Quoted: Quoted: I dont care. Its another source of revenue for my company. Now if they could just do something about AMD. Come out with a decent gaming processor.  Then you can do something about AMD.  I would gladly change back to intel if they had a product that would compete in that market.  I am an intel fanboy at heart. You ought to speed up your silicon laser tech and release it allready

Dont tell Intel but I bought a AMD laptop. It was just a better price with a better gamming processor.

Quoted: Quoted: admittedly these people know nothing about technology to begin with (which is why they bought Macs). Also anyone who says PCs aren't stable either has no clue how to work a PC or hasn't used one since before XP came out. Yeah, those condescending Unix users like me don't know anything about technology, or the cesspit of viri and spyware that Windows has become. The MacBook Pro looks like a very good value for the money. I'll probably pick one up at work once they've been out for a month or two.

It's funny you think so highly of yourself so as to insert yourself into what I said even though clearly I was talking about three specific people I know.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: admittedly these people know nothing about technology to begin with (which is why they bought Macs). Also anyone who says PCs aren't stable either has no clue how to work a PC or hasn't used one since before XP came out. Yeah, those condescending Unix users like me don't know anything about technology, or the cesspit of viri and spyware that Windows has become. The MacBook Pro looks like a very good value for the money. I'll probably pick one up at work once they've been out for a month or two. It's funny you think so highly of yourself so as to insert yourself into what I said even though clearly I was talking about three specific people I know.

Owned

Quoted: Owned

I think not. Despite the attempt to dismiss Mac users as unfamiliar with the technology, the fact is that it's a pretty nice Unix box that also runs MS Office, and for that reason a lot of Unix geeks (like me), who have been contemplating the mysteries of man pages for longer than you've been hitting ctrl-alt-del, love them.

It's not that Apple products are slow, dumbed-down fashion boxes, or that they cost too much, are hard if not impossible to upgrade and mod, or that they remove all the standard features as an "improvement" making their use an excersize is forgetting how computers work.

What I object to is that they are the computer of Jetta-driving art-fags.

I will not own something that people who wear pooka-shells and birkenstocks get off on.

I had to go to a Mac store once, and I never saw so many metrosexuals, petuli-oil hippies and earth-friendly naturalists gathered together in one place. It looked like the Democratic National Convention in that store. Ghey.

Quoted: Quoted: Owned I think not. Despite the attempt to dismiss Mac users as unfamiliar with the technology, the fact is that it's a pretty nice Unix box that also runs MS Office, and for that reason a lot of Unix geeks (like me), who have been contemplating the mysteries of man pages for longer than you've been hitting ctrl-alt-del, love them.

Being a Unix geek still didnt give you the reading comprehension to understand the guy's original post.

Quoted: Quoted: I just wonder why Mac users are almost cult like if not completely. I can understand being a fan of a product but holy Jim Jones koolaid BAtman, some get extreme. (just watch the responses to this and make your judgement) It seems the anti-MAC people are the same way, if not more. They want to beat you down and tell you how stupid you are for wanting to use one.

Ain't that the fucking truth. Take a look at the first two or three responses in this thread.

The primary reason that I can think of for the switchover is the issue of heat and battery life.

The issue of which is the better OS, OSX or Windows, is a non-issue. Having used both, OSX wins hands down.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anyone remember the Apple commercials with the Intel logo on the back of a snail? About how sloooooooow an Intel chip was? Hope Intel is getting them back in the pricing arena. Yeah because everything is static state. Yep.  Intel chips are substandard until Apple decides to use them. Now Apple says Intel is the shiznit The Apple cult wont bat a fucking eye.

Actually, the really rabid Mac users went ballistic when the announcement was made.

I, for one, couldn't care less. I like Macs because they are simpler to use, easier on the eyes, and far more reliable.

I guess I'm the 1/10 who didn't pick his computer for looks, according to some here.

Just get a TRS-80 and be done with it

So can you just load OS-X onto a PC now and not have to buy Apple's overpriced hardware?

OS-X seems like a nice enough OS, but I will never pay Apple's prices for computer hardware.

This non-patchouli stinking, non-Birkenstock wearing, truck driving artsy straight non-metrosexual says: "meh"

So long as my computing experience doesn't change, I'll be happy with whatever box the OS works on. We've seen a convergence of PC standard peripherals and stuff for years now. I'm to the point where, so long as the OS is the elegant, fast and transparent user experience I've come to know and love since the old days, I'm fine with it.

I'm excited,

Like most, I have used both, and there are things that I like about both.

One thing I found funny was that here at work we got 2 new dual g5 promac boxes for our video editing.
I really expected them to be blazingly fast, I mean do it before you thought it fast.
They aren't , still takes a while to boot up, still hangs when you are scrubbing a 200 gig file.

So maybe the intel chips will actually be the shiznit?

I'm going to be picking one up, just because I like apple's laptops better.
I think you get more value, and the way you can customize the order is tres cool.

Quoted: I'm excited, Like most, I have used both, and there are things that I like about both. One thing I found funny was that here at work we got 2 new dual g5 promac boxes for our video editing. I really expected them to be blazingly fast, I mean do it before you thought it fast. They aren't , still takes a while to boot up, still hangs when you are scrubbing a 200 gig file. So maybe the intel chips will actually be the shiznit? I'm going to be picking one up, just because I like apple's laptops better. I think you get more value, and the way you can customize the order is tres cool.

I hope you have the RAM on that sucker maxed!

Quoted: Quoted: I'm excited, Like most, I have used both, and there are things that I like about both. One thing I found funny was that here at work we got 2 new dual g5 promac boxes for our video editing. I really expected them to be blazingly fast, I mean do it before you thought it fast. They aren't , still takes a while to boot up, still hangs when you are scrubbing a 200 gig file. So maybe the intel chips will actually be the shiznit? I'm going to be picking one up, just because I like apple's laptops better. I think you get more value, and the way you can customize the order is tres cool. I hope you have the RAM on that sucker maxed!

Oh yeah,

Its just funny, the dual G5s are about as fast as are Dual Xeon servers. (which are 2 years old)

6 of one half dozen of another.

... if Apple thought their machines were superior, why did they go to a chipmaker that made chips for PCs?... - Flakchak

-Oh, it's more than that. Back when Apples were PPC running OS9, they insisted that their OS was better and that their PPC processors were better because even though they were slower, the PPC was "more efficient".
.....So then.....
Apple drops OS9 when they went to a BSD-based one with OSX.
And then they drop the PPC chip for Intel.
So if their sh!t was so great before, then why did they change at all?...

Whenever there was a question of performance, Apple hid behind the PPC as a way to avoid "direct comparisons with Windows/generic PC's" for a long time. The good news for customers is that now they won't be able to do that.
-------

....There is a way to run OS X on a Pee Cee, but it won't run well.... - u352

Actually, with the arrival of OSx86, there are ways to run it on generic PC hardware. If you start out with the right hardware, it runs quite-very-well, as a matter of fact. And at a lot lower prices than the hardware that Apple sells. Websites like http://www.osx86project.org/ tell you what generic-PC hardware it runs best on, and how to do it--and the comparisons are not pretty. For about $500, you can build a PC that runs OSx86 roughly twice as fast as a Mini does. For about $1000, you can build a PC that runs about as fast as the PowerMacs that cost $2500. It may sound like fiction but many of the first people to try this stuff (and who reported results like these) were long-time Mac owners themselves.
-------
One problem that Apple has now is that they will start to lose a lot to pirating. Previously most Apple software wasn't of any interest to PC users because you still had to have expensive Apple hardware to run it on--but now, people can pirate the Apple OS and programs for free, and run them on generic PC hardware that they don't need to buy from Apple.
------
One of the main advantages of old Mac laptops was their usually-longer battery runtimes. As for the new Mac dual-Intel laptop--it now appears to be only a prototype, and Apple hasn't mentioned that its battery life is better, or even the same. So the general suspicion is that battery runtime is shorter than before. This would be a MAJOR problem for Apple, as they sold a lot of laptops.
------
Aside from the general price issue--I think the longer problem with Buying an Apple is that every time Apple decides to publish a major software program on their system, that greatly discourages anyone else from trying.,,, and the trend seems to be that Apple wants it this way. Adobe has discontinued one of their programs on Mac for this reason (the video-editing one, I think).
~~~~

Quoted: snip

Floppy, you have some good points and others that don't hold water.

Apple drops OS9 when they went to a BSD-based one with OSX. And then they drop the PPC chip for Intel. So if their sh!t was so great before, then why did they change at all?... Whenever there was a question of performance, Apple hid behind the PPC as a way to avoid "direct comparisons with Windows/generic PC's" for a long time. The good news for customers is that now they won't be able to do that.

We're talking generations ago here... As things have progressed since, Micro$oft has "OSXified" Windows, and Apple has used more and more PC standard for their hardware. It's not entirely fair to just say "They used to say Intel sucked but now they're using them..." because it's not a black-and-white issue.

One of the main advantages of old Mac laptops was their usually-longer battery runtimes. As for the new Mac dual-Intel laptop--it now appears to be only a prototype, and Apple hasn't mentioned that its battery life is better, or even the same. So the general suspicion is that battery runtime is shorter than before. This would be a MAJOR problem for Apple, as they sold a lot of laptops.

How old are we talking here? I have a Firewire Powerbook 2000 that is now 6 years old. I wore the first battery out, now have another. Before the old battery died I was getting 4+ hours of wireless websurfing before it crapped out. Now I get better because I ensured I properly conditioned the new battery. Contrast this with my wife's Sony Vaiaoaoaoaoao- She can't get the runtime longer than 30 minutes. I bought a new battery for her thinking that was the problem. Conditioned it, etc., and I got the SAME runtime.

Aside from the general price issue--I think the longer problem with Buying an Apple is that every time Apple decides to publish a major software program on their system, that greatly discourages anyone else from trying.,,, and the trend seems to be that Apple wants it this way. Adobe has discontinued one of their programs on Mac for this reason (the video-editing one, I think).

Have you noticed that both Windows and Mac OSs have started supporting things that previously were only do-able by third party programs? This is a wash. It has more to do with Apple positioning themselves as the Nakamichi of media PCs. One media hub for all your needs, with simple, only-Apple-can-make-it-this-easy functionality and perfectly matching the functionality to the machine's capability.

It appears that finally- with the new OSX for Intel- I won't be able to upgrade my Firewire Powerbook. It came with OS9, I put the developer's release of OSX on it, and then wiped the hard drive and installed OSX when it was final. It runs great despite having a 500mhz G4 processor (I sent it in for an upgrade) vs. the current crop of machines- 1.5ghz.

Que sera sera.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anyone remember the Apple commercials with the Intel logo on the back of a snail? About how sloooooooow an Intel chip was? Hope Intel is getting them back in the pricing arena. Yeah because everything is static state. yeah, they switched from a platform that every mac zealot argued for years was superior, to one that is now actually demonstrably second tier (compared to AMD chips).

At the time they were superior. What part of that is hard to comprehend. In fact, if IBM had continued with the development they probably would still be superior. IBM didn't and now Intel has caught up and surpassed what Apple can do in the land of laptops. Soon they'll be faster in desktops as well, simply because IBM sees no profit in Mac compared to the gaming consoles.

To install the new Apple X86 OSX OS on a PC, you need an upgraded motherboard BIOS that supports OSX. In addition, since Apple likely only includes driver support for the Intel platforms they are using, you'll need new OSX drivers to support your chip-set, graphics, NIC, sound, printer etc....In other words, it's not gonna work. If Apple were to start selling the OS, then hardware companies would start supporting PC customers with OSX drivers and system BIOS.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I just wonder why Mac users are almost cult like if not completely. I can understand being a fan of a product but holy Jim Jones koolaid BAtman, some get extreme. (just watch the responses to this and make your judgement) It seems the anti-MAC people are the same way, if not more. They want to beat you down and tell you how stupid you are for wanting to use one. Ain't that the fucking truth. Take a look at the first two or three responses in this thread. The primary reason that I can think of for the switchover is the issue of heat and battery life. The issue of which is the better OS, OSX or Windows, is a non-issue. Having used both, OSX wins hands down.

I have a Fujitsu AMD Turion notebook. I get over 6 hours of battery life (using a spare battery in the CD bay).

The G5's weren't bad, but they consumed too much power to get into  a laptop. The dual core intel chip in the new iMac is only somewhat faster than the G5 in the old iMac.

Anyway, the writing had been on the wall for years. Other manufacturers can't compete with the economies of scale you can get with CPUs in the PC world, so it was only a matter of time unti Apple switched to x86.

An AMD/Opteron server release would be easy to do. Recompiling for a new architecture is a checkbox click in XCode, and the binaries for all the architectues are included in a single file for distribution. Right now Intel's got some pretty good mobile chips, while AMD rules on the server side. (Just benched some dual-core opterons on an older Sun v20z today--10 GFlops on Linpack. Other box vendors are probably beating that handily.)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anyone remember the Apple commercials with the Intel logo on the back of a snail? About how sloooooooow an Intel chip was? Hope Intel is getting them back in the pricing arena. Yeah because everything is static state. yeah, they switched from a platform that every mac zealot argued for years was superior, to one that is now actually demonstrably second tier (compared to AMD chips). At the time they were superior. What part of that is hard to comprehend. In fact, if IBM had continued with the development they probably would still be superior. IBM didn't and now Intel has caught up and surpassed what Apple can do in the land of laptops. Soon they'll be faster in desktops as well, simply because IBM sees no profit in Mac compared to the gaming consoles.

See, the problem is they'd always argue superiority, and come out with some bizarre benchbarks to 'prove' it based on their latest chips vs some intel  / amd chip, and then a few weeks later AMD or intel would come out with an even faster chip. Then the mac zealots would still be raving about their 'benchmark' that beats an old intel / amd setup.

It's just a plain fact - AMD and intel advanced faster because they were competing against each other. Macs had to rely on IBM developing at their own speed. And as TBS has stated, theyr'e still producing those chips, but now apple has finally realized the larger intel platform is better suited for the consumer / desktop market.

And again, they've gone with Intel over AMD for some strange reason - when AMD has been beating intel for quite some time on both price and performance. So they can't really argue they have the 'best' hardware - that's on the AMD side.

Maybe Intel still has enough padding in their markup to 'give a little back' to apple for using them.

Well no kidding competition breeds a better product. What a newsflash.

Let's put it this way, when I had a Mac and a PC sitting next to each other running the same software. Both were 850Mhz processors and the PC had twice the RAM, the Mac beat the pants off of it. In fact, the Mac finished the application at almost twice the speed. The architecture is arguablly better with the IBM chip. However, that doesn't mean a hill of beans if you can't cool it and top out its clock speed, which is what happened.

....To install the new Apple X86 OSX OS on a PC, you need an upgraded motherboard BIOS that supports OSX....

-Ummmm, no, , , , you don't. It is true that the "real" OSx86 uses EFI instead of BIOS, but the developer version used a regular BIOS (it had to in order to work on generic hardware) and the rest of the OS is basically the same between the two.

Check the list of "supported parts" on the osx86project wiki:
wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCLPart
-Ideally you want an Intel-brand mobo with the integrated 915-series chipset, and for the DVD-writer you want the NEC DVD/RW ND-2500A; these were the parts that the developer machines were shipped with, and they work 100%.

Lots of people trying to do this have problems--but then, most of the people having problems on the tech forums are NOT running "ideal" hardware setups. In some instances--if you spend the money for the preferred desktop parts (which costs maybe $500 or so) the ONLY patch that has to be applied is the patch intended to keep the developer version from booting on "generic" PC's. You're not stuck running an old version either--as of a week or so ago, the OSx86 hacker boards are running version 10.4.3, and the "real" Mactels are on 10.4.4.

Of course--as a dual-boot machine of Windows/Mac, it still stinks for games--because Apple doesn't have good videocard support--because MS rules that market with DirectX. So for the best Mac compatability it would be stuck running onboard video. But as a working or general-use machine, it's a pretty sweet deal--and all for only $500 or so.

I have read that the main contest among the hacker-gods now is to make a "three-key switcher": a boot manager that allows booting all three OS's (Windows, Linux and Mac) on the same machine--and then allowing switching between them just by pressing a 3-key combination, avoiding the need to reboot just to switch the OS. I haven't built a OSx86 PC myself--but when they manage to do this, I just might.
~

Quoted: Well no kidding competition breeds a better product. What a newsflash. Let's put it this way, when I had a Mac and a PC sitting next to each other running the same software. Both were 850Mhz processors and the PC had twice the RAM, the Mac beat the pants off of it. In fact, the Mac finished the application at almost twice the speed. The architecture is arguablly better with the IBM chip. However, that doesn't mean a hill of beans if you can't cool it and top out its clock speed, which is what happened.

wow... comapring a powerpc chip to an intel chip at the same clock speeds...which means absolutely nothing to the ridiculous 'benchmarks' apples liked to put out to prove how they were the fastest.

Quoted: Quoted: Well no kidding competition breeds a better product. What a newsflash. Let's put it this way, when I had a Mac and a PC sitting next to each other running the same software. Both were 850Mhz processors and the PC had twice the RAM, the Mac beat the pants off of it. In fact, the Mac finished the application at almost twice the speed. The architecture is arguablly better with the IBM chip. However, that doesn't mean a hill of beans if you can't cool it and top out its clock speed, which is what happened. wow... comapring a powerpc chip to an intel chip at the same clock speeds...which means absolutely nothing to the ridiculous 'benchmarks' apples liked to put out to prove how they were the fastest.How is using the same program (Photoshop), running the same processes ridiclous? Seems to me that using the same program doing the same thing is the ONLY way to benchmark. Sure, Apple uses computations to get FPU's and clock cycles, but if its the same computation, how is it ridiculous? THe Power PC, running the RISC was faster at lower MHz than the older Intels running at nearly double the MHzs. The Power PC what the first chip to do a gigaflop of instructions, and it was the same processor as the one Apple was using (the G4).

\

ANd don't forget that The PowerPC was the first to have a 64bit chip, too....

I thought I read in a similar thread that an Intel processor in a Mac would somehow make a Mac a POS.

Quoted: Quoted: Well no kidding competition breeds a better product. What a newsflash. Let's put it this way, when I had a Mac and a PC sitting next to each other running the same software. Both were 850Mhz processors and the PC had twice the RAM, the Mac beat the pants off of it. In fact, the Mac finished the application at almost twice the speed. The architecture is arguablly better with the IBM chip. However, that doesn't mean a hill of beans if you can't cool it and top out its clock speed, which is what happened. wow... comapring a powerpc chip to an intel chip at the same clock speeds...which means absolutely nothing to the ridiculous 'benchmarks' apples liked to put out to prove how they were the fastest.

Well that's the point isn't it? If the two chips were even comparable then it would come down to clockspeed. However, there is a sizeable difference between the two chips. BTW, clock speed has never been an Apple comparison. In fact, if anything Apple has downplayed the importance of clockspeed. It's the PC makers who hype their clockspeeds, not Mac/Apple. If anyone set that benchmark it was the PC chip makers.

Um,,, the chip maker that started the clock speed war was, um,,, Intel....
-----

I thought really hard for about two weeks about building a Mac-PC, but decided not to, because I had no software to run on it either. And I already had all the software I needed to run on Windows anyway.
,,,,,,
I don't really think there's a whole lot of difference between Mac and XP "stability"; you find people on Mac support forums with lots of problems just like you do on Windows forums--the only thing missing is the virus/spyware problems, but that still leaves a lot of other things to go wrong.  

So Apple don't got a whole lot of chance with getting my money unless they got MUCH closer in price to PC's--but Steve Jobs is all set on continuing to overcharge for hardware, just like business as usual, when it isn't. You don't have to pay Apple a dime to join the "think differently" club now.
~

OK. Now that this is all cleared-up, why do people still drive Fords when Chevies are so superior?

Quoted: Quoted: Ok, I've been seeing this commerical a lot while watching the football games.  Now, I should preface this by saying I'm a bit of a computer geek, but this advertising has be baffled. They say that the Intel chip has been trapped inside the PC, and it will do so much more in a Mac.  Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the CPU is pretty much the centerpiece of the computer.  Granted, a lot of a computers functionality is also memory and video card based.  Sooo, wouldn't the chip be doing the same thing whether or not it was in a PC or a MAC? And... if Apple thought their machines were superior, why did they go to a chipmaker that made chips for PCs? They are superior because of OSX.  Nuff said.

Yeah, they are superior because of Free BSD.

What platform did that get developed on again?



Mac OS was SO superior that they scrapped the whole kernel for Unix.

Nuff said.

tag for more funny Apple pics!

Quoted: Quoted: admittedly these people know nothing about technology to begin with (which is why they bought Macs). Also anyone who says PCs aren't stable either has no clue how to work a PC or hasn't used one since before XP came out. Yeah, those condescending Unix users like me don't know anything about technology, or the cesspit of viri and spyware that Windows has become. The MacBook Pro looks like a very good value for the money. I'll probably pick one up at work once they've been out for a month or two.

I use Unix as well. At work. On servers.

On my work laptop and my home computer, I use Windows XP.

Know when the last time I had a virus was? Neither do I. It's been that long.

It takes a minimum of precaution and maintence to keep a modern Windows system virus and spyware free. I expect this sort of talk out of my users, they don't know any better. (and they download every damn stupid shit screensaver and other BS crap program out there)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ok, I've been seeing this commerical a lot while watching the football games.  Now, I should preface this by saying I'm a bit of a computer geek, but this advertising has be baffled. They say that the Intel chip has been trapped inside the PC, and it will do so much more in a Mac.  Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the CPU is pretty much the centerpiece of the computer.  Granted, a lot of a computers functionality is also memory and video card based.  Sooo, wouldn't the chip be doing the same thing whether or not it was in a PC or a MAC? And... if Apple thought their machines were superior, why did they go to a chipmaker that made chips for PCs? They are superior because of OSX.  Nuff said. Yeah, they are superior because of Free BSD. What platform did that get developed on again? Mac OS was SO superior that they scrapped the whole kernel for Unix. Nuff said.

Jobs owned NeXT, so going to a Unix platform was just his way of getting the OS where he wanted it.

AS I said before, Windows was just the Mac OS reversed enginerred by NEC, and when you reverse engineer something, it's never as good as the original.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ok, I've been seeing this commerical a lot while watching the football games.  Now, I should preface this by saying I'm a bit of a computer geek, but this advertising has be baffled. They say that the Intel chip has been trapped inside the PC, and it will do so much more in a Mac.  Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the CPU is pretty much the centerpiece of the computer.  Granted, a lot of a computers functionality is also memory and video card based.  Sooo, wouldn't the chip be doing the same thing whether or not it was in a PC or a MAC? And... if Apple thought their machines were superior, why did they go to a chipmaker that made chips for PCs? They are superior because of OSX.  Nuff said. Yeah, they are superior because of Free BSD. What platform did that get developed on again? Mac OS was SO superior that they scrapped the whole kernel for Unix. Nuff said. Jobs owned NeXT, so going to a Unix platform was just his way of getting the OS where he wanted it. AS I said before, Windows was just the Mac OS reversed enginerred by NEC, and when you reverse engineer something, it's never as good as the original.

Another news flash, Apple didn't invent the GUI.

Xerox did. (We won't that little fact get in the way of anything, though, will we.)

The mouse. Yet ANOTHER thing Apple didn't invent, but is given credit for.

Portable media players.....well, you get the point.

Apple doesn't innovate a damn thing.



Any way you put it, OSX isn't anything more than a pretty GUI running on top of Free BSD. Hardly any more "original" than Windows XP is. It has no more in common with the original Apple OS than XP does with Win 3.1.

Nothing that hasn't been done before and cannot be done again.

Macs work great in their little enclosed world.  Try to get them to interoperate with everything else and you are in for a bumpy ride.  

They do their own thing well, but when you only have seven pieces of software for your OS, it better.

Windows is a better general purpose platform simply for the sake of compatibility and flexibility.  We still have fucking Appletalk running on our backbone because our Macs won't do TCP/IP right.

Quoted: tag for more funny Apple pics!

edit - double tap.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ok, I've been seeing this commerical a lot while watching the football games.  Now, I should preface this by saying I'm a bit of a computer geek, but this advertising has be baffled. They say that the Intel chip has been trapped inside the PC, and it will do so much more in a Mac.  Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the CPU is pretty much the centerpiece of the computer.  Granted, a lot of a computers functionality is also memory and video card based.  Sooo, wouldn't the chip be doing the same thing whether or not it was in a PC or a MAC? And... if Apple thought their machines were superior, why did they go to a chipmaker that made chips for PCs? They are superior because of OSX.  Nuff said. Yeah, they are superior because of Free BSD. What platform did that get developed on again? Mac OS was SO superior that they scrapped the whole kernel for Unix. Nuff said. Jobs owned NeXT, so going to a Unix platform was just his way of getting the OS where he wanted it. AS I said before, Windows was just the Mac OS reversed enginerred by NEC, and when you reverse engineer something, it's never as good as the original. Another news flash, Apple didn't invent the GUI. Xerox did. (We won't that little fact get in the way of anything, though, will we.)ANd Xerox didn't do squat with it. Xerox never thought that the personal computer would ever be viable The mouse. Yet ANOTHER thing Apple didn't invent, but is given credit for. See above. I believe that Texas Instruments were the ones that showed the GUI and mouse to Jbbs and Woz Portable media players.....well, you get the point. Apple took the portable players to a whole new level. AllPrior players were expensive, and required media cards, and didn't hold many songs. THe iPod was a whole new product that changed portable music. Apple doesn't innovate a damn thing. Really? Apple was the first to marked with a GUI and mouse, for reasons stated above. And Windows stole their name from the GUI. Apple was around way before Microsoft.innovation doesn't mean that you have to make it from scratch, but you can bring a similar product to market that advances the genre to a whole new level, and that IS innovation Any way you put it, OSX isn't anything more than a pretty GUI running on top of Free BSD. Hardly any more "original" than Windows XP is. It has no more in common with the original Apple OS than XP does with Win 3.1.YOu are right in the sense that OSX uses a Unix core, but once again, using the GUI OVER THE UNIX FRAME, Apple has brought the computing world to a whole new level. Back when OSX was in hush hush beta, the things that were getting leaked blew the computing world away. THe super rich colors (iCandy), anti-aliased viewing, the unheard of stability in a mainstream platform. Nothing that Windows has 'innovated'. Hell Longhorn is HOW FAR BEHIND SCHEDULE? AS for Lunix, or any other 'open source' _nix, which one is in wide use? Hmmm... How many flavors of Lunix are there right now? Any idea? And they wonder why it can't really go anywhere. Nothing that hasn't been done before and cannot be done again. But it is Apple doing it better than anyone. And that is why the iPod is the top portable digital media player, and that is why Apple has once again come back from the dead. Seems to me that the Windows/open hardwars source people have more than once called Apple DOA, and it just hasn't happened. And it's all because of the INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS FROM APPLE.

Not 'innovative' my ass......

Quoted: Not 'innovative' my ass......

It is not innovation…

So Xerox did not do anything with the GUI they invented… the key there is they invented it and Apple (Jobs) took it… no innovation there

And BTW Apple bought the original design iPod they did not design it… absolutely no innovation there

Copying and slick marketing is not innovation… it just ain’t. Apple is evolving and refining other peoples ideas. They are very good at it but it is not really innovation.

OSX is on a BSD core... no innovation there.

Now the OSX interface is innovation, and that is what Apples computer business needs to concentrate on and not hardware. Until Apple decides it is going to get out of the computer hardware business and come out and play in the real computer OS market Apple will continue to be a curiosity more than a competitor to Microsoft.

Apple is very good at marketing music players, the iPod it is doing gang busters… there are not doing very well at marketing  and selling computers… market share is still shrinking and a $1300 iMac is not going to turn that around. If they had been serious about market share $500-600 machine would have been the first one out. A $1300 iMac is not going to attract the buyer Apple needs... Better still let Dell and HP make the computers and Apple can soak up the OS gravy.

Quoted: Quoted: Not 'innovative' my ass...... It is not innovation… So Xerox did not do anything with the GUI they invented… the key there is they invented it and Apple (Jobs) took it… no innovation thereThe GUI that the Mac used in the original release was not a reversed engineered copy of the Xerox GUI. THe code used was all propritary (unlike winblows). That is akin to saying that 3.5" floppy disks were not innovative because the 5.5" were already being used And BTW Apple bought the original design iPod they did not design it… absolutely no innovation thereRead This Seems that Jobs brought some pretty innovative ideas to portable digital media players. I love my video iPod. Who made that first? Apple. According to your strict paramaters, modern personal computers are not innovative because computers were around in the 40's and 50's. Copying and slick marketing is not innovation… it just ain’t. Apple is evolving and refining other peoples ideas. They are very good at it but it is not really innovation.So, according to you, there are no innovaters out there, because all the ideas are old. I guess that Issac Ismov wasn't innovative in his storytelling because stories have been around for centuries.. OSX is on a BSD core... no innovation there.And BSD isn't innovative becaus of all the othe _nix cores out there, same with Linux, and NeXT, and let's not forget all the GUI apps like GIMP, and so on and so forth...LOL.. Now the OSX interface is innovation, and that is what Apples computer business needs to concentrate on and not hardware. Until Apple decides it is going to get out of the computer hardware business and come out and play in the real computer OS market Apple will continue to be a curiosity more than a competitor to Microsoft.THe reason that Mac users are so loyal is BECAUSE Apple controls everything. Makes for a stable platform when vendors are required to make sure that their hardwars is compatible with everything else that is going in the computer. God forbid we have a stable and fast system... Apple is very good at marketing music players, the iPod it is doing gang busters… there are not doing very well at marketing  and selling computers… market share is still shrinkingFor whom the bell tolls...heard this back in 1996, and 1991, and ever since Microsoft put a stranglehold on the market. Seem that every time one of you naysayers predicts doom and gloom for Apple, they just get bigger. and a $1300 iMac is not going to turn that around. If they had been serious about market share $500-600 machine would have been the first one out. A $1300 iMac is not going to attract the buyer Apple needsReally? I spent my hard earned money on my Macs because I enjoy them, and don't have to worry about viruii issues, or some exploited macro in some part of the system, or the 'Blue Screen of Death'. YOu keep on enjoying those issues... Better still let Dell and HP make the computers and Apple can soak up the OS gravy.

Quoted: We still have fucking Appletalk running on our backbone because our Macs won't do TCP/IP right.

OSX uses a BSD networking stack. That's where TCP/IP grew up. If the TCP/IP traffic generated by OS X is different from that generated by Windows, odds are Windows got it wrong.

Quoted: OSX is on a BSD core... no innovation there.

Actually, it's a Mach-ish microkernel with a BSD personality. Avie Tevanian (Apple software honcho) was deeply involved in Mach for his PhD at CM.