyone think they'd be able to sustain a profitable hardware business at the same time they're selling OS X systems (a potential nightmare for random "off-the-shelf" configurations, as previously mentioned)? Will any of the "X on non-Apple x86" advocates here answer that question without ignoring reality?
And even if Apple could somehow control which third party hardware was supported would that really be lucrative? Too many variables, something which Apple isn't known for.
Let's come up with some fresh ideas about this instead of just rehashing the old ones.
Good points, we know that Apple will save money by using Intel chipsets, they will be on equal footing cost wise with the other PC manufacturers, so Apple could sell their computers at about the same price. I expect that if $200 or $300 seperated the Macs from the PCs then Apple would retain the Mac crowd and possible some design consinious former beigh boxers.
As far as holding the lid on the others, so Apple can keep control. Intel has the answer. Their chipsets utilize that DRM chip and that if utilized very well could stop just about any copy issues. Apple only used it sparingly for the demo boxes, but they could have made it so that every library and every framework would call to it and that will shut door, or at least make it very difficult to hack. Nothing is impossible, nothing is secure. The problem with the first cloners was that they only sold to Mac users, taking away from Apple. I think that Dell and Sony and the others will tend to sell to the ones they already know. So Apple sells copies of OSX to Dell to be used on the special computers that they are making for OSX, but this is also a standard Intel chipset, so the PC could also be loaded with Windows. Apple could charge Dell $200 to $300 for each computer sold. Security is lucrative... From the hackers convention "For Windows their is a virus base of 600,000 to 700,000, on the Mac there is none". Security is lucrative... This could be a great thing for games in that I wonder how much faster a game will run when the computer it is on is not running SpyWare, and all of the other 'stuff' that targets windows.
"For Windows their is a virus base of 600,000 to 700,000, on the Mac there is none". Security is lucrative... This could be a great thing for games in that I wonder how much faster a game will run when the computer it is on is not running SpyWare, and all of the other 'stuff' that targets windows.
Actually, I think I heard from a reliable source that there have been a total of 6 viruses written for UNIX.
Well, actually, what he said was 6 for UNIX and 52 for Mac. I'm assuming he meant OS9
Actually, I think I heard from a reliable source that there have been a total of 6 viruses written for UNIX.
Well, actually, what he said was 6 for UNIX and 52 for Mac. I'm assuming he meant OS9
Well I can tell you this. Due to an error on my part I set my Mac up without firewall, no virus protection, on the net 24/7, Mail running as well as Safari, for a few weeks, maybe three. No virus, no worm, no spyware.
Now take a PC turn off virus protection, turn off firewall, and expose it to the net. It should take less than an hour, and it will be cracked open like a walnut. NO comparison, none. Security is lucrative.
I completely agree. Viruses and spyware have NEVER been an issue with me. And I've used mac since 84. Some attribute that to our measily 3% market share.
I was at a CyberSecurity conference for school and the guy that was speaking worked for microsoft in security. He said that everybody that works with him uses either Mac or Linux, none of them use Windows. That's because they of all people know the risks involved with using it! He said that Apple's low market share doesn't make them an appealing target, but that's only one factor. Microsoft has made some very very bad decisions concerning security. Microsoft's ActiveX technology was an example he used.
I think that unless microsoft makes leaps and bounds improvement in security with Vista/Longhorn people will get fed up and ditch windows for Apple. Obviously, not overnight, but I think that Apple is gaining a lot of momentum. And I don't think that Vista will be significantly more secure. From what I hear, the update will be backwards compatible. How can you move on if you're desperate to hang on to all your old virus ridden technology.
I'm anxious to see how Apple will grow in the next few years! I don't think they'll need to license OS X to do that either. If I'm Joe Schmo, and I need a new computer, which one am I going to buy? Virus ridden crap, or pretty, sleak, and innovative hardware and software in one complete package? Remember, Apple will grow by luring new computer buyers to their hardware not by luring existing computer owners to their operating system. Because eventually those existing computer owners are going to need to buy a new computer!
Comments
Originally posted by Brendon
Help me out here, give me a few examples, I'm slow. How does Apple 'tweak' the hardware?
That point was sort of a continuation of the last point. They tweak their hardware by providing 512MB of RAM standard on all models because Tiger would be too slow otherwise, etc.
Originally posted by TenoBell
What is the difference between these two?
A 1999 iMac running OS X Panther with present day OS X software. Connected to current peripherals through firewire and USB.
A 1999 Dell running Windows 98 with older Windows software. Connected to older peripherals using color coordinated parallel ports.
Which one would be considered as having the most productive longevity.
What is the difference between these two?
A 2005 Power Mac G5 with unswappable CPUs, no PCI-express, and a two-harddrive limit.
A 2005 Alienware Aurora with space for four hard drives, swappable CPUs, and support for PCI-e and SLI.
Originally posted by iMac David
in relation to longevity.
I thought it was clear. My g/f has a 1999 iMac, running Panther, connected to USB printers, scanners, and a digital camcorder I bought last year.
If I had a 1999 PC I doubt very much it could run XP. Remember, Win98 did not have video support, so to connect my camera I'd have had to upgrade the OS. A 1999 PC would probably not have had firewire as standard (actually, the one I had didn't. I bought a firewire card for it before I realised win98 couldn't cope with video).
That's why Macs have a longer productive timescale. I expect it to continue.
But I am biased!
To be fair, Windows 2000 will run just fine on a box from 1999. And depending on what you have, XP should be possible - even though you might have to scale it back to the "classic" GUI style on the lower-end machines. But I think it's safe to say that Tiger will run more smoothly on a comparable Mac...of course!
A 2005 Power Mac G5 with unswappable CPUs, no PCI-express, and a two-harddrive limit.
A 2005 Alienware Aurora with space for four hard drives, swappable CPUs, and support for PCI-e and SLI.
The difference is......
What I had in my list were basic common needs for long productivity.
What you have in your list grossly exceeds the average need for long productivity.
I'm slow. How does Apple 'tweak' the hardware?
Because Apple designs its own hardware.
It can make choices such as it did in 1998.
Accross its platform abandon parallel ports in favor of USB and Firewire.
Abandon floppy disk in favor of CD-ROM.
These are basic tools that are used by everyone. Apple was able to adopt these technologies before the industry at large did.
Apple can choose when to adopt new technology when it feels it is the right time. Such as with expensive high end technologies (PCI-e, SLi, Crossfire) that few people will use.
Many PC geeks complain that Apple has not yet adopted PCI-Express. When in truth PCI-e is not something currently needed for the average consumer.
I'm sure Apple has its own timeline that it will adopt such high end technology. Probably when it is more common place. And by that time the industry will be on to PCI-Express 2.
Originally posted by Placebo
What is the difference between these two?
A 2005 Power Mac G5 with unswappable CPUs, no PCI-express, and a two-harddrive limit.
A 2005 Alienware Aurora with space for four hard drives, swappable CPUs, and support for PCI-e and SLI.
The Powermac is about $600 cheaper? Or about $1500 cheaper if you actually order an SLI graphics package? And you don't have to disconnect the neon lights!
SLI is useful for gaming and high framerate needs, but gross overkill for production boxen considering no high-quality production renderers can actually use it. $1500 for a difference between 400 and 480fps just seems so much wasted $$. I will grant there is an extreme limited number of 3D movie production artists who might stress the preview pane that can use this extra power.
Originally posted by frawgz
I agree, but I also don't think it will be a huge problem. At least not particularly more egregious than, say, having the iTunes DRM cracked. The people who crack the code to run Mac OS X on PCs are likely not the same people who would walk into an Apple Store and buy a Mac anyway. It gives me an uneasy feeling thinking of OS X running on a crickety whitebox PC, but I guess that's what we may have to get used to.
The real Issue here is the threat an easily copied Mac OS is to the future of Apple. Apple is a hardware company and needs to sell computers for a profit. An easly hacked Mac OS will keep many switchers and others out of apple stores. Why buy a pricy mac when you can have a better operating system on the hardware you already got for free?
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Hey, leave politics at the door. I love fox news. It's the other news agencies that are biased.
I'm sorry for your brain wash. They even admit now they are biased.
Originally posted by AquaMac
The real Issue here is the threat an easily copied Mac OS is to the future of Apple. Apple is a hardware company and needs to sell computers for a profit. An easly hacked Mac OS will keep many switchers and others out of apple stores. Why buy a pricy mac when you can have a better operating system on the hardware you already got for free? I'm sorry for your brain wash. They even admit now they are biased.
But it's not easily copied. And probably won't ever be. And one will always have to struggle building or buying a computer with hardware that closely resembles that inside an Apple computer or struggle finding hack drivers provided by shady and possibly evil programmers.
The amount of people that can install on 'hardware you already got for free' without any hassle is very, very small.
The ones that will go through the trouble of installing OS X on their PC are the same people that build their own computers, pirate Windows, pirate their games, pirate music and movies, live in the basement of their parent's house...stopping them using serial numbers or chips is futile. They have never paid for software and have never had the intention of paying for software. It's like these guys never existed.
Originally posted by AquaMac
The real Issue here is the threat an easily copied Mac OS is to the future of Apple. Apple is a hardware company and needs to sell computers for a profit.
That assumes Apple will continue relying heavily on the profitability of hardware sales. They may eventually be forced to change that strategy if the market for computer hardware demands it (e.g. lower margins).
An easly hacked Mac OS will keep many switchers and others out of apple stores. Why buy a pricy mac when you can have a better operating system on the hardware you already got for free?
I agree that "free" could become a concern if it's as easy to do on Apple Intel hardware as, say, getting a pirated copy of Windows has been.
Also, we don't know yet what Apple's future Intel-based products will look like or if they'll be "pricey".
I doubt Apple is demanding that sites remove certain OS X on x86 material because they feel it's a direct threat to future sales. Seems more likely the indirect influence of such material could mislead naive people into thinking "gee, I can run OS X on my PC" is a trivial endeavor, which might negatively impact potential future sales. They want to minimize the suggestion of the possibility, or something like that. Plus there's the usual legal fluff.
Right now it appears that some people will inevitably run OS X hacked for non-Apple hardware. But I don't think that matters (much) as long as it remains a minority.
It's conceptually pretty simple: If Apple wants their Intel-based hardware business to profit they'll have to make products that enough people will buy, regardless of what happens with any non-Apple hackery. Everything else that doesn't follow that agenda is just a side show. There's always potential for Apple to make decisions that will kill their computer hardware business though they've survived enough mishaps in spite of themselves.
Now, if they do indeed choose to license OS X that opens its own set of issues, many which have already been discussed.
I'm sorry for your brain wash. They even admit now they are biased.
Not surprising since everyone's biased... whether it's blatant, subtle, or somewhere in between. Does that matter if you have decent bias detection and differentiation skills?
[edit: I saw kim kap sol's post (spot-on, IMO) after composing mine. Damn, I hate being a victim of redundancy, again!
Apple could continue to design its own chipset. Apple uses an Intel chipset with some of its own design specifications.
That would cost more than using a generic Intel chipset, but should be cheaper than building it entirely as Apple does now.
This would allow Apple to continue its control of its hardware destiny, as well as bind OS X to Mac only motherboards.
Somewhere into the future if and when Apple decides to license OS X. They also sell the ther own chipset to its partner OEM's.
That continues to bind OS X to Apple approved motherboards.
Originally posted by Placebo
It runs, and it runs good, let me tell you. Perfect stability.
The OS X on x86 Stronghold
Either Apple does it or other people do.
I couldnt agree nore...I look forward to the day when I can walk into an Apple store and buy Mac OSX for clients/customers/friends/falilies/my x86 hardware and ditch windows.
Windows as it exists today is a good corporate os for the most part if properly administered and maintained...but even there Apple and linux become more attractive by the day.
From a consumers point of view, shrink wrapped OSX would be insainly great, all new PCs in the last year have 2+ ghz proc, at least 256mb ram (EASILY upgradable (unlike my god damned Mini) to 1 gig+) and in many cases a DVD burner, so why should a switcher just toss all that? particularly when the old PC hardware can pretty much whip an equily priced PPC mac when mac is compared to BSD unix on x86...
Mac Mini - $499
1.25 GHZ 166 FSB
512 MB ram
40 gig
DVD READER/ CD burner
NO KB, Mouse, display
VS
Dimension 3000 $549
Celeron 2.6 GHZ, 533 fsb
512
80 gig
DVD BURNER (superdrive for you apple marketing junkies)
Includes KB, Mouse and 15 inch LCD...
The ONLY reason I bought a Mac a few months back was OSX because their hardware, on a proformance/$ scale is right up there with a room full of vacume tubes. I would have GLADLY paid $200 to run OSX on a freshly built (by me) rig that would keep pace with the top of the line G5 for about half the price...and MANY MANY others are in the same boat.
MWSF 2007:
Steve: "Hell has froze over once again, tomorrow, in all Apple Stores, we will have a shrink-wrapped "Beige Box" OSX for $199 ($299 for Family 5 pack, $179 students) !!!"
Originally posted by TenoBell
Another idea.
Apple could continue to design its own chipset. Apple uses an Intel chipset with some of its own design specifications.
That would cost more than using a generic Intel chipset, but should be cheaper than building it entirely as Apple does now.
This would allow Apple to continue its control of its hardware destiny, as well as bind OS X to Mac only motherboards.
Somewhere into the future if and when Apple decides to license OS X. They also sell the ther own chipset to its partner OEM's.
That continues to bind OS X to Apple approved motherboards.
No, better is for Apple to use Intel chipsets, much cheaper, Apple does not have to use them all. If you have not noticed Apple has to make their own chipset for the PowerPC. On Intel it would be wise to use an Intel chipset. A little info, when Apple made the PC boards they used total Intel chipsets, and the Apple branded computers were the only ones that had no problems with upgrading. Visit the web sight, Intel has their hands in everything and it would be easy for Apple to say the they support these two or three chipsets and still allow the PC makers to make different products.
Originally posted by a_greer
... so why should a switcher just toss all that? particularly when the old PC hardware can pretty much whip an equily priced PPC mac when mac is compared to BSD unix on x86...
Because, plain and simple (again), Apple is still in the business of selling their own computer systems for a profit. Unless that changes they're not going to make it convenient for their potential hardware customers to run OS X on non-Apple Intel hardware. Seriously, does anyone think they'd be able to sustain a profitable hardware business at the same time they're selling OS X systems (a potential nightmare for random "off-the-shelf" configurations, as previously mentioned)? Will any of the "X on non-Apple x86" advocates here answer that question without ignoring reality?
And even if Apple could somehow control which third party hardware was supported would that really be lucrative? Too many variables, something which Apple isn't known for.
Let's come up with some fresh ideas about this instead of just rehashing the old ones.
Originally posted by sjk
Because, plain and simple (again), Apple is still in the business of selling their own computer systems for a profit. Unless that changes they're not going to make it convenient for their potential hardware customers to run OS X on non-Apple Intel hardware. Seriously, does anyone think they'd be able to sustain a profitable hardware business at the same time they're selling OS X systems (a potential nightmare for random "off-the-shelf" configurations, as previously mentioned)? Will any of the "X on non-Apple x86" advocates here answer that question without ignoring reality?
And even if Apple could somehow control which third party hardware was supported would that really be lucrative? Too many variables, something which Apple isn't known for.
Let's come up with some fresh ideas about this instead of just rehashing the old ones.
Good points, we know that Apple will save money by using Intel chipsets, they will be on equal footing cost wise with the other PC manufacturers, so Apple could sell their computers at about the same price. I expect that if $200 or $300 seperated the Macs from the PCs then Apple would retain the Mac crowd and possible some design consinious former beigh boxers.
As far as holding the lid on the others, so Apple can keep control. Intel has the answer. Their chipsets utilize that DRM chip and that if utilized very well could stop just about any copy issues. Apple only used it sparingly for the demo boxes, but they could have made it so that every library and every framework would call to it and that will shut door, or at least make it very difficult to hack. Nothing is impossible, nothing is secure. The problem with the first cloners was that they only sold to Mac users, taking away from Apple. I think that Dell and Sony and the others will tend to sell to the ones they already know. So Apple sells copies of OSX to Dell to be used on the special computers that they are making for OSX, but this is also a standard Intel chipset, so the PC could also be loaded with Windows. Apple could charge Dell $200 to $300 for each computer sold. Security is lucrative... From the hackers convention "For Windows their is a virus base of 600,000 to 700,000, on the Mac there is none". Security is lucrative... This could be a great thing for games in that I wonder how much faster a game will run when the computer it is on is not running SpyWare, and all of the other 'stuff' that targets windows.
Originally posted by Brendon
"For Windows their is a virus base of 600,000 to 700,000, on the Mac there is none". Security is lucrative... This could be a great thing for games in that I wonder how much faster a game will run when the computer it is on is not running SpyWare, and all of the other 'stuff' that targets windows.
Actually, I think I heard from a reliable source that there have been a total of 6 viruses written for UNIX.
Well, actually, what he said was 6 for UNIX and 52 for Mac. I'm assuming he meant OS9
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Actually, I think I heard from a reliable source that there have been a total of 6 viruses written for UNIX.
Well, actually, what he said was 6 for UNIX and 52 for Mac. I'm assuming he meant OS9
Well I can tell you this. Due to an error on my part I set my Mac up without firewall, no virus protection, on the net 24/7, Mail running as well as Safari, for a few weeks, maybe three. No virus, no worm, no spyware.
Now take a PC turn off virus protection, turn off firewall, and expose it to the net. It should take less than an hour, and it will be cracked open like a walnut. NO comparison, none. Security is lucrative.
Originally posted by sjk
Let's come up with some fresh ideas about this instead of just rehashing the old ones.
Did I hit the fresh idea mark? Or was that rehashing?
Mac Mini - $499
1.25 GHZ 166 FSB
512 MB ram
40 gig
DVD READER/ CD burner
NO KB, Mouse, display
VS
Dimension 3000 $549
Celeron 2.6 GHZ, 533 fsb
512
80 gig
DVD BURNER (superdrive for you apple marketing junkies)
Includes KB, Mouse and 15 inch LCD...
The Mac mini will fully and properly run OS X 10.5.
The Dell Dimension is not recommended for nor will properly run Windows Vista.
on a proformance/$ scale is right up there with a room full of vacume tubes.
Final Cut Pro is able to edit HD on a 1.6 Ghz G4 PowerBook.
Adobe recommends a 3Ghz P4 for editing HD on Premire.
The reason Apple can do this is because it designs and builds the software/hardware.
Is it better or worse that FCP can edit on slower Mac hardware than Premiere is designed to do on a PC?
That's a matter of preference.
I was at a CyberSecurity conference for school and the guy that was speaking worked for microsoft in security. He said that everybody that works with him uses either Mac or Linux, none of them use Windows. That's because they of all people know the risks involved with using it! He said that Apple's low market share doesn't make them an appealing target, but that's only one factor. Microsoft has made some very very bad decisions concerning security. Microsoft's ActiveX technology was an example he used.
I think that unless microsoft makes leaps and bounds improvement in security with Vista/Longhorn people will get fed up and ditch windows for Apple. Obviously, not overnight, but I think that Apple is gaining a lot of momentum. And I don't think that Vista will be significantly more secure. From what I hear, the update will be backwards compatible. How can you move on if you're desperate to hang on to all your old virus ridden technology.
I'm anxious to see how Apple will grow in the next few years! I don't think they'll need to license OS X to do that either. If I'm Joe Schmo, and I need a new computer, which one am I going to buy? Virus ridden crap, or pretty, sleak, and innovative hardware and software in one complete package? Remember, Apple will grow by luring new computer buyers to their hardware not by luring existing computer owners to their operating system. Because eventually those existing computer owners are going to need to buy a new computer!