New x86-based Macs are out!

[egbert]

What pc user in their right mind would buy apple hardware that they can't upgrade, to dual-boot windows? Say they fancy a better soundcard/motherboard/processor in six months time - install it and find osx no longer boots? Why would that be a good option?

Dead right for a desktop but this doesn't really apply to laptops and iMacs which are not very upgradable at all.
The actual performance differences between OSX and Windows on virtually identical hardware will be very interesting. The dual boot thing is a pretty cool idea though.

[valley]

I suspect the quote from the apple rep was more likely to read "We COULD not prevent people from installing windows on apple hardware". I doubt they're excited about the idea.

They probably could very easily.

What pc user in their right mind would buy apple hardware that they can't upgrade, to dual-boot windows?

I don't know that this matters anymore. Laptops are outselling desktops, and it seems likely that the margin will grow year on year for at least the next half a decade. Laptops are entirely locked hardware so clearly most consumers don't care.

The question for most users is: I'm in the market for a new laptop, shall I go Windows or Mac? The windows unit will be cheaper, but the mac will be sexier. It really is going to come down to which OS people would rather use.

Personally I'm a big *nix fan, so I could be swayed towards OSX, 'cos linux just don't cut it at this moment for a pain free existance, and Open Office looks much like Open Office irrespective of what OS I'm using.

[chico.co.uk]

valley, i agree on the laptops are outselling desktops, and most consumers don't care point. However, most consumers also don't want to dual boot two operating systems. Those who do, i would say, also want the flexibility of tweaking their hardware to preference too. 'Course i'm making this up, based on what "feels" right, i've nothing to back it up

I really must have a proper play with OSX at some point. Maybe a cheap second hand mac would be a good idea at some point ... I do like apple's approach of making software that just works, and in a funky way. The whole iLife thing and beyond. Big fan of software that looks good and "just works".

valley, i'm curious about how apple could stop you dual booting on their hardware? I know you well enough to think you probably have something in mind

[polaris20]

Arguably will apple be able to charge a premium for hardware that is basically no different to the crap that dell churns out? Sony can manage it by being a little cool, and apple are way cooler than sony right now, but how far can apple tread that?

No different, except far better engineering, better design, and a better GUI. How much does a Dell cost with a Radeon Mobile X1600, dual core Yonah, an 80gig drive, a dual layer DVD-R, and 512MB of RAM?

The only one I can think of being close is the XPS laptop, which is as much or more than the MacBook Pro, and still cheap plastic.

[AD80]

Arguably will apple be able to charge a premium for hardware that is basically no different to the crap that dell churns out? Sony can manage it by being a little cool, and apple are way cooler than sony right now, but how far can apple tread that?

No different, except far better engineering, better design, and a better GUI. How much does a Dell cost with a Radeon Mobile X1600, dual core Yonah, an 80gig drive, a dual layer DVD-R, and 512MB of RAM?

The only one I can think of being close is the XPS laptop, which is as much or more than the MacBook Pro, and still cheap plastic.

Just as a reference, including DUAL layer DVD drive which I dont think the Book has. No Anti-Virus (I use Avast anyways), and no Office (I use open office).

Gateway® S-7510N
Intel® Core™ Duo Processor T2400 (1.83 GHz, 667MHz FSB, 2MB L2 Cache)
ATI Mobility™ Radeon® X1400 SE 128MB Graphics (up to 256MB HyperMemory)
80GB 5400rpm Serial ATA hard drive
Modular 8x Multi-Format Double Layer DVD Writer (DVD±R/±RW/CD-RW)
Notebook Value Plus Service Plan -- 3 year part/labor/NBD on-site/3 year technical support

Base Price
$1,149.99

Additional Items +$594.99

Total
$1,744.98

The Dual 2.0 ghz is around 1900 or so.

[egbert]

No different, except far better engineering, better design, and a better GUI.

You must be joking. The "engineering" is by Intel, Seagate and ATI and some screen manufacturers in Taiwan or Korea.

How much does a Dell cost with a Radeon Mobile X1600, dual core Yonah, an 80gig drive, a dual layer DVD-R, and 512MB of RAM?

Less - count on it. Their margins are lower and their volume is way higher.

[kp]

"Different" GUI - since I know people who love what OS X looks like and people who hate what it looks like (including me), it's not objectively better or worse.

It's just crap :-)

[Crossinger]

"Different" GUI - since I know people who love what OS X looks like and people who hate what it looks like (including me), it's not objectively better or worse.

It's just crap

I like it! I have stuffed my PC with tons of senseless & CPU consuming bells & whistles.
Sorry, but I need much of "Eye candy" for my daily work. Otherwise I'd need a daily bar of chocolate - which is less healty...

[valley]

However, most consumers also don't want to dual boot two operating systems.

No, which is why I think it'll really come down to "hmmm, the sexy white laptop, or the dull plasticy grey thing" for most purchasers.

Those who do, i would say, also want the flexibility of tweaking their hardware to preference too. 'Course i'm making this up, based on what "feels" right, i've nothing to back it up
[/quoute]

No, I'd totally agree. Tinkerers are tinkerers. Eventually the market may simply force those people to conform, but in the short term, dual boot types are likely to be building their own bespoke systems too.

I really must have a proper play with OSX at some point.

I don't need too much candy, so it serves to remind me why I run WinXP in classic mode. That said, Apple do candy with much more style and thought than their Redmond counterparts.

However, for me the advantage of OSX is something I never thought I would say about a Mac OS: it has BSD so you can get under the hood. Where MS are going out of their way to kill DOS dead, Apple have made a CLI integral to their OS. I'm certainly not going to send flowers to an MS-DOS funeral, but I like having a command line.

Also, where is SFTd, SCPd, and SSHd on WinXP? I have to run Cygwin and deal with the extra attendant administration. Those services are just a mouse click away with MacOSX.

valley, i'm curious about how apple could stop you dual booting on their hardware? I know you well enough to think you probably have something in mind

I'm sure there are a number of ways, but the easiest is probably just to build a custom BIOS. The BIOS could simply check for Apple tagged boot sectors and ignore any that aren't. Sure you could flash the BIOS with something more forgiving, but then OSX could in turn detect that and fail to boot - making it an either/or situation. The XBox does something pretty similiar as far as I can tell.

One interesting possibiloty of Apple eschewing standard BIOSes though is that they could be the first x86 provider to use Intel's new BIOS format. The current BIOS truly is a hideous relic, and most MOBO/CPU providers seem to be eager to see a day when the BIOS could be replaced with something a little more modern.

[valley]

except far better engineering

Better than Asus? Better than Abit? They have their work cut out for them. Sure the x86 market is stuffed with inferior quality product, and much of that finds its way into Dells[1]. At the end of the day though, the new Mac is going to be an Intel reference design, and an Apple designed MOBO. What in this is any better than an AMD/Intel reference design, and an nVidia/Asus MOBO?

Apple's engineering kudos always came from the extras, not the system. Firewire is still just ahead of USB. Apples were shipping with SCSI when Wintels were still based around ATA33 IDE drives. Unfortunately much that once gave Apple the edge is being sacrificed as part of the move to Intel. The only differentiator going forward is the OS, and Apple are going to have to work real hard to herd the sheep away from Windows.

[1] I admit it, I f-cking HATE foxconn.

[egbert]

except far better engineering

Better than Asus? Better than Abit? They have their work cut out for them. Sure the x86 market is stuffed with inferior quality product, and much of that finds its way into Dells[1]. At the end of the day though, the new Mac is going to be an Intel reference design, and an Apple designed MOBO. What in this is any better than an AMD/Intel reference design, and an nVidia/Asus MOBO?

I very much doubt whether Apple designed this mobo. I would be astonished if they are not doing what HP and Dell etc do and buying one of the major Taiwanese manufacturers designs based on the new i945 chipset from Intel (which probably draws heavily on some Intel reference design) and specing their own 802.11g chip instead of Intel's. The routing of all the tracks etc - ie the design - will be done in software by the people that actually know how to do that shit - the engineers at the Taiwanese manufacturer Apple has contracted to build the machines.

Apple will have had a role in choosing the machines components (hard drive, screen, DVD drive, RAM etc and designing the case and PSU which has been designed to avoid damaging the laptop if someone trips on the power cord.

Apple's engineering kudos always came from the extras, not the system. Firewire is still just ahead of USB. Apples were shipping with SCSI when Wintels were still based around ATA33 IDE drives. Unfortunately much that once gave Apple the edge is being sacrificed as part of the move to Intel.

C'mon - what has happened is that the collective R&D budget of all the X86 players has taken the PC platform past the Mac, past Sun's Sparc, HPs PA RISC hardware etc.

SCSI was an advantage once upon a time but not now - a SATA Raptor runs rings around all but the latest 15 k SCSI drives - which would never be specced by Apple for a desktop - nor should they.

It is 2006 - Sun sell Operton systems, Apple sells Intel stuff now - those companies' proprietary platforms were left in the dust. Intel's own Itanic has been left pretty much in the dust by x86-64 (developed by AMD and now Intel has been forced by Microsoft to adopt these extensions) too oddly enough.

The only differentiator going forward is the OS, and Apple are going to have to work real hard to herd the sheep away from Windows.

Exactly. Apple is a software company with a CEO who has the horn for hardware. Jobs has always been hung up on hardware and yet his company doesn't really make competitive hardware - it makes software and it does marketting - those are it's strengths.

[valley]

I very much doubt whether Apple designed this mobo.

I have no idea. I'm sure they have the technical expertise to do it. Whether they go in house or not is going to be question of economics.

C'mon - what has happened is that the collective R&D budget of all the X86 players has taken the PC platform past the Mac, past Sun's Sparc, HPs PA RISC hardware etc.

I'm puzzled. You seem to be suggesting I ever stated otherwise.

SCSI was an advantage once upon a time but not now

Yeeesss. That would be about the time that Wintels were shipping with piss slow ATA drives. I think I may have mentioned that, no?

It is 2006 - Sun sell Operton systems, Apple sells Intel stuff now - those companies' proprietary platforms were left in the dust.

And in the background IBM, Toshiba, and Sony are pushing the PowerPC far beyond what it is current capable of. I'm fairly confident that if we are having the converstaion in ten years time, it'll all be different again - not that I'm saying the cell will be the next big thing, just that the chip market seems to be rather cyclic.

Exactly. Apple is a software company with a CEO who has the horn for hardware. Jobs has always been hung up on hardware and yet his company doesn't really make competitive hardware - it makes software and it does marketting - those are it's strengths.

I think the iPod may have convinced Jobs that the hardware connected to a Mac may be more important than the hardware inside the Mac.

[jones-y]

Who are these people who want to dual-boot windows and mac o/s, but have no desire to ever upgrade the hardware it runs on? Who're sitting at home thinking, hey, i'm as comfortable with macs as i am with pcs, if only there was a box locked to a rigid hardware configuration that could run both operating systems, that cost 1 and a half times the price of an equivalent pc, then I would truly be happy.

I know of one person (my boss' son) for whom this turn of events might possibly sway. I suspect there are many more. But that's just m2c.

And "can't upgrade the hardware" is an assumption, although, admittedly, so is dual bootint an Intel Mac into Windows.

The question for most users is: I'm in the market for a new laptop, shall I go Windows or Mac? The windows unit will be cheaper, but the mac will be sexier. It really is going to come down to which OS people would rather use.

And again, that goes to my point of (if dual boot is possible) they can buy the hardware without having to lock themselves into a choice...

Or to better state it, if they want one and they'll never touch the other, then the choice is cut and dry, but if they want both, then the choice becomes one of economics:

"I can buy one computer that runs windows for less, or buy one computer that runs both for more. Is that flexibility worth the extra cost? "

I very much doubt whether Apple designed this mobo.

I have no idea. I'm sure they have the technical expertise to do it.

AFAIK They don't design Mobo's. They do have a say in the design, however.

[egbert]

C'mon - what has happened is that the collective R&D budget of all the X86 players has taken the PC platform past the Mac, past Sun's Sparc, HPs PA RISC hardware etc.

I'm puzzled. You seem to be suggesting I ever stated otherwise.

Yeah - I guess we are in agreement mostly -
What I was addressing was this:

Unfortunately much that once gave Apple the edge is being sacrificed as part of the move to Intel.

What I was trying to convay was that I don't think Apple has had any kind of edge on the hardware level since the early days of PowerPC when for a short time the 601 was definitely faster than the 486s of that era.

ATA33 was not a bad spec BTW - it was plenty fast enough for drives of that era. What has made ATA drives fast and efficient is A)the spectacular increase in data density and the increase in rotational speed of drive media and B)DMA protocols - eg UDMA.

Well before ATA33 you had slow drives running Mode 3 PIO and stuff like that which used a lot of CPU when transferring data. UDMA uses little CPU.

[bastien]

No, which is why I think it'll really come down to "hmmm, the sexy white laptop, or the dull plasticy grey thing" for most purchasers.

Or they could buy a Sony Vaio.