The Problem with Apple
During my recent troubles getting a laptop configured the way I want it from Dell, the illustrious J. Morgan Caler suggested I buy a Mac. While I'd love to do this, Apple's really shot themselves in the foot lately, especially on notebooks, and made it impossible for me as a sensible human being to do so.
First off, Apple's notebooks are still running the G4 chip, meaning they're already 1 generation out dated. IBM was having a lot of trouble adapting the G5 Power PC chip's heat output for a laptop.
This brings me to the second problem with Mac notebooks: as a result of IBM's continued troubles, Apple recently announced that they're going to switch to using Intel chips as early as 2006, meaning that in 6 months any Mac notebook you buy today while come complete with a processor that's a full 2 cycles outdated. Wonderful.
To get an Apple notebook on par with my Dell, I'd be looking at the 15" PowerBook, which at $2,000 has a slower processor and half the ram. A refurbished model is still $1800. The processor would be using 64 bit registers - a huge advantage - and has a bigger hard drive and built in firewire. But for almost double the price, am I really going to buy a system that's guaranteed to be 2 generations outdated in 6 months? Not to mention the fact that, as an Apple computer, I'll have to deal with finding the often obscure and overpriced Mac versions of any software I want to buy.
I love Macs. I love how beautiful their interfaces are, how clean the hardware looks, and how fast they are at graphics processing. I just can't get over how expensive they are. I might pay as much as an extra $500 for an apple computer that's comprable to my Dell, but not the $850 they're asking of me right now. If I were buying a desktop, I might go with a Mac because any and all processors that are on market today will be outdated in a year. But with a notebook they're asking me to pay more for something that's already behind cutting edge, and to pay more for it? I just can't do it.
posted by RJ @ 7:40 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Now that Mac's are switching to an Intel chip they are going to become just fancy, beautiful Linux distros. Mac OS is already built on Linux/UNIX, so the only thing making it more than that now is its unique processor. So, unless Intel is making a Big-Endian chip for them -- which I think would be ridiculous, Macs are going to lose all uniqueness except aesthetic appeal. Also, if Intel does not make the chip Big-Endian then all current Mac software will not run on the new Macs, but it will be easier to make new software that will. If they do keep a Big-Endian chip they will preserve their uniqueness, but at a time where Windows 64 is looming on the horizon and 64 bit PC chips are already out, that is not really any advantage. Mac will become in the computer world what Ipods are in the MP3 player world -- a cooler looking device with nicer interfaces but no real difference except a higher price. (in my opinion they are pretty much there already, as soon as someone comes out with some good PC A/V software and a 64 bit OS)
All of Mac's current software for the PowerPC chips will be supported on the new hardware for the next few years (link) The new chip will use Rosetta, Mac's intel/PowerPC emulator, to be backwards compatible.
I think you're right - as soon as the PC world catches onto 64 bit registers, Mac's got little to offer but aesthetics and a better OS. I've heard rumors that their desktops are going to dual processors. Regular Win PC's could do that too, but I haven't read about any plans by Dell, HPaq or Gateway yet.
Intel has a new 'dual core' chip that actually has two processors on one chip. Its not just hyper-threading where the chip simulates more than one, its actually two seperate processors. In fact, each can have hyper-threading turned on itself. However, some bench tests that PC Magazine (I think) ran showed that the dual core chip was actually slower with HT turned on for some reason. Apparently the HT algorithm isn't flawless...
Well, you are probably 100% right in all your justifications and, even if you weren't, I couldn't argue with you. At the same time, I have a affinity for aesthetics and intuitive design that just can't be satisfied with anything other than an Apple. I will pay almost any amount of money for something that a) proves to me that someone spent a lot of time designing it with purpose and with appearance in mind, and b) never fails to do what I want it to do. And I am sure you are right - it is wholly impractical (especially for someone who uses a computer for more than the internet, Word, iTunes, and Snood), but I love the quality of materials, the unbelievably straightforward OS, and the fact that it has never once displayed an error message, let alone crashed.
yeah - they are great. Maybe in a few years if I need to get another one I'll get a Mac, but now that they've announced this Intel deal I can't justify paying the extra money for something that's about to be outdated. Which is to say that I can't justify it to my wife.
Man, I hate playing catch-up:
1. OS X is derived from the BSD core (which is UNIX, not Linux/UNIX). BSD is widely regarded as the most stable and secure off the shelf distro that is commonly in use. So saying 'All that Macs will have to their advantage in '06 is a cool aesthetic' is just plain wrong -- the fact is, Windoze users Just Don't Know what it is like to have a quick os, one that is consistent and rock solid.
2. Rants about endianess aside...the fact is that no one knows exactly what architecture the new Apple chips will have. HOWEVER -- in an astounding display of forward-thinking-ness, S. Jobs announced that for the past five years, Apple engineers have been building a copy of their OS on stock x86 chips. It works.
3. Good point about Rosetta, but I'm of the opinion that (since versions of many mac products are available for windows) they've already got the switch totally figured out.
4. They didn't want to use two button mice so that they would HAVE to ensure that their simplified design achieved the pinnacle of functionality. The aesthetic isn't just pretty pictures, it works well.
All that being said, I'd only buy one if I could get a discount -- but I'd be positive that I was getting my money's worth.
The UI that Apple has designed for it is
I absolutely appreciate the virtues of Unix over Windows, but I can't say the distinction is nearly as clear now as it was before XP. XP is VERY stable compared to early windows builds. I rarely have to restart the machine - maybe once every week to three weeks - and with a notebook you're going to be shutting it off more than that anyway, so it's not as big of a deal. I'm absolutely in agreement that Mac machines are better than PC's - just not better enough to be worth the cash they're asking for it at this point, in my opinion.
Ah, but comparing XP to 98 is misleading. Sure, windows has come a long way, but average uptimes for *nix boxes could be measured in months/years, if you let them go...
Security is a big issue for me, though. Do you know what your windows laptop is doing whilst sitting idle? Can you even find out, without hacking together a host of 3rd party apps? I can't.
Another thing -- you simply can't compare a 1.2 Ghz powerpc running OSX with a 2.4 Ghz pentium running xp. I'd venture to say that there's not much of a visible difference, but that's totally subjective.
-notgary
That's the thing, though - there's no way, with a laptop, that you'll ever be leaving it to run for those months and years, so as long as the OS can handle a day or so, it doesn't really matter.
You certainly have a lot more control over your unix system, but it comes with a price. Can you really control a Mac to the full unix level? I have little experience really getting into the guts of one, but I've never known anyone who got very far past the GUI. Any real traditional Unix system requires tons of additional knowledge to install and maintain. There are huge benefits for being able to do it, but most of us can't. Even getting Fedora installed is much harder than popping in XP and letting it go.
I thought Chuck's anonymous was Gary - I figured this one was K. Am I right? Will you just use a freaking name? NicodemusSunrise?
Post a Comment
<< Home