Has anybody made installing OSX on generic Intel any easier in recent months?
Sonnova
OSX on Intel hardware, it was incredibly complex, much more so than my meager
computer talents can possibly manage. But I don't like Windows, and I want to
run OSX, but I also don't want to spend twice as much for an Apple MacBook as
I would spend for a comparable Win notebook
MacBook = $1200
Intel Notebooks = Dozens available from Tiger Direct and others at under $600
Mike
Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
With comparable features and software? I don't think so.
--
Mike
Sonnova
(in article <mike-1C3EF6.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
C'mon! Software? I have the latest iLife, I don't use iWorks, and the
hardware features you talk about are CHEAP in the Windows world. It costs
almost nothing to add 802.11 (and most notebooks have it built-in anyway).
Adding cardbus Firewire (likely MIA in most Windows notebooks as a built-in)
is available for as little as $15!
In fact, there is no combination of hardware add-ons or Apple software
bundles which, when added to the cost a cheap Intel notebook will come even
CLOSE to making up the delta between the cost of the Intel notebook and a
MacBook.
So, how about it folks? Somebody answer my question?
Sonnova
Wayne Stuart
Yes, I'm sure there are. But that level of contrast, you're not exactly
comparing like with like, are you? Each cost their respective prices
because that's pretty much what they're worth. Be mindful, there are
many aspects beyond headline bullet point specs than can and do affect
worth, your subjective appreciation of them notwithstanding.
So, no, the 'Hackintosh' concept is not Joe Schmoe-proof, and probably
never will be. So your choices are:
1. Learn how to jump though a lot of hoops fitting the proverbial square
peg (OS X) into the proverbial round hole (a non-Apple PC), and be
prepared for Apple to do anything they can to 'brick' it.
2. Accept that Macs are what they are and cost what they cost, bite the
bullet and just get one. If budget PCs are your bag, then get a used
Mac.
3. Grit your teeth and live with Windows. It does the job.
4. Try Linux, starting with Ubuntu.
Relevant resource: http://www.osx86project.org/
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Sonnova
(in article <1iobgd3.1tkx9w2gl0o74N%m...@privacy.net>):
Thank you. You have answered my question to my satisfaction. I guess I have
to live with Windows even though i MUCH prefer Mac. See, the hardware is
mostly irrelevant to me, but the OS is important mainly because I use my
laptop mostly as a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) and the best DAW programs
are primarily Mac oriented (Apple's Logic Express is my favorite audio
capture program- one that I know well. An important consideration). The ones
that run under multiple OSes, such as Audacity, lack features under Windows
that they don't lack under Macs. I mean, Macs practically own pro-audio, from
what I can see.
Tim Murray
> what I can see.
>
Then you should have answered your own question. If your main work is as you
say and you know as much as about the applications as you do, then I don't
even know why you asked. You would either (a) spend the money, (b) buy a used
Mac, or (3) spend a day tweaking a non-Apple machine to get OS X on it.
Craig Koller
Check your local Craigslist later this month for people selling their
Macbooks in order to buy the new models coming out. You can probably
find a Macbook for around $700, oftentimes with AppleCare which will
warranty it for the next year or so.
Mocassin Joe
"Craig Koller" <cwkol...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cwkollertwo-C1A1...@news.giganews.com...
Better yet, he can buy a brand new Compaq for $499 that will do anything, at
least as good as the Macbook. Which will run VISTA, which is better than
Leopard, and run many more programs than the Mac.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Better yet, he can buy a brand new Compaq for $499 that will do anything, at
> least as good as the Macbook. Which will run VISTA, which is better than
> Leopard, and run many more programs than the Mac.
The Compaq does not in this case. There are three major schools of thought
in the music world. One is the GarageBand group, who seem mostly to be
Mac owners that play music and since it was cheap/free are very happy with it.
The second group is the Apple Logic Studio group who bought Macs because they
wanted to use Logic Studio and that's just part of the price of it.
The third group is the CueBase users. CueBase runs under Windows, so they
use PC's.
The point is that the GarageBand people use it because they already own a
Mac, it fits their needs and it was a cheap add on.
The CueBase and Logic Studio group bought the computer to run the software,
not the software to fit their computers.
AFAIK, there is no crossover between them, you can't easily run one if
everyone else is running the other.
There are a many other programs, some cost, some free, but these are the
big ones.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
Roger Smith
"Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C50D2DD5...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
could sell them with a custom installer that would allow the customer to use
their own legally purchased copy of OSX.
Sonnova
(in article <0001HW.C50E2BC5...@216.77.188.18>):
All I asked is if installing OSX on generic Intel was any easier than it was
the last time I looked (OSX 3.X?). And, I already have a "used Mac" laptop.
I want something that's a bit faster and gives me less latency when recording
to HDD (while being small, and light). That led me to contemplate a machine
like the Acer Aspire - 9" screen, a little over two pounds, a processor TWICE
as fast as my G3, Etc.
Why so critical?
Sonnova
(in article <cwkollertwo-C1A1...@news.giganews.com>):
Not a bad suggestion. Thanks.
Steve Hix
> >
> > Thank you. You have answered my question to my satisfaction. I guess I have
> > to live with Windows even though i MUCH prefer Mac. See, the hardware is
> > mostly irrelevant to me, but the OS is important mainly because I use my
> > laptop mostly as a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) and the best DAW
> > programs are primarily Mac oriented (Apple's Logic Express is my favorite audio
> > capture program- one that I know well. An important consideration). The
> > ones that run under multiple OSes, such as Audacity, lack features under Windows
> > that they don't lack under Macs. I mean, Macs practically own pro-audio,
> > from what I can see.
Don't give up so easily.
You don't seem to have considered much of anything beyond the initial
price of a new machine.
Even initial acquisition costs aren't as clear-cut as you've presented
them; there *are* used machines available that would do your job quite
nicely. Some out there will unload a perfectly adequate Mac just because
a new model has been released. You should take advantage of natural
resources like that.
For that matter, even if you got a new Mac, you could expect to using it
at least as long as a PC, and longer than most of the cheap machines
you've been focused on, and you can expect to get more out of the Mac
when you sell it later than you would from a cheap PC.
Sonnova
(in article <yZ4Gk.44062$rD2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
You aren't paying attention. In another post, I said that my needs are for
computer-based audio recording. Most of the best software and much of the
hardware is Mac specific and won't run on Windows. Besides, I hate Windows
and find it very poorly designed. Those who think that Vista is better than
Leopard are deluded and obviously have little experience with the Mac OS.
Even the experts agree that Leopard is head and shoulders above Vista. But
all of that is academic.
Lloyd Parsons
Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
Are you doing this audio stuff for a living? If so, then the hardware
is a business investment to make more money. I would think that the
decision for a business user in this case, would be very easy. Spend a
couple more bucks on a Mac to make more.
Or spend on a Windows box that doesn't quite do what you want, or maybe
not as efficiently. Which means making less money.
Or keep what you have which you believe is too slow. Kinda makes it
like a new Windows box in that respect.
Now if you are doing it just for fun, then it isn't an investment, it is
a cost of your fun. Same ideas, but maybe different conclusions.
Tim Murray
Sorry, there is a lot of false trolling. One reason was that it was quite
subjective; also, some will copy stuff straight from elsewhere and post it
here. It sounded a bit like this is your business, and if that's the case,
it's a no-brainer: You use what's best to make money. The price difference
will be made up in no time.
Mocassin Joe
No, I am. It's amusing to watch you troll both sides of the street.
Sonnova
(in article <0001HW.C50E8384...@216.77.188.18>):
I'll try to explain once more. I want light and small and basically
throw-away. If I can buy something like an Acer Aspire, which is very small
and very light and very cheap, I won't care so much if it gets "beat-up" in
the field (I do on-location recording) or even lifted from backstage by the
more light-fingered elements. IOW, I'll have a cheap computer to capture
audio with that still runs OSX (and thus Logic Express) and I won't have to
worry about it. That is what had me posing the question about installing OSX
on it. I know that it used be a daunting task, and I was merely wondering if
anything had changed on that front.
I'm still thinking about going the Aspire (or similar) route and going back
to using Audacity (I'm only capturing audio, after all) on Windows. I don't
need anything really complicated. In fact I only used Logic Express because I
like the interface and because there is commonality of the interface between
LE and the more comprehensive Logic Studio which I run on my Intel tower Mac
in my editing room.
Sonnova
(in article <sehix-878BF5....@news.speakeasy.net>):
This is my fault for not explaining more fully. I figured that someone would
just answer my inquiry and that would be that. I'm attracted to the Acer
Aspire which can be had for less than $400 and other, similar small machines
are available for less than $600. It is not only cheap enough that I won't
lose a bundle if it's stolen (and therefore don't need to be so paranoid
about my back-stage setups) and won't care so much about the knocks and
scrapes such a machine might suffer being lugged, along with microphones,
mixers, cables and mike stands all over hell-and-gone. It's also light and
small and and this is a BIG plus when you are doing location recording and
have to lug everything with you every time you record.
My idea was that if I could install OSX on it easily, I could have my cake
and eat it too. Since it doesn't look like it can be done that easily, I am
now thinking about buying a cheap sub-compact Intel laptop with Windows Vista
and just running Audacity on it like I used to do before I stepped up to the
Apple audio software. It will do what I need it to do and still afford me the
"expendability" that I'm looking for, albeit without the wonderful Logic
Studio/Express interface.
Mike
Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
None of this was in your original post which was of simpler requests.
Moving the goal posts a bit there?
--
Mike
Sonnova
(in article <mike-888EA6.0...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
No, they were moved for me. I merely wanted to know if it was any easier to
install OSX on generic Intel than it was a year or so ago. And I gave as a
reason for asking the fact that I'd rather buy a cheap Intel notebook than a
MacBook. It was the next poster's insistence that such a notebook would lack
the features and software of a MacBook that led me to elaborate.
Nashton
Why anyone would want to run an OS on hardware it wasn't intended to run
on and this, professionally, is beyond me. Get yourself a Macbook with
one of those hard plastic covers (I have one on my MBP and there isn't a
scratch on it) for 3-400 more than that POS Acer.
I never quite understood this mania of trying to save a few hundred
bucks and opening the door to more trouble than you bargained by running
OS X on hardware it wasn't intended to run on. Don't you value your work?
Sonnova
(in article <6d438$48e9b3b6$4...@news.teranews.com>):
> In article <0001HW.C50E8C90...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>> Haven't checked in a coon's age, but the last time I looked into
>>>>>>>> installing OSX on Intel hardware, it was incredibly complex, much
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> so than my meager computer talents can possibly manage. But I don't
>>>>>>>> like Windows, and I want to run OSX, but I also don't want to spend
>>>>>>>> twice as much for an Apple MacBook as I would spend for a comparable
>>>>>>>> Win notebook
>>>>>>>>
>
> Who's kidding who? Above stated no knowledge of how to install OS X on
> Intel or PC hardware.
>
>>>>>> Thank you. You have answered my question to my satisfaction. I guess I
>>>>>> have to live with Windows even though i MUCH prefer Mac. See, the
>>>>>> hardware is mostly irrelevant to me, but the OS is important mainly
>>>>>> because I use my laptop mostly as a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) and
>>>>>> the best DAW programs are primarily Mac oriented (Apple's Logic Express
>>>>>> is my favorite audio capture program- one that I know well. An
>>>>>> important
>>>>>> consideration). The ones that run under multiple OSes, such as
>>>>>> Audacity,
>>>>>> lack features under Windows that they don't lack under Macs. I mean,
>>>>>> Macs practically own pro-audio, from
>>>>>
>>>>>> what I can see.
> Here stated laptop is used as DAW - what kind of laptop and what program
> - is this the PC laptop with Audacity or a Mac laptop with Logic
> Express?
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you should have answered your own question. If your main work is as
>>>>> you say and you know as much as about the applications as you do, then I
>>>>> don't even know why you asked. You would either (a) spend the money, (b)
>>>>> buy a used
>>>>
>>>>> Mac, or (3) spend a day tweaking a non-Apple machine to get OS X on it.
>
> Valid questions all - this OP reads like a troll.
>
>>>>
>>>> All I asked is if installing OSX on generic Intel was any easier than it
>>>> was the last time I looked (OSX 3.X?). And, I already have a "used Mac"
>>>> laptop. I want something that's a bit faster and gives me less latency
>>>> when recording to HDD (while being small, and light). That led me to
>>>> contemplate a machine like the Acer Aspire - 9" screen, a little over
>>>> two
>>>> pounds, a processor TWICE as fast as my G3, Etc.
>
> This shows little hardware knowledge - if you have a G3 you'll get a
> speed increase with an Acer netbook but the small screen and the small
> keyboard is a hassle if you do much typing. And using a netbook for
> audio is questionable - you really need a more powerful processor unless
> your audio is very simple.
>
>
>>> Sorry, there is a lot of false trolling.
>
> Yeah, and this reads like some of it.
>>>
>>
>> I'll try to explain once more. I want light and small and basically
>> throw-away. If I can buy something like an Acer Aspire, which is very small
>> and very light and very cheap, I won't care so much if it gets "beat-up" in
>> the field (I do on-location recording) or even lifted from backstage by the
>> more light-fingered elements. IOW, I'll have a cheap computer to capture
>> audio with that still runs OSX (and thus Logic Express) and I won't have to
>> worry about it. That is what had me posing the question about installing
>> OSX
>> on it. I know that it used be a daunting task, and I was merely wondering
>> if
>> anything had changed on that front.
>
> If you're thinking about installing OS X on an Acer netbook without a
> hard drive that runs with flash cards as hard drive and memory, forget
> it.
>
>>
>> I'm still thinking about going the Aspire (or similar) route and going back
>> to using Audacity (I'm only capturing audio, after all) on Windows. I don't
>> need anything really complicated. In fact I only used Logic Express because
>> I
>> like the interface and because there is commonality of the interface
>> between
>> LE and the more comprehensive Logic Studio which I run on my Intel tower
>> Mac
>> in my editing room.
>
> If you have Logic Studio on an Intel tower Mac it has to be a MacPro -
> the only one available. If you can afford a MacPro why not get a Mac
> Mini for your backstage audio work and run Logic Express on it? You can
> plug a small, cheap CRT and an inexpensive keyboard into it - unless you
> just want a small, cheap all-in-one box for convenience - then go with
> your Acer and Audacity. Don't kid yourself about running OS X on that
> baby Acer - unless Apple releases a PC friendly version of OS X. It
> could happen.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
You people only "read" from a post what you want to see, it seems, rather
than what's actually there. What part of a cheap, SMALL and essentially
throw-away computer do you not understand? Because the Mac Mini not only not
cheap, but by the time you throw-in a keyboard, mouse, and monitor, from a
cost standpoint I might as well have bought a MacBook, and from a
carry-around standpoint, I'd have a nightmare of extra equipment, cables and
set-up -often in places where space is at a premium. IOW, your suggestions
are no help at all.
I got the answer to my question, and as far as I'm concerned, after this
session, this thread is closed.
Steve Carroll
Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
I believe the Aspire can be had for ~$300 w/keyboard and monitor. I assume
you're using the onboard convertors (so audio quality isn't much of an issue). I
also assume you aren't doing overdubbing in the field. If yes to the latter then
latency isn't really an issue and your current Mac laptop works fine... but if
you want to lighten the load with a smaller footprint that you won't cry too
much about if stolen then there's nothing to think about unless the convertors
in the Acer model you're looking at produce sound you can't stomach.
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Roger Smith
"free the software" <fr...@openswhw.org> wrote in message
news:28929$48e9ad90$3...@news.teranews.com...
> In article <JV6Gk.855$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> PC friendly version of OS X from Apple - and / or some lower cost
> low-end computers. Or, it could be a mini-tower Mac. Hopefully, all of
> the above.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
PC friendly version of OSX? This could be just what Apple needs to finally
put Microsoft out of business.
Got any links?
Maveric
> Haven't checked in a coon's age, but the last time I looked into
> installing OSX on Intel hardware, it was incredibly complex, much more so
> than my meager computer talents can possibly manage. But I don't like
> Windows, and I want to run OSX, but I also don't want to spend twice as
> much for an Apple MacBook as I would spend for a comparable Win notebook
>
> MacBook = $1200
> Intel Notebooks = Dozens available from Tiger Direct and others at under
> $600
Try this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Z0FJYBd5U
Wayne Stuart
Or more likely, just what it needs to put itself out of business.
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Roger Smith
"Wayne Stuart" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1ioen7p.rz3i2v18qez4eN%m...@privacy.net...
it for over 30 years. It has a better product than Microsoft.
They could still sell some hardware. They do sell top quality machines.
People would be willing to pay extra for them.
Wayne Stuart
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas
Sonnova
(in article <mEwGk.1175$P5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>):
History says otherwise. Of course times are different now, but when Apple
allowed the Mac to be cloned back in the 1990's, the clones took so much
business away from Apple that it almost sank them. The first thing Jobs did
when he came back was to kill the cloning contracts. I think that Apple
probably has the attitude "once burned, twice shy". It might not be the same
market today, but I can certainly understand why Apple would be reluctant to
do anything that would undermine their own computer sales again.
-hh
> Craig Koller wrote
>
> > Check your local Craigslist later this month for people selling their
> > Macbooks in order to buy the new models coming out. You can probably
> > find a Macbook for around $700, oftentimes with AppleCare which will
> > warranty it for the next year or so.
>
> Not a bad suggestion. Thanks.
And while you're at it, spend $20 for a security cable for whatever
laptop. Afterall, if the stagehands are willing to steal, the brand
or cost won't matter, and a smaller 9" sub-notebook is easier to hide,
which makes it more vulnerable to theft.
-hh
Roger Smith
with or without Apple's blessings. People are doing it today. Apple screwed
up when they switched to Intel processors. So why shouldn't Apple make some
money off it?
Wayne Stuart
All Apple have to do is prevent it from being idiot proof, and that's
probably enough to confine it to a geek niche, which isn't going to make
much difference to the bottom line. But if it became official, and easy
enough for your Auntie Maud to do it, then that's when hardware sales
start to noticeably ebb away, and then it becomes a problem.
> So why shouldn't Apple make some money off it?
Did you not read the article?
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Maveric
I agree with you on the switch over to Intel processors. My other G5 iMac
still runs a bit faster on some programs. On waking up the Intel iMac for
login, you have to wait about 5 seconds before you can login, whilst on the
G5 it is right there.
Steve de Mena
> The only major difference between an Apple computer and a PC
> - in terms of hardware - is that ROM chip on the logic board that will
> only let you run OS X on an Apple-branded computer.
You can run Windows or other OSs on an Apple Intel computer too, but
maybe that is not what you were meaning to say.
Steve
-hh
> Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > Why anyone would want to run an OS on hardware
> > it wasn't intended to run on and this,
> >
> > I never quite understood this mania of trying
> > to save a few hundred bucks and opening the door
> > to more trouble than you bargained by running
> > OS X on hardware it wasn't intended to run on.
> > Don't you value your work?
>
I'm going to agree with Naston on his point, which is essentially
observing how much extra BS one must be willing to put up with over
the product's lifecycle (both time and money) in order to save some
discrete amount of money at the point of initial purchase...it often
isn't worth the hassles.
For sake of illustration, consider a car that's $3000 cheaper if the
penalty for doing that is that the cost of an oil change goes up from
$50 to $500. Is it worth it? YMMV, but its not hard to see that
after 7 oil changes, your initial cost savings is gone, so you're now
paying more in the long run.
Remember: there is no such thing as a free lunch.
> Apple hardware is overpriced - you can get the
> same hardware elsewhere for far less money.
First off, Apple doesn't sell hardware - they sell systems that are
hardware+software. As such, the comparison basis is skewed, or at
least a lot harder to compare equals to equals.
Second, while some products certainly do cost a bit more, some also
cost a bit less...and there's a lot of areas where the prices aren't
honestly comparable because of clear differences, such as in overall
system form factor. For example, the Sony and Dell copies of the iMac
are more expensive than their own company's products when you only
grossly compare the technical specs of the internal guts (CPU, RAM,
HD, etc) and ignore the costs that were incurred by that difference in
form factor.
Third, at what difference of magnitude is an item's cost going to be
considered significant or be ignored as insignificant?
For example, take a proverbial comparison of Products A versus B: if
A=$699.99 and B=$700.00, are you going to make a big fuss over a
penny? YMMV, but I'm not.
And if not, then how about if it is A=$699 vs B=$700...is saving a
buck. worth a fuss to you yet?
Continuing down this slippery slope, $697 vs $700, $695 vs $700, $689
vs $700?
At what point does the difference in purchase price go from being
easily ignored to finally become significant?
And to provide context, its different when you save $20 on a $50 item
than on a $5,000 item, so what's your significance threshhold? Do
you ignore it until it is a 1% difference? ($5 on $500), or until its
a 5% difference? Maybe a 10% difference? or even more?
If you're compelled to jump through hoops for pocket change, go knock
yourself out.
> This is the basis of the Psystar law suit - that
> Apple is cheating its customers by forcing them
> to pay more for hardware than they have to by
> coding instructions in the ROM that allow Apple
> software to run on Apple computers only...
Unfortunately, the Psystar hardware wasn't the same configurations of
what Apple sells, so they were in part trying to offer a "between
slot" configuration. And because there was zero "quality of life"
design considerations (form factor, noise level, etc), they cut other
corners to get their price points down. If all you care about is CPU
specs, then that is how you are limiting your perceptions by, and
you're overlooking that other consumers may have a longer shopping
list of features than you do...you need to recognize that this is your
personal limitation, not everyone else's.
> By removing these coded instructions, Apple software can be
> run on any PC hardware and would open up the sales of Apple
> software to a much wider user base.
But that opening would also cause a loss of Apple hardware sales, due
to there being a market segment (such as who Psystar was pursuing) who
are willing to buy cheap crap hardware. Since there's also a customer
base segment that is willing to pirate their software (including OS),
the business models as to how it all could be beneficial to Apple fall
apart nearly immediately.
As such, while you might score a short term gain, what you've ignored
is the question as to what happens in the long term. Without a viable
business model with which to profit, there won't be an OS 10.7 for you
to steal...or even buy.
> Apple includes a wide range of drivers with its OS and hardware
> manufacturers are increasingly coding drivers for Apple OS X,
> so problems with hardware that is not designed and manufactured
> by Apple is not an issue.
Nice claim, but every piece of hardware that doesn't have a Mac driver
shows that there still are many incompatibility issues. Granted, it
is becoming "less bad" in some areas, but it can't be cavalierly
ignored as a so-called non-issue.
> The fact is that Apple designs the box, the specs for the
> hardware and its layout... The only major difference
> between an Apple computer and a PC - in terms of
> hardware - is that ROM chip on the logic board ...
Only if you choose to totally ignore the enclosure cases to be part
of 'hardware'. Perhaps you can direct me to a PC tower that clearly
has all of the key design quality features of the Mac Pro, including
its cooling (eg, how quietly a system in it runs)?
-hh
Thundercleets
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:42:51 -0700, troll patrol wrote
>
>
>
> > In article <0001HW.C50E8C9000151554F0184...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
It seems like you don't understand what a MacBook Air is for.
If you are a travel bound exec then all of those other things you
mentioned are unnecessary.
Steve de Mena
> In article <qc-dnQ8AqqT_TnPV...@giganews.com>,
> and the OS X software code restricts OS X to Apple-branded computers
> only although Windows and Linux can be run on Apple computers with
> Parallels, VM Ware and or Boot Camp.
Windows can be run natively on the Intel Macs, no Boot Camp, Parallels
or VMWare needed.
Steve
-hh
> >
> > I'm going to agree with Naston on his point...it often
> > isn't worth the hassles.
>
> run Mac OS X much cheaper, with better quality hardware and that is just
> as quiet or quieter than a Mac Pro.
But I do care about software updates, because there's value-added in
obtaining Security fixes, have bugs squashed, and so on.
And FWIW, I truly doubt your claims of 'better quality' and 'quieter'
too, particularly for a Mac Pro. You have a completely
unsubstantiated claim with not even a parts list, let alone any
validated test data.
> > First off, Apple doesn't sell hardware - they sell systems that are
> > hardware+software. As such, the comparison basis is skewed, or at
> > least a lot harder to compare equals to equals.
>
> Most Apple defenders are claiming that what Apple sells primarily is
> hardware and that is where they make their profit - I'm glad you are
> speaking to the facts -
Thanks. I recommend that you should try it sometime ... its so much
more satisfying than the dance of vague hand-waving of spouting silly
unsubstantiated claims :-)
> Apple sells a combo of hw and sw and the hardware that they sell is
> inferior, for the most part, to that which can be purchased and
> installed in a homebuilt PC. I agree that many PC manufacturers are
> starting to skimp on quality now to keep the prices down.
You claim that it is inferior, but then fail to provide any details.
Why should I even bother to consider your vaporware?
Ad in any case, it is for certain that your snake-oil solution won't
come with a "one stop" system warranty, which is value-added to me as
a consumer (and Nashton too, based on what he was saying) because it
totally eliminates all of the finger-pointing bullshit.
As such, the responsibility avoidance DO-LOOP is avoided:
Dell: "its not us, go ask Microsoft"
-->
Microsoft: "Dell's wrong, go back to them"
-->
Dell: "MS is wrong in telling you that its us"
-->
Microsoft: "Neener, neener, neener Dell!"
-->
Furthermore, when you start to talk about DIY systems, now you have
ten component vendors instead of just one Dell. Guess who gets stuck
doing the troubleshooting to figure out which item was responsible for
what? Answer: that penny-pinching consumer who thought that this was
a simple way to save $20.
> > system form factor.
>
> This is a favorite Apple supporter phrase - I don't give a flying fork
> about form factor - I want performance and enough ports rather than a
> pretty piece of furniture or a fashion statement.
Different consumers, different product desires. But do remember that
if you own any laptop (any brand), you do care about form factors
afterall. Essentially, laptops always cost more than their 'hardware
equal' desktops, which means that roughly 50% of consumers today ARE
ALREADY VOTING WITH THEIR WALLET for form factors over more hardware
oomph.
But it is your right to have a personal preference different from what
half of all consumers are doing. Just please don't try to impose
your preference on the rest of the world. Otherwise, you're obligated
to wear black nylon socks anytime that you're wearing a pair of
shorts :-)
> > At what point does the difference in purchase price go from being
> > easily ignored to finally become significant?
>
> It is already significant - Apple's products are significantly
> overpriced. But, the are going to do something about it to stay in
> business starting October 14th.
I wasn't talking about Apple specifically.
But since you're willing to get so worked up over a literal penny,
that means that if I offer to pay you $0.01, you'll jump through
hoops. Where do I send my penny to tell you to get lost?
> > Unfortunately, the Psystar hardware wasn't the same configurations of
> > what Apple sells, so they were in part trying to offer a "between
> > slot" configuration. And because there was zero "quality of life"
> > design considerations (form factor, noise level, etc), they cut other
> > corners to get their price points down.
>
> I can build a much better box than Psystar...
So can anyone else. But that's an incomplete --- and thus naive --
claim.
> Again, if you don't care about software updates, I can ...
But for those customers who *do* care, you can't do squat. Sorry, not
interested...go away little boy.
> > As such, while you might score a short term gain, what you've ignored
> > is the question as to what happens in the long term. Without a viable
> > business model with which to profit, there won't be an OS 10.7 for you
> > to steal...or even buy.
>
> Apple OS for everyone will increase software profits and Apple will
> still sell plenty of Apple computers to those who want the Apple brand
> and are willing to pay for it...
A claim that is often heard, but which never contains a business plan
with validated numbers to prove its case, which is indispensable since
the claim goes 100% against historical precedence.
> Most Apple users are not techies and don't want to "build their own."
Irrelevant, since your proposal is to license out OS X specifically to
sell many more copies to increase profits, which can only happen if OS
X significantly grows its market share segment. By definition, this
means that your target audience can't be "Apple users", because that
doesn't provide significant growth. A such, your target audience is
"non Apple users", which you've said nothing about.
> > Nice claim, but every piece of hardware that doesn't have a Mac driver
> > shows that there still are many incompatibility issues. Granted, it
> > is becoming "less bad" in some areas, but it can't be cavalierly
> > ignored as a so-called non-issue.
>
> Apple doesn't have to support every piece of hardware out there - they
> never have anyway.
You can't try to have it both ways: removing the 'Apple Hardware'
restriction opens the floodgates to every Tom, Dick and Harry and the
subsequent proliferation mess.
If that's not what you're proposing, then you're saying that Apple
should authorize a new batch of cloners ... but to control this, these
cloners will have to have some sort of hardware ROM that says "I'm an
Apple licensee" and OS X will have to check for this. As such, you're
not achieving the "Apple opens the OS for everyone" situation that you
claim you want.
> > Only if you choose to totally ignore the enclosure cases to be part
> > of 'hardware'. Perhaps you can direct me to a PC tower that clearly
> > has all of the key design quality features of the Mac Pro, including
> > its cooling (eg, how quietly a system in it runs)?
>
> Again, if you don't care about software updates...
"Again"? Three strikes, you're out.
-hh
Tim Murray
> Apple OS for everyone will increase software profits...
It will increase revenues, but not profit, as skyrocketing support costs dig
deep into anything gained by sales.
-hh
> free the software wrote:
> > Apple OS for everyone will increase software profits...
>
All you can be assured of is that it will *change* the revenues.
You can't be assured that it will increase revenues, because you don't
know how many lost hardware sales there will be, nor the ratio.
-hh
Tim Murray
I should have said software revenues. And good point: It will probably
cannibalize hardware revenue.
Roger Smith
"Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C5167882...@216.77.188.18...
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:35:41 -0400, hh wrote:
> I should have said software revenues. And good point: It will probably
> cannibalize hardware revenue.
>
What's wrong with that?
Seriously, Apple should dump hardware and focus on software. OSX is much
more important than the hardware it runs on. If Apple were to sell a generic
version of OSX for say $200 to $250, they would destroy Windows. This is
Apple's opportunity to beat Microsoft.
Tim Murray
The result of the three statements I think are true -- software revenue up,
support costs up, hardware down -- is not necessarily bad in an of itself.
You would have to have a crystal ball to know. The licensing deals Apple did
years ago didn't work out so well, but I have not examined why.
Steve Hix
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
One factor was that it turned out that the amount received in licensing
fees was less than Apple's cost to develop and maintain the software
covered under the license.
Add to that the fact that the cloners, rather than developing new or
expanding existing niche markets, cannibalized from Apple's sales.
The license terms sound like they were written by the same types who
used to write developer contracts back in the Apple// days; draconian
penalties if Apple screwed up, much less strict on the developers.
-hh
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > free the software <f...@openswhw.org> wrote:
> > > -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> Your are a legend in your own mind - so much so that you think your
> arguments are more cogent and factual than mine - here are the facts.
Still looking for actual facts from you. Plenty of claims...they're
all just short of substantiated facts.
> Who needs test data that is paid for by whomever wants the specs to come
> down on their side?
Besides anyone looking for objectivity, instead of lame slanted
rhetoric?
> My client is ...
unspecified.
Hardly a surprise coming from a nymshifting anonymous poster using the
"No Archive" option.
For prosperity, the full headers:
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!
news2.euro.net!nntpserver.com!zeus.nntpserver.com!pfilter-v0.1!
news.teranews.com!not-for-mail
From: free the software <f...@openswhw.org>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Has anybody made installing OSX on generic Intel any
easier in recent months?
References: <0001HW.C50D2DD5...@newsgroups.comcast.net>
<1iobgd3.1tkx9w2gl0o74N%m...@privacy.net>
<0001HW.C50D7002...@newsgroups.comcast.net>
<0001HW.C50E2BC5...@216.77.188.18>
<0001HW.C50E4B18...@newsgroups.comcast.net>
<0001HW.C50E8384...@216.77.188.18>
<0001HW.C50E8C90...@newsgroups.comcast.net> <gccool
$dm1$1...@aioe.org> <338e5$48ee501e$32...@news.teranews.com>
<7bb94a5b-7a2b-441a...@k16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<48f03423$0$90263$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>
<52a1f01d-23a2-4472...@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:52:49 -0500
Message-ID: <58b7d$48f0f669$15...@news.teranews.com>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@teranews.com
Organization: www.TeraNews.com
Lines: 37
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:54:33 -0400
> ... perfectly happy with the cool running power, the superb,
> Mac Pro surpassing quality, the whisper quiet and the speed of an Intel
> Core Quad on a Gigabyte main board with two 4 GB cards of Kingston
> 64-bit SDRAM memory inside an Antec Sonata mid tower with a 500 GB
> Seagate SATA HD, a Pioneer SATA DVR-115D, an eVGA GeForce video card,
> Ethernet port, an internal 56K fax modem, a Turtle Beach sound card, an
> internal or external floppy optional and a more than ample supply of USB
> 2.0, memory stick and flash card ports on the front and back.
>
> It may not look as flashy inside or out but who cares about fashion when
> performance is king!
Its not about "fashion". For example, can you show where your Antec
case has any engineering provisions for cooling (other than the
classical WinDrone "brute force") to assure airflow management for low
noise?
FYI - I already looked at the case design on Antec's website, so I
already know the "facts".
> And it was built for less than half the cost of a comparable Mac Pro.
But how difficult is that when you're using one unspecified "Intel
Core Quad" CPU versus dual Xeon quads?
Its hardly a fair, equal comparison when you clearly cheat. Its no
wonder why you post anonymously.
-hh
-hh
> > > "Tim Murray" <no-s...@thankyou.com> wrote>
> > >>
> > >> I should have said software revenues. And good point: It will probably
> > >> cannibalize hardware revenue.
>
> > > What's wrong with that?
Say for sake of argument that since Apple reportedly makes around 31%
profit that this comes from an average machine that costs $1,000, so
we're looking at $310 profit per machine. Let's distribute this
profit as $10 on each OS X sale and $300 on each Mac hardware sale.
Rounding off their current marketshare to 10% for easier math, it
means that Apple's profit on the market is:
Profit = (10%)*($300) + (10%)*($10)
Profit = $3,100
Now assume that Apple does open up OS X and while it is a raging
success, it cannibalizes hardware sales by 50%. But Apple did
anticipate this and doubled their profit margin on each OS X sale.
What do the numbers have to be in order for Apple to make as much
profit as before?
Profit = $3,100 = (10%/2)*($300) +(X%)*($10*2)
$3,100 = (5%)*($300) + (X%)*($20)
$3,100 = $1,500 + (X%)*($20)
$3,100 - $1,500 = (X%)*($20)
$1,600 = (X%)*($20)
$1,600 / $20 = X%
80% = X
Thus, for these numbers, the marketshare captured by OS X doesn't have
to exceed the size of the entire market just to break even, but at
80%, its getting close...and doesn't leave much room for increasing
profits over the current business model. The maximum possible is:
Profit = (10%/2)*($300) +(100%)*($10*2)
= $1,500 + $2,000
= $3,500
Thus, at maximum success they would go from $3,100 to $3,500 ... only
a 13% gain.
> > > Seriously, Apple should dump hardware and focus on software. OSX is much
> > > more important than the hardware it runs on. If Apple were to sell a
> > > generic version of OSX for say $200 to $250, they would destroy Windows.
> > >This is Apple's opportunity to beat Microsoft.
>
> > The result of the three statements I think are true -- software revenue up,
> > support costs up, hardware down -- is not necessarily bad in an of itself.
> > You would have to have a crystal ball to know. The licensing deals Apple did
> > years ago didn't work out so well, but I have not examined why.
>
> One factor was that it turned out that the amount received in licensing
> fees was less than Apple's cost to develop and maintain the software
> covered under the license.
>
> Add to that the fact that the cloners, rather than developing new or
> expanding existing niche markets, cannibalized from Apple's sales.
>
> The license terms sound like they were written by the same types who
> used to write developer contracts back in the Apple// days; draconian
> penalties if Apple screwed up, much less strict on the developers.
Different scenarios work out differently; what it comes down to is the
apportioned distribution of where the profit comes from. The lessons-
learned from Apple's prior attempt to clone was that cannibalization
will definitely take place, that there will be higher support costs
incurred by Apple due to design proliferation and that there's only so
much that you can try to move hardware profits to software.
Finally, what's missing from the model is also what % of sales is lost
from software piracy....YMMV, but I'd guess around 20% until I also
recall that Mac OS X doesn't have any "phone home" or even "enter
license validation activation ID#" provisions, so there's YA new
expense to add & support these as new features.
-hh
Roger Smith
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:fc588ab0-3c81-4051...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I also recall that Mac OS X doesn't have any "phone home" or even "enter
>license validation activation ID#" provisions, so there's YA new
>expense to add & support these as new features.
Both Windows XP and Vista have online activation, but people have found a
way to defeat it. Also, there are corporate editions that do not require
activation.
I think the biggest reason for piracy is price. Windows XP Professional cost
close to $300. Charge $50 and far more would pay for it.
Steve de Mena
> "-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:fc588ab0-3c81-4051...@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> I also recall that Mac OS X doesn't have any "phone home" or even "enter
>> license validation activation ID#" provisions, so there's YA new
>> expense to add & support these as new features.
>
> Both Windows XP and Vista have online activation, but people have found a
> way to defeat it. Also, there are corporate editions that do not require
> activation.
There are no corporate versions of Vista that do not require
activation or a licensing server. That went away with XP.
Steve
Tim Murray
> an Intel Core Quad on a Gigabyte main board with two 4 GB
Which quad? Which board? And yes, it's quieter, since it's not particularly
adept a cooling. It's okay, not great.
-hh
Obviously, its the "mystery CPU" thats twice as fast, produces no
heat, costs nothing, etc. :-)
FWIW, in looking for objective noise level tests that measure in dB, I
found that two Mac Pros were tested by barefeats.com (measured at 8"
from the back). The only reading that they got that was within their
calibrated range was when they ran their World of Warcraft "Village
Nirache" test, which stresses the graphics card, so with the Radeon
X1900 XT's fan runnning full blast, they got a 48 dB measurement.
Otherwise, and despite tests that ran all 8 cores at 100% each, the
observed noise levels were below the minimum threshhold of their gage
of 40dB, so they reported them as "<40dB".
An Antec case was in a test by pcimprover.it, although with just a CPU
cooling fan...not a complete system. They reported 45dB at 600Hz, but
the test was problematic, since the stand-off distance was vaguely
reported as "...approximately the usual distance in office or home
applications" (sic). This certainly would have been greater than 8"
from the case rear that barefeats.com used, and any difference in
distances means that the inverse square law applies to try to make
these two test results equivalent. Roughly speaking, if it was
measured at 16", it would have been 48dB at 8". Similarly, if at 24"
standoff, would be 51dB at 8". Or at 32", 54dB at 8" and at 1m
(~40"), 57dB at 8". In any event, they apparently didn't have a
graphics card or other hardware to make noise, so the Antec host would
be louder with a full system in the real world.
Despite 1m being a common standard benchmark in acoustic tests,
assuming the least plausible 24" standoff distance for pcimprover.it's
test, the comparison is thus 51dB to <40dB, which is clearly more than
a 10dB spread, which means that the Antec host is at least ten times
louder than the Mac Pro.
(FYI, if they used a 1m standoff, then the Antec is more than 50x
louder).
-hh
PS: ' free the software' is either shifting Usenet hosts, or is being
spoofed; below is another set of headers that's been used, from a
different host. Perhaps he'll clarify if he's being the fool, or if
someone is doing it for him:
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.tele.dk!
feed118.news.tele.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-
for-mail
From: free the software <f...@openswhw.org>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Has anybody made installing OSX on generic Intel any
easier in recent months?
Organization: open
References: <0001HW.C50D2DD5...@newsgroups.comcast.net>
<1iobgd3.1tkx9w2gl0o74N%m...@privacy.net>
<0001HW.C50D7002...@newsgroups.comcast.net>
<0001HW.C50E2BC5...@216.77.188.18>
<0001HW.C50E4B18...@newsgroups.comcast.net>
<0001HW.C50E8384...@216.77.188.18>
<0001HW.C50E8C90...@newsgroups.comcast.net> <gccool
$dm1$1...@aioe.org> <338e5$48ee501e$32...@news.teranews.com>
<7bb94a5b-7a2b-441a...@k16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
X-No-Archive: Yes
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:04:20 -0500
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <48f03423$0$90263$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.193.168.134
X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk
DXC=TBQkE^LV2KRe3jRo4OW[0]YSB=nbEKnk[BeW^X3\7QfSnjhdZY03LZ]i_;Wk>LH0UWc@^PB
\C<V__Wkfnl3fI\MT^heHo]Zi]P[
X-Complaints-To: st...@sunsite.dk
Or perhaps he won't ever be back because he got hit by a car while out
in the street looking for pennies :-)