Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Leopard Vs. Vista 420

Posted by kdawson
from the why-apple-wins dept.
Rockgod writes to point us to an ongoing series of articles, "Leopard vs. Vista," by Daniel Eran. The latest is part 4, Naked Sales, and it's a meditation on hardware without Windows, Apple's strategy of hardware-software integration, and the dissatisfactions that arise from the creative tension between Microsoft and hardware manufacturers. (The earlier articles in the series are linked form this one.) From the article: "The vast majority of PCs come with Windows pre-installed, and actually can't be sold without it. Leading PC hardware makers can't freely advertise PCs sold without Windows, or with an alternative OS such as Linux, without having to pay Microsoft significantly more for every other OEM license they ship. That's why all name brand PCs prominently repeat their own version of the cult-like phrase 'Dell recommends Windows XP Professional,' as if there were a choice in the matter and they thought it would be helpful to provide some guidance... Apple's current Get a Mac advertising campaign doesn't compare Mac OS X to Windows, it compares the complete experience of a Mac with that of a PC. After all, Windows is only half of what's wrong with the PC as a product."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leopard Vs. Vista

Comments Filter:
  • by eclectro (227083) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @04:47PM (#16898772)
    it's hard getting anything naked.
  • by Tibor the Hun (143056) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @04:51PM (#16898794)
    I'm aware of their old contracts, but are they still in effect? Can't they be renegotiated?
    I'm surprised that Dell, Gateway and HP would still be taking it up the rear. Ubuntu is a good enough system for a lot of homes that only need to do email, web, and type grade and high school papers.
    Why would they still be subject to such ridiculous terms, especially after MS has been convicted of abusing their monopoly status?
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday November 18, 2006 @05:01PM (#16898890)
      It was deemed illegal to have "per-processor" licenses. So they don't have them any more.

      But it is still "legal" to pay Dell to be part of your "advertising campaign". Which, in effect, reduces the cost Dell pays Microsoft per license. Those who do not want to be full partners in the campaign will be paid less than those who do.

      Logical, isn't it? So if you push Windows instead of Linux, you pay less for Windows than if you did not. And the profit margins are so slim on computers now that the OEM's will take whatever deal is offered in order to increase their profits.

      And since Microsoft still has the monopoly on the desktop, all the OEM's have to offer Windows. Even if they don't like the terms of the deal.
  • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Saturday November 18, 2006 @04:55PM (#16898834) Homepage Journal

    From the original Mac, back in 1984, to the iPod, Apple has always been about integrating hardware and software into one seamless experience. They certainly haven't always hit the mark, but it seems they have an advantage in an era where experience design continues to become more important.

    Discussion about whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company has been going on for ages, but Apple has always been a systems company. Microsoft has subordinated hardware to software, and the PC industry has developed according to that dictate. Maybe that is why so many people immersed in the Windows world have a hard time understanding how the Mac is different.

    • by eclectic4 (665330)
      "Discussion about whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company has been going on for ages"

      Not with anyone I talk to. Apple is most definitely a hardware company, if you measure this by income. Their software is merely the hitch, at least as far as consumer level offerings. You see this most clearly in OS serialization. Where MS has it calling home, wanting your first born child, and your left pinkie as collateral, the Apple OS has never been serialized. Legalities aside, you can install that
      • by dangitman (862676) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @05:31PM (#16899144)
        Not with anyone I talk to. Apple is most definitely a hardware company, if you measure this by income.

        But that's not really a wise way to "measure" it. Apple is a hardware and software company. Where would Apple be without their OS and software? It's integral to their strategy. The original Mac was revolutionary because of the software design in the OS, not the hardware (although there were hardware innovations as well.)

        Same with iLife, iWork, etc... all of the consumer level offerings are not serialized.

        But Apple sells a lot more than just consumer-level software. Final Cut Pro, etc. Logic Pro is not just serialized, you need a hardware dongle to run it.

        They are a hardware company. They sell Macs and iPods (soon to be phones). People buy Macs because of the software, not the other way around.

        If people buy Macs because of their software not the hardware, then isn't that an argument that they are a more software-driven company than hardware-driven?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bberens (965711)
        I feel like a broken record. Apple is not a hardware or software company. Apple is a technology integrator. They buy (or get for free like BSD) technologies, integrate them, pretty them up, and sell them for a huge markup. They don't manufacture their own hardware. They didn't develop the vast majority of their OS. They didn't invent the portable music player or the online music store. They integrated technology in a way that the mass market finds useful.
    • by fermion (181285) * on Saturday November 18, 2006 @06:03PM (#16899428) Homepage Journal
      The thing is that the only companies that mattered, up to the mid 80's, were the system integrators. They were the one that deliver the machines that would do the job. It made sense. Few people wish to have a compressor dropped off at thier door,and then be told they can build the refrigerator. Most people don't even want to repair the refrigerator. So the important companies were the ones that not only delivered complete solutions, but that supported those solutions as well. Companies like IBM and Xerox.

      The problem was that those solutions were very expensive, and what MS did was decouple the OS from the machine to create a myth of an equally powerful cheap machine. I say myth because if all the costs were factored in, the savings often were not that great. What was the benefit is that a person could buy a much more flexible machine, and if they were on a budget, but a lower quality machine than would be available from a company that actually cared about reputaion. As time went on, MS forced it's OS onto every machines, and created the monopoly. Any OEM, really system integrator that actually provided support to the end user, was forced to supply only MS OS, while MS could sit there raking in the profits while doing comparatively little.

      But the front line is still, and always will be, the system company. These are the people that provide the front line support. The problem with the PC industry is that though they provide the front line support, they do not in fact reap very much of the profit. MS, who does relatively little, get the money, while all the real producers are fighting for the crumbs. But it is thier decision.

      The point is that the long term successful companies are system companies that keep attuned to the users needs. IBM is a good example. HP is a good example. Apple is a good example. In fact, when Apple tried to be a hardware company, with spin off of Claris, the Newton that did not integrate, and a failing OS, the company floundered. It bought into the idea that hardware companies were more viable than system integrators. As much as people wish for Apple clones, supporting every cheap piece of trash on the planer comes at too high of a price.

      Even MS is going to be a systems company, if it will survive. It will survive on the XBox, which is an intergrated product. It will survive on phones, if it will ever just make one instead of trying to force the phone companies like it did the computer OEM. Otherwise it will just be a speciality shop, serving legacy machines.

  • by mccalli (323026) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @04:55PM (#16898840) Homepage
    From the article:
    Macs aren't more expensive because Apple ships them with an OS, just as Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer does not raise its cost for Windows. Windows would not be cheaper if the company removed IE, just as Apple wouldn't save any money by shipping Macs without Mac OS X.

    Err...well, yes Macs are more expensive because Apple ships them with an OS. That's because Apple has to recover the cost of developing that OS through sales of Mac hardware. Note that I'm not comparing the cost of Macs and PCs here, I'm talking about the cost of a Mac as an absolute. A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X. Whether it would be worthwhile for them to do that I leave as a (rather obvious) exercise for the reader.

    Cheers,
    Ian
    • by kraut (2788) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @05:20PM (#16899034)
      > A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X.
      Of course it wouldn't be a Mac either.
    • "Err...well, yes Macs are more expensive because Apple ships them with an OS. That's because Apple has to recover the cost of developing that OS through sales of Mac hardware. Note that I'm not comparing the cost of Macs and PCs here, I'm talking about the cost of a Mac as an absolute. A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X. Whether it would be worthwhile for them to do that I leave as a (rather obvious) exercise for the reader. "

      And yet the hardware in a Mac is only half of what makes

    • It's a common misconception that Apple computers are more expensive than similarly priced computers from other Windows VAR's (Dell, HP, IBM, ect)

      I did a comparison between a Dell D620 and a MacBook. Guess what? The price was almost exactly the same. And depending on how you configured each to get a close match between the two, either one could be more expensive.

      Bottom line, there is no appreciable difference in price when it comes to base features, warranty, ect.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by LVWolfman (301977)
        My late boss and I did an internal study for our company on the total cost of ownership difference between Macs and Windows pcs several years ago. He and I both happily used OS X, Linux and Windows for various functions.

        At the time we were (and still are) building our own pcs for desktops and servers and installing Windows XP Pro on the desktops and Windows Server 2003 on the servers.

        As far as hardware went, buying Macs were considerably more expensive than our build-it-ourselves machines.

        Software though w
      • by toddestan (632714) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @08:57PM (#16900788)
        It's a common misconception that Apple computers are more expensive than similarly priced computers from other Windows VAR's (Dell, HP, IBM, ect)

        Naw, really?
    • by dangitman (862676)
      A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X.

      I wouldn't bet on it. If Apple did not develop MacOS, then Mac hardware would not be as popular. If their hardware was less popular, economies of (lack of) scale would kick in, and make it more expensive. As their popularity grows, Macs get cheaper.

    • Apple MacBook 1.83 Core2Duo / 512 / 60 / Combo / 1280x800 / full battery / Pro OS = $1,099.00
      HP dv2000t 1.83 Core2Duo / 512 / 60 / Combo / 1280x800 / full battery / Pro OS = $1,097.99
      Woo hoo! One dollar and one penny.
  • by jafo (11982) *
    "Windows is only half of what's wrong with the PC as a product."

    Yeah, but hardware is at least half of why I haven't gotten a Mac.
    I don't *LIKE* the touchpad, I have both the touchpad and the
    clitmouse on my laptop and I finally disabled the touchpad because
    it got in my way more than I used it. I also have a built-in
    fingerprint reader, and am quite fond of using it for 2-factor
    authentication. For anything but play, I wouldn't go back to a
    machine without it. Sure, I could carry a mouse and fingerprint
    reade
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Cheech Wizard (698728)
      That's two people - You and your friend - Who don't like Macs. I have a powerbook and it works well for me. As to a fingerprint reader, I don't carry any national security files on my Mac. Between the login and built in 'filevault' encryption, I don't worry about someone getting at my data if my book is stolen.
    • by wootest (694923)
      As someone who by profession has used a lot of laptops, I can tell you that the trackpad on Mac laptops beats any other trackpad. It just feels a lot better, not glassy or slippery, and I'm enchanted by the trackpad scrolling (if you hold two fingers on the trackpad and move, it functions as a scroll wheel). I do use the "nipple" on PCs that have it (like ThinkPads and some HP models) since most trackpads out there suck, but I am *not* missing one on my MacBook.

      I can't speak for your friend or his PowerBook
      1. PowerBooks haven't been on sale from Apple for months now.
      2. Ever since 2003, the metal PowerBooks and MacBook Pro's had the wireless antennas underneath rubber patches on the side of the lid--i.e. no metal interference.
      3. You're not supposed to rest your wrists along the edge of the notebook. That's bad ergonomics.
      4. What's the practical use of a fingerprint scanner, anyway? Do you work for the NSA?
    • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @05:59PM (#16899390) Homepage
      If Apple's hardware is so fantastic,
      why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by
      forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?


      1) Piracy. By making you buy complete Macs they know they got paid for OS X as well, the hardware is the biggest and most complex dongle possible.
      2) Support. By having just a few fixed configuration, testing and support is much easier. Many crappy experiences with Windows is due to crappy hardware and crappy drivers.
      3) Image. Apple wants to have an image, for example they've never released a low-end machine. The iPod was built on image, like "You can have any color you want, as long as it's white" which most people thought died out with Henry Ford. They're not going to give up on their hardware image easily.
      4) Pricing. Apple doesn't really charge a fixed price for OS X, they can price-gouge you based on what hardware you intend to run it on. If they had to offer one price that'd run on anything from Mac mini-class to Mac Pro-class machines, they couldn't.
    • by kosmosik (654958)
      > If Apple's hardware is so fantastic, why do they feel
      > that the only way they can compete is by forcing people
      > to use it?

      Because OSX is only good on Apple hardware? By opening it to standard PCs they loose the advantage of developing operating system designed (tested, supported) for specific hardware parts.

      I hate Windows and use OSX and freenixes only. But I have to admit that lots of "Windows problems" are related to the fact, that it is intended to (try to) run on any obscure piece of hardware
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by xploraiswakco (703340)
      > It boils down to this: If Apple's hardware is so fantastic,
      > why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by
      > forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?

      Thats easy, they are afraid of MacOS X becoming another Windows clone, Windows just can't get the same integration with the hardware the way MacOS X can, because Microsoft just can't control the hardware that is used the way Apple can. If Apple to relinquish that control, MacOS X would lose it's Integration, and at least half of
    • I love how everyone has jumped on you for postulating that - maybe, just maybe - Apple hardware isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Between heat problems, "mooing", dead logic boards, bad batteries, and all of the other problems that Apple's hardware has had, it's abundantly clear that Apple's hardware isn't really any different from the rest of the PC industry.

      I will never switch to an OS that only runs on one brand of hardware. If Apple's two laptop models don't impress me, I'm screwed. There are litera
    • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000@NOspAm.yahoo.com> on Saturday November 18, 2006 @08:37PM (#16900656)

      Yeah, but hardware is at least half of why I haven't gotten a Mac. I don't *LIKE* the touchpad, I have both the touchpad and the clitmouse on my laptop and I finally disabled the touchpad because it got in my way more than I used it. I also have a built-in fingerprint reader, and am quite fond of using it for 2-factor authentication. For anything but play, I wouldn't go back to a machine without it. Sure, I could carry a mouse and fingerprint reader, but I don't *LIKE* mice, and really don't need more crap to carry.

      I prefer mice to touchpads but as for clitmouse, I don't recall ever hearing of them. Years ago when I had a working laptop, now that Apple has released the Macbook Pro with Core 2 cpus I'll get one, I had a second mouse I kept in the laptop case to use when away from home. Sometimes I even carried a keyboard. Now, when Apple is actually shipping MacBook Pros, I may get a graphics tablet with it. Of course if so I'll run into the problem of being able to carry it all in one case.

      I know that Apple wants to both simplify their software support requirements, and continue to get revenue from hardware sales. However, they're cutting themselves off from software revenues by requiring it to be used on their hardware. I'd have bought and tried on a spare laptop already if I had the option.

      Apple isn't just a hardware or a software company, as someone noted earlier in this thread Apple is a systems company. If Apple were to release OSX for generic PCs, to tell the truth I'd like to see that, then they woud run into more than one problem. First Apple would have to support more than just one hardware system or a multitude pieces of hardware. Then if for whatever reason, a computer system or hardware didn't work, Apple would get blamed, it wouldn't "just work". Two, Apple would see a decline in hardware sales. And conceivably the biggest mistake is that they would run smack dab right into MS's territory, the commodity desktop OS.

      It boils down to this: If Apple's hardware is so fantastic, why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?

      Apple doesn't force anyone to use thir hardware, I'm using an HP PC so Apple didn't force me to use a Mac. Yes, if you want to use OSX you have to use Mac hardware but that's a choice, you don't have to use OSX. Simply if you use OSX on a Mac then you know it's going to work, Apple couldn't guarranty that if they allowed OSX to run on any old computer, on top of which as stated above Apple would see a decline in hardware sales.

      Falcon
  • by vertical_98 (463483) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @04:57PM (#16898856) Homepage
    Not apologizing for Windows, but when you only write for specific h/w, you 'should' be able to get it right. Windows, Linux, and Mac OSX '86 all suffer from the crappy h/w syndrome.
     
    I built a Smoothwall firewall last week, that kept crashing. I finally tracked the problem to a bad NIC (that was just good enough to run in Windows and to not to generate error messages in the log).
     
    Does that make Macs better than SW? maybe h/w-wise
     
    Do I blame SW for the crappy NIC? I shouldn't, although I cursed them repeatedly while trying to find the problem
     
    Do I blame Microsoft for the crappy NIC? of course, this is Slashdot ;P
     
    Vertical
  • Why doesn't Apple themselves fight harder against this?

    It seems they'd have decent grounds with all these OEM deals.

    Or am I missing something and they actually are, or have been but have lost such a case?

    It just seems without these deals, Apple would have quite a bit to win.
  • by Darth Cider (320236) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @05:18PM (#16899022)
    Today I watched my dear father struggle for four hours (4! whole hours) trying to make his complicated new digital camera work with Windows XP. I could not believe the complications he experienced. On a Mac, this would have been simple, easy, intuitive. What amazed me was his persistence. That's what Windows people do, they persist. See, the Windows experience is not just an OS experience, it is an application experience. So f***ed up. Like most fans of the Mac, I let fanbois of the Mac do my talking for me. I sit back and keep quiet. I am more than a little pleased when they go overboard. As electric as they get in their praises for the Mac, I am silently even more electric. On a Mac, you hook your camera up to the computer and you're done. On XP, you persist for 4 hours. What a difference a sixth of a day makes. So the "Mac user experience" is about how not to waste time. My dear old dad is in his 70s and won't switch to Mac. I enjoy watching his frustrations, actually, because his comments are priceless, and he doesn't have that much to do. But seriously, who would willingly accept Windows as the way to experience the wonders of modern CPUs? People with a lot of time on their hands.
    • by gardyloo (512791) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @05:34PM (#16899164)
      OK, OK. Anecdotes are fun, and sometimes useful. But here's are some that may seem to counter yours (too, just a story). Generalizations are always iffy.

            Our research group uses lots of USB keys, partially because we have lots of people in our group, but also because some of us *cough, cough* tend to lose theirs. Of three major brands of USB keys, they all work initially with XP, with OSX, and with linux (KDE, XFCE, command-line, whatever). About eight of the ten or so keys, though, have eventually failed on the OSX machines around here, though still work just fine for XP and linux. I don't know which OS/filesystem causes it, or if the OSX machines just don't push out the voltage necessary to operate these USB devices properly after a while, or what.

            Also, plugging in my dad's digital cameras and my girlfriend's into OSX has never failed to bring up easy dialogues to transfer pictures, etc. But they've never failed on XP (without installing drivers) nor on linux (again, drivers are already in the system, and there are no problems).
    • by dangitman (862676)
      On slashdot, nobody can hear you type.
    • by Ant P. (974313)
      You think that's bad?

      On Linux, I couldn't get my camera to work (other than as root) for over a year. The distro installed a fucked up default config and there was virtually zero documentation on how to fix it.

      I actually considered reinstalling windows (and the retarded 100MB of camera bloatware), just for this one thing.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by PenGun (794213)
        So typing su was enough to make you consider retnstalling windose ... harsh.

        > how do i assign a user mount permissions in fstab (to mount floppies etc.)?

        In the options section of the fstab, add the option 'user' to the mount
        point, e.g.: /dev/hdc /mnt/cdrom iso9660 noauto,owner,user,exec,ro 0 0

        First up on da google for "mount permissions".

        PenGun
        Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JKR (198165)
      How unfortunate. I just plugged my new camera in and XP immediately offered up a Scanner and Camera wizard to transfer the images, with an Advanced option to just open an explorer window onto the camera as a filesystem. No drivers, no hassle, zero-click.

      Mind you, this is a reasonably expensive camera (Canon Powershot 3IS). Perhaps proper USB support in the peripheral makes more difference than the OS??
    • by Kjella (173770)
      Today I watched my dear father struggle for four hours (4! whole hours) trying to make his complicated new digital camera work with Windows XP. (...) On a Mac, you hook your camera up to the computer and you're done.

      Well, I'd say that is the standard on Windows too, I've never had a problem getting digital cameras to work and in general without own drivers. Maybe there was something particularly odd about this camera, which might have made it far more difficult on Mac too? Like say it required a custom driv
    • Weird. I use FreeBSD, and when I got my new camera, ALL I did was plug it in, and it worked. No drivers, no funky configuration, no gphoto, no nothing. Just plug in it. Up opened a folder with my pictures, and I dragged them off into my photos directory. Simple.

      Funny thing though, whenever I try to use my camera with a Windows system, it asks me to insert the non-existant driver CD...
  • by MSTCrow5429 (642744) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @05:23PM (#16899068)
    "After all, Windows is only half of what's wrong with the PC as a product."

    After all, the hardware half of a Macintosh is just a PC.

  • >>"The vast majority of PCs come with Windows pre-installed, and actually can't be sold without it..."

    Actually they can't be bought without it, not sold. There's a difference. You have plenty of options for buying PCs without Windows. There's only one place you can go to buy a PC to run OS X.

  • by Bullfish (858648) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @05:51PM (#16899324)
    Windows may eventually topple as the operating system of choice, but no time soon. Even if companies like Dell could freely advertise other OS's without penalty, I doubt it would make a dent in their sales of Windows PC's. Say what you like about MS, they have built remarkable brand name recognition. To erode that in the minds of people who say "the internet is broken" when IE won't launch is going to take a long time. Apple too, while having strong brand name recognition is seen often as cool, funky and not serious. Do they build a superior platform? Absolutely! Apple has always had superlative hardware and the easiest to use OS. I don't know why anyone would buy a mac and put windows on it, expect maybe to play games. There's an irony, Apple is often viewed by the general public as not serious and yet they have a superior suite of work applications while not having anywhere near the number of games available for windows. Windows is seen as the machine for work while having a mediocre suite of work apps and a killer selection of games. Apple has made inroads into the mass market, but with the iPod. At the rate macs are penetrating it is going to be ages before they make Bill Gates sweat buckets on the OS front. Right now he's laughing. In the PC wars, so what if a mac is a better windows machine? So much better for his market share.

    Linux, Ubuntu is a step in the right direction, but until you no longer need to be an ardent computer hobbyist or know one to set it up, it ain't happening fast either. What Linux really needs is some kind of mature plug and play especially because people keep buying crap to hook up to their computers and they want to use it. There's lots of good software, the hardware link is what's needed if Linux is ever going to have a "Year of the Desktop".

    In any event, in terms of manufacturer's offering an OS, it's going to be a Windows world for them for quite a while. There is no incentive for them to upset the apple cart until MS brand recognition go south. Geeks and their friends may think it has, but not enough to make a difference. In the meantime, all people who favour a particular OS or platform can do is enjoy their difference and show their friends. Someday it will make a difference.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by John Muir (912474)
      "There's an irony, Apple is often viewed by the general public as not serious and yet they have a superior suite of work applications while not having anywhere near the number of games available for windows. Windows is seen as the machine for work while having a mediocre suite of work apps and a killer selection of games."

      So true. That's the only time I find myself looking to Windows. The point being I should really just finally decide between getting a games console or giving up games full stop!

      Smug soun
  • by Channard (693317) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @06:00PM (#16899396) Journal
    I've recently got a Mac Mini and it's kind of handy, though I'm undecided as to whether my PC will get upgraded, or replaced, or if I"ll stick with Macs. What I do know is that I won't be plumping for vista given the high system demands it's got. 1GB memory at least? Er, no. What Leopard has going for it is that it doesn't require a significantly higher spec than a Mac running OSX 10.4.
  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Saturday November 18, 2006 @06:11PM (#16899498) Homepage Journal
    If you remember the early days of personal computers, companies only sold systems. They designed the hardware and the software, you bought the whole package as a system.

    When the IBM PC was introduced, the whole "system" idea was almost completely forgotten by the general public. In 2006, when you say "computer" most people think "I buy a box from someone and install an OS from someone else on it".

    Apple simply never stopped selling systems, but we still hear people "I want to buy the Apple OS for my beige box" comments.

    Apple sells complete systems, you can't have the software without the hardware, or vice-versa.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by UnxMully (805504)
      When the IBM PC was introduced, the whole "system" idea was almost completely forgotten by the general public. In 2006, when you say "computer" most people think "I buy a box from someone and install an OS from someone else on it".

      They do? Most people buy a PC from Dell or PC World or Currys and it comes with Windows on it. Installed, with a set of recovery disks that reinstall it. PCs bare of an OS seem to me to be a rapidly vanishing breed.
  • ..i see some kind of strategy: beginning with apple's switch to x86, in this case intel, i just have the feeling, that intel, as a secretive company, did trust apple enough to lay out before them there palomino concept, and apple came to the conclusion, that this could be the leverage needed to break into the windows market on the long shot. when virtualisation on the processor level is finally a reality, it will be possible to run windows "emulation" whithout beeing dependent from microsoft at all, becau
  • A bit more stylish perhaps, but only major architectural difference at the platform level is the use of EFI boot - which the PCs will get to shortly anyway (it's been around for years and is superior to BIOS, but conservative vendors have held off using it).
    Apple probably wanted it because (other than being more powerful and better) it gives them some control of what OS goes on Macs and lets them also make it more difficult to run OS/X on non-Mac non-EFI systems.
  • Why do we need USB for connecting a kayboard and a mouse. I don't exactly know how it works on the hardware level, but it seems that the PS/2 connectors do a good job as an interface for keyboards/mice. The PC industry has gotten to the point where every new technology does not have to be better than what it replaces. It's like saying that everyone should use WLANs because they are easier and newer than wired Ethernet. Great, but moving this 4GB file doesn't feel quite as.. "snappy". And is it really as sta
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Yosho (135835)
      There are a ton of good reasons for ditching PS/2. First, most computers have several USB ports, and you can plug any USB device into any of them; meanwhile, most only have two PS/2 ports, and thanks to bonehead motherboard manufacturers, you can only plug a keyboard into one of them. If that port malfunctions, you're screwed. Hotplugging support is also an issue; you never know when hotplugging a PS/2 keyboard into a powered motherboard will fry it. That's not a problem with USB keyboards. The connect
  • Thought Control (Score:3, Insightful)

    by katorga (623930) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @12:22AM (#16901768)
    My experience is that Apple tends to have the LEAST amount of originality and they actively frown on people thinking outside of their box. Apple is the ultimate "mental monopoly" model, designed to lock consumers in as much as possible and force them to think and work the Apple Way.

    MS is almost as bad. They practice economic monopolies. Most Apple fans consider this nothing more than crass capitalism compared to Apple's more artistic monopolistic model.

    Linux is the only truly "free" solution. Do whatever you want, however you want to do it, and don't worry about making the wrong choice because the only cost to the consumer is their time.

Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the things in the world that just don't add up.

Working...