What is Digg?133 Comments
- brandonvan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32I always like descriptions which state that this article will put any further arguments to rest.
- Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23One of the reasons OSX has been so successful in putting UNIX into a user friendly desktop that doesn't take an inch thick manual and a month to learn to do basic tasks with is because of standardized hardware. No need to figure out how to get 18 drivers to work together, no worrying about oddly named daemons needing to be configured or .rc's.. you just use it, and they are able to get your printers and other things to hum along nicely because the hardware is standardized. Linux has come a long way, but even ubuntu can be a pain to install with various "non-standard" hardware.. a USB Wireless Adapter, for instance.
I think Apple won't sell OSX to the PC crowd because they would never be able to garauntee that "total package" experience where everything (usually) just clicks. Instead you would have four million people who try out OSX, find nothing they have works with it, and ditch it.. and as a result, don't consider Apple hardware. That would kill the "halo effect".
Oh, and I can't read the article here, server is down. - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Ah, a visitor from the 1970s, where personal computer meant any sort of microcomputer. That was before the IBM PC came out and the term became synonymous with 'IBM PC compatible'.
- stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Having been a long-time Linux PC user and a more recent (last 3 years) Apple user, I can say without a doubt the appeal to me of the Apple is the great way the hardware and the software work together. Not only is the OS more stable because it's on a limited set of hardware, but the whole experience is just brilliant because of the look and design of the hardware that goes so well with the operating system.
I care about good design, and I love my iMac and Powerbook because not only are they great and useful machines, but they look great. Sure, not everyone cares about aesthetics, but it's an important factor in why I love my Macs so much. - zenzo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Says it all
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/12 - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -16/+27Alternate title: "Why OSX will never have more than a niche marketshare".
- bytefoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14If you believe the OS has no impact on the webserver, than you know diddly about computers.
- maczealot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13You mean Apache, the underlying web server in OSX?
- FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12***** that!
I'm running OSX on a PC right now and i'm loving it! - BSpolice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8That's an excellent point. Also leaves "mac curious" folk like me at a bit of an impasse. I would like to try OSX and would shell out a reasonable amount of money to do it. What I don't want to do is buy an entirely new (and overpriced, in most cases...hurry up with the intel ibooks already!) machine just so I can play with an OS that I don't even know if I like.
Honestly, I really don't think that Apple would benefit from selling OSX for general hardware. Either it wouldn't work for many configurations, as you say, or it WOULD, and people would be freed from having to buy Apple's overly expensive hardware. - dwgranth, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16well, seeing that his site is dugg to death... and that his site is macgeekery.com... it says it all (probably some mac fanboi). If some idiot wants to buy OSX just to put it on his PC, let him. Apple makes money off of it no matter what. And if at the end of the day he tries to call tech support, he will be laughed off the phone by Apple's techs. Thus, I don't understand why Apple is taking all of these steps to keep people from installing OSX on PC... they should just put a warning label on the boxes saying that it is for Apple approved HW only. :-P
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For better or worse, Apple maintains a very tight brand experience for their customers. That's why they won't ever sell an 'authorized' version of OSX for non Apple hardware.
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The only thing that got put to rest was their webserver
- loker269, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9someones mac server got pwned.....
http://www.macgeekery.com.nyud.net:8090/column/eloquent_apathy/should_apple_sell_mac_os_x_for_beige_boxes - hanshasuro, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Whoa, yea, you're right. For a minute there I thought I had strayed from the internet entirely.
- vmspionage, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19Seriously, Mac fanboys can't take a joke.
- aliguana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6i read this yesterday. same old same old. i agree with hypeiv - the problem OSX would have migrating is the vast amount of PC hardware (as opposed to the small amount of Mac hardware). However, I think it would be up to the hardware manufacturers to provide drivers for OSX, just like they do with the PC. They don't supply drivers for OSX, they don't get a sale to an OSX owner. Commercial pressure would make sure drivers got written and released fast, believe me.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -15/+20As the others have stated, PC refers to the IBM definition. I believe Mr. Jobs would agree with the term as his computers are MACs.
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7exactly, otherwise, it wouldn't be any different if you ran the underlying web server, Apache, on your XP machine. This OS makes a HUGE difference.
- xocomil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Interestingly enough, there are plenty of stories on Digg's front page that I'm not interested in. Fortunately, I don't click on the links and complain about the content. That way, I only see what I want to and my world stays a nice rosey pink.
- Smokezz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"I think this should put any further arguments to rest." - Now thats one of the funniest things I've read in a long time
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>I think Apple is specifically taking a step towards enlarging their potential market massively, as they should.
>No one cares what freaking motherboard they use, what they use is the software.
this is as close as it will ever get. i think intel is ready to put out some great CPUs. i suspect there will be more and more issues like the ones Windows has with the current dualcore intels. in a couple years you'll wonder what the big change was. apple will be selling the most integrated/dependable computer on the market. windows won't run better on it. why would you install windows on a computer that to a large degree is sold on the integration of the hardware and software which will likely always be just a little bit more expensive because of that and the fact that apple accepts parts that Q.C. in the top 15%. something like that. these are things make a mac worth more. they have never been in any danger of going out of business because i wouldn't switch to Windows. lots of people won't switch to windows. so... why trade in extremely satisfied customers to lower your quality in hopes of snatch some more desired customers.
you guys just don't understand that while apple is a for profit business... and jobs is maybe the best pitch man alive today... it has always tried to make'em insanely great. if you took time to look at how apple manages to produce machines that have an art like asthetic to them, cutting edge technology and really beautiful industrial design. the industrial design/engineer that goes into cramming all that stuff into an iMac and not have roaring fans... pull up the instructions for upgrading an iMac FP. its like a freaking swiss watch. and utterly quite. that is a remarkable feat of industrial design.
these are things mac people care about. we're not zealots we're extremely satisfied customers. extremely loyal because we've never fealt that apple let us down. part of that is loyalty that microsoft bought for them as we'd be damned if we will let microsoft put apple out of business-especially if meant having to endure windows more than we do already... microsoft gave it their best shot and couldn't do it. - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12that's because Apple is making all their money from iPOD sales.
- captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No, BSD was made for PDP-11s.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@Starmanjones
I could not disagree with you more. If you've ever worked with a corporate network operating envrionment, you'd KNOW that Microsoft is positively light years ahead of Apple when it comes to desktop/server management. Until Apple releases a directory-based network environment that can compete with Microsoft in this respect, they haven't a snowflake's chance in hell of "winning" any sort of respectable marketshare.
As it stands currently, the Mac is pretty much relegated to being a multi-purpose home-use toy. Microsoft dominates the corporate/business environment and actually provides a useful product in that arena. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Market share isn't what defines success for a company, return on investment is. Apple do very well in that respect regardless of what their overall market share is.
- shayne_sweeney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I hope someone agrees with me on this ... If you want to run Windows and Mac OS X on the same box, use an Mac.
I have both a Powerbook G4 and an IBM T43p. I have used both operating systems and also use Linux. I appreciate all three operating systems as they serve their individual purpose for me. I am not one to favor an OS over another for an generic reason, but when it comes down to it, some applications aren't available on the other platforms.
I have installed and used Mac OS X on my T43p. The hardware was almost perfect. My ethernet, wireless and power management wasn't working. I have a USB DWL-G122 the enables wireless support under Mac OS X which makes the OS usable on my IBM. However, I found that after using the OS for a bit, that the lack of power management greatly affected my decision to abandon the install and revert to my Windows/Linux dual boot.
To sum up my feelings about Mac OS X on generic PCs ... I think that it's always going to be a bit of a hack, the system will run and people will be able to use it on many machines, but the lack of driver support will always be there. Apple is not interested in developing/providing drivers for 3rd party devices (devices that are not available on Mac machines). This doesn't mean that 3rd party vendors wont provide drivers, but it is highly unlikely that the Mac OS X Intel switch will affect their opinion --- that is, unless their 5-8% market share sky rockets.
The perfect solution in my mind ... Use a Mac to run Windows. For the people who want the choice, need the ability, or [fill in the blank] to boot Windows or another x86 operating system is valid and should be available. In my opinion it makes MORE sense to run Mac OS X on an Apple machine because you know the hardware is 100% supported under Mac OS X and if you're buying an Mac, it's probably not to run Windows as the primary OS and if it is, then realize you're paying a 20% premium for a shiny well built Windows box.
Running Windows on the Mac machines will give you better results, in my opinion, then the other way around. Simply because the driver support is there. Apple is not using proprietary hardware on their machines (don't quote me on that) and it is more likely that you'll be able to match a Windows driver to the Apple hardware then it is the other way around.
Anybody agree?
Running Windows on the Mac will provide better hardware (driver) support, when running Windows, then running Mac OS X on a PC (Dell, IBM, Gateway, etc...).
That's why this Windows on Mac hardware movement is so important. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5>OS X's micro-kernel tends to bottleneck and limit the OS's performance in odd little ways.
>For a consumer OS, you'll probably never realize it, but as a server, it starts becoming
>more obvious. I use macs for production and play, but I still use linux for servers.
i was informed that the single thread to the kernal has been removed. i use linux as servers as well, but mostly its because i hate to waste a good mac serving webpages. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It seems to me that the only people arguing that it should are people who own PCs and want to run OS X without buying new hardware.
Was there ever really a strong argument that there was an actual business case for Apple doing this? I haven't seen one. I think this article is arguing against a straw man, which makes it a pretty pointless article. Does anybody really think it makes sense for Apple to do this? *Really*? - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>You know, for a bunch of wavy-gravy wheatgrass drinkin hippies, you mac users are sure
>getting uptight.
i think its the dim witted windows users that are getting up tight. its hard to realize that you've been
taken advantage of all these years.
>If mac os is getting ported to the pc, you should be excited, i mean maybe it would make
>people want to switch... But as it stands, the people who have already done it say it's
>pretty restricted compared to both windows and linux, both we already have.
ported... hmm... well, apple has always kept the PC version of OS X pretty much up to par with the PPC version which explains how they can put it on the market without a microsoft like disaster happening.
the mentality of windows weenies just can't get past the idea of having to do "stuff" to get things running. they've aquired a taste for having to dink with things and to not dink makes them feel inadequate. you can't even focus on the real things involved.
apple and intel will be fielding machines that OS X and maybe Linux can take full advantage of. its likely that it will be microsofts failure to produce a modern OS that keeps windows from the latest greatest CPU... Macs.
yes windows will be hacked to run on more advanced machines. yes OS X will be hacked to run on machines that aren't Macs.
but in a couple years... after Vista is a dissapointment... and Microsoft gets bogged down trying to produce a modern OS... while trying to keep Vista from being completely antiquated... something they have never been able to do in the past... the choice is will look more like... do you want to run Tiger? or Windowd 95.
that will be microsofts undoing. and the great thing is that apple will have done it on merit and ideas... and products that are insanely great. the good guys will have one. thats rare in this day and age. - melprice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In that case the IBM PC is more personal because I have more emotional energy and personal time invested int it, not to mention the hair loss which will be in the keyboard making it very personal from a DNA perspective.
>I mean really if you morons want to split hairs, which computer would you say is more of a "Personal" computer, the one that works right out of the box and pretty much does what you tell it to do, or the one takes you through hours, sometimes days of drudgery installing drivers, troubleshooting esoteric problems, etc. not to mention windows-related hair loss. - lightningrod220, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple makes the majority of their profit from hardware - their computers and iPods. iTunes and software don't do much for them, but do help differentiate from the Windows masses.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>Ive noticed a pattern. At Slashdot it was Linux users vs Windows users, here at digg its Apple users vs Windows users. I
>think the only rationale thing to do now is to have them all duke it out in the ring
the common thread is the dislike of windows. the dislike of the abuses microsoft passes off as just doing business. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3right, Be was by an ex-apple CEO that took ideas with him. NeXT is the fore runner of Mac OS... and it was an intel based computer. the people that did Nautalis for Linux were over represented by people that designed the Mac OS interface. of course, not many people deny that microsoft incorporates the things it likes about OS X into Windows. (wasn't that diplomatic? )
so apple has effected computing in the most porfound ways. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4the reason apple isn't going to need to contend with bootlegging of the OS to run on non apple PCs is that intel is going to be making the CPUs using the latest technology... and ditching the windows kludges that are currently dragging it down meaning windows won't run well -or in time -at all on them. probably under emulation like now... but whatever.
the unix geek in me just had to try the patched version. and i can tell you that even though it really does run ok... if i wasn't a Unix/Linux geek that it wouldn't be running. its only the years of trouble shooting and knowing what needs to be tweaked that has it running. it has been a very windows/linux experience. that kind of fun is exactly what mac people hate... not having to do it was always one of the main appeals of a mac. naw, i think over the long run apple will be able to pretty much ignore the boot leg problem because that part wil probably not change. - blamebla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Ironic
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/03/06 - TheReport, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Ive noticed a pattern. At Slashdot it was Linux users vs Windows users, here at digg its Apple users vs Windows users. I think the only rationale thing to do now is to have them all duke it out in the ring
- Laughingman234, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Before the iPod success I would have whole heartedly agreed...but now with all the extra income they have from the iPod market...they could sell one computer a year and still post a profit...with this I really think they should push OS X onto a dellish machine...I know steve would freak out but they need to make a standard regular large tower...BYOKDM...and enough kick to run everything nicely...if that came out for under 500 bucks I know they would sell like hotcakes...PC market...be ready for the second coming of Mac...
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6gee, and BSD was made for PEECEEs, why is Mac using it? your analogy sucks, like the rest of your posts on digg. you're filtered.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10No, it makes no sense at all. Closing off the hardware will do nothing but keep Apple in the niche. Granted they are great for graphics, video editing, and such, but come on. I can put whatever harware I like into my pc. If it runs *****, that's MY fault, but at least I am given the choice of the architechture of my machine. No digg for the MacBoys.
- galisus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21) We do have a reply button now.
2) And that's exactly my point. It was done for use on Macs with Intel processors. Not standard PCs.
Stealing a hacked version of OS X doesn't mean Apple ported it to PCs. It means they ported it to be used on another model of Mac hardware. Heh. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Now that there's a comparable operating system with comparable popularity to Windows"
Comparable operating system I can accept as a fair statement. Saying that it has comparable popularity is fanboyism to the extreme. - kcghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Misleading Title, it should be "Why Mac OS X shoudlnt be sold for PCs", and I agree. Apple wont make money off of that. Me personally and individually however, would absolutley love Mac OX X on my PC, simply because im not an Apple nut, but an OS nut. Apple's market is it's huge audience of Apple nuts, and they should stick to that.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I guess Minis don't make such great webservers after all...
- hypeiv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I can’t get the page to load b/c is getting dugg too hard I guess…
But I think selling any OS that’s not preinstalled on a computer is a support nightmare. A nightmare that apple is not ready or willing to deal with. Imagine if Apple sold their OS and every brain dead computer user went out to buy it and tried to install it on their PC’s. There is no way the apple OS is able to support the vast differences in computer hardware since it was never designed to. There would be so many people frustrated b/c they can’t get osx running on their 400mhz emachine it would totally crush Apple’s image. Just think about all the horror upgrade stories you hear every time a new version of windows is released (get ready to hear more when vista is launched)… and that OS was actually designed to be run on many different types of PC configurations!
If OSX is ever sold for non apple hardware I would expect it to be sold with a new computer that has “apple approved” hardware or something of the sort. Until they have the customer support to assist people with home installs; selling the OS by itself would be very stupid. The people smart enough to install it on pc’s themselves can just stick to the current methods of getting OSX running on a PC… - znicket, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5So why not try a second hand Mac Mini? You should be able to get one on ebay for about 400usd.
- v0id, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6can we get a pause with xp_mac news on front page now? honstly this was intersting for the first week or so but now that its over can we get a break from things?
- arzdb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sorry, but that's an awful article. It doesn't really say anything of value.
He essentially says that without the seamless integration between software and hardware, that no one would buy the operating system (that might be true, but it's not like they're selling big time now with that as their main focus). Wouldn't the move be to expand their users? Sure it may throw off a few of their good old boys, but people who use Macs now are going to use the OS in the future even if the change occurs. I don't see how that would actually significantly decrease their users.
He says that people buy the Mac hardware because of the software, so won't that mean that they have great software and that perhaps if people could use both OS X and XP, they would be more inclined to buy OS X if they already have XP (which they likely already do, again we're talking about getting a larger user base)?
I don't think Apple should necessarily stop making hardware, but I don't see anything in his arguments that changed anything that I previously thought. - MoeB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4yes but that is true with every crowd, even the pc lovers. anyone can steal...
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6> financially speaking the MAC is not the thing keeping there bacon out of the fire.
Do you have the numbers to back that up? According to Apple's last quarterly, they sold 1.25 million Macs, which is a 20% growth rate. It's been Apple's most successful quarter ever. Financially speaking they don't need anything in particular to "keep their bacon out of the fire", they are doing fantastically well.
> They make good products but right now iPod-iTunes is the primary revenue source for them.
What relevance does that have?
PS: It's "Mac", not "MAC", and "their" not "there". -
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is