PDA

View Full Version : four outrageous requests i have asked of apple


jefhatfield
Oct 27, 2003, 07:27 AM
G4 ibook
apple pda
dual processor powerbook
os x on PCs

...over the years, i have made threads or requests for these things, which i will call outrageous, because people usually thought they could "never" happen

now that the G4 ibook is out, i have hope that apple can continue to achieve "the highly improbable"

as for an apple pda, i think it can come since we already have the ipod

i used to think that apple would eventually give us dual G4 powerbooks, but now that the G5 is out, i think apple will eventually go to that processor in laptops

os x on PCs is not popular, but i think it is possible

Horrortaxi
Oct 27, 2003, 09:03 AM
G4 iBook isn't outrageous. I'm surprised by the timing of it's release. I really thought they'd bump the G3 speed a little more and play some tricks to keep it alive until the Powerbooks could get G5s or something.

PDA--I assume you mean besides the Newton? Not outrageous either. I think we're moving toward a combo PDA/iPod/phone type product and if Apple made one it would certainly be to that genre what the iPod is to mp3 players.

Dual processor laptops. Not terribly outrageous but probably something that almost nobody needs.

OSX on a PC? Yeah, outrageous. :D

Mr. Anderson
Oct 27, 2003, 09:09 AM
Actually, the G4 iBook was just a matter of time, not a matter of if.

On your list though, I'd say the other 3 are iffy.

Apple PDAs might come out - but I'm thinking the whole definition of a PDA will change (or be changed) when Apple releases a new one. Not that thats a bad thing - it will be great - but more than likely it will be a while before we see that.

Dual Processor PowerBooks? Eh, who knows....there might be technology down the road that makes this a moot point (dual core chips). Once die size and power consumption go down, we'll have a better chance at seeing it happen. And with the size of the 17" Power Book, more than enough room to fit multiple processors in the case.

OSX on a PC? Apple will need to be a much bigger player in the computing world (larger percentage of market share) and have more software available. That and much better machines than the PC world. If you could get an Apple OS on a PC (Intel/AMD machine) and its cheaper and out performs the Apple machines, Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot as a hardware company.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

D

monkeydo_jb
Oct 27, 2003, 09:33 AM
Yeah, the G4 iBook was just a matter of time.

A dualie powerbook may be the same, a matter of time. Dual core, or smaller dye sizes
could make this one a reality.

I think Apple realized PDAs would be a fad. Their sales are slowing down and 'Smart Phones'
are slowly gaining popularity.

OS X on PCs is something that, I think, would be negative for Apple.
Part of the reason I love Apple is that they can control what hardware goes into
every one of their machines. This way, the OS seems much more stable,
and there are way fewer driver conflicts.




-jeff

5300cs
Oct 27, 2003, 06:49 PM
I personally wouldn't buy a dual-proc notebook; I don't see the need for one.

Maybe it's just me, but the iPod seems to be a born-again Newton in a way. The screen fonts are certainly the same, if you compare them side-by-side. Althought I wish they'd bring the Newton back, I have a feeling it wouldn't fare too well so I doubt it will ever come back. Not that that matters too much, Newtons still work perfectly :)

I haven't seen the G4 iBooks yet, but I'm looking forward to it. :)

If Apple ported OS X to the pc I'd shoot MYSELF in the foot - or the head even. There are reasons why I switched, one of them being so that I could get away from the x86 architecture.
I'm reminded of then the first iPod came out & it was announced that it was only available for the Mac. The windoze community went on and on about how Apple sucked and were idiots, then when the iPod was brought over to windows, they STILL complained. That's another one of my reasons for switching, I find Mac communities to be a lot more educated and mature.

Call me an elitest, but I like being a 5%er.

manitoubalck
Oct 27, 2003, 06:58 PM
I agree with what people are saying about the MAC OS not moving to a x86 processor model. But that doesn't mean we can't live in hope.

+with the array of 3rd party developers for windows they would all have to re-write the drivers for the new opperating system, in much the same way they will for the move to 64-bit computing.

Chances are it will happen, but not in the forseeable future.

manitoubalck
Oct 27, 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by 5300cs
The windoze community went on and on about how Apple sucked and were idiots, then when the iPod was brought over to windows, they STILL complained. That's another one of my reasons for switching, I find Mac communities to be a lot more educated and mature.

Call me an elitest, but I like being a 5%er.

Call me nieve but there are more than a few apple zeolites who plug the "windows sucks, and anyone who uses it is an idiot" line. There are fanitics on both sides of the fence, no one is perfect.

Also about the 'elitest' bit, is that saying that you are using a mac just to be different, or because you feel you are better than 95% of the computing world?

benixau
Oct 27, 2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by monkeydo_jb

I think Apple realized PDAs would be a fad. Their sales are slowing down and 'Smart Phones'
are slowly gaining popularity.


actually smart phones are gaining market. people still want to keep their phone as their phone and their organizer as their organizer (look at Zire sales).

The business models allow your devices to talk to each other, yes. But some people will dump the PDA+Phone for a smart phone and some people will stick with the PDA+Phone combo because they like having devices that dont do it all in one.

I will stick with the latter. If my PDA dies my phone can do a few of the tasks that i need, the essentials (its a t610). If my phone breaks then my pda can still work whilst i use a back-up or rental phone for a day or two.

5300cs
Oct 28, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
Call me nieve but there are more than a few apple zeolites who plug the "windows sucks, and anyone who uses it is an idiot" line. There are fanitics on both sides of the fence, no one is perfect.

Also about the 'elitest' bit, is that saying that you are using a mac just to be different, or because you feel you are better than 95% of the computing world?

Hmm, there's a bit of a fine line. I belive windows itself is a horrible operating system, though the people who use it I couldn't really care less about; use what you want. When those people begin to trash an OS they've never used before, then I dislike them. When people start talking about how Apple is too expensive, or too luxury or whatever- that pisses me off. If you don't like it, don't use it. That's why I switched. I haven't had too much exposure to the opposite side though, except one guy I met in college who said "I used win3.1 for 10 minutes once, but I don't think that counts as cheating, does it?" With a straight face he said this. That's scary- I think people should have exposure to all the different OSs before becoming a zealot.

Unfortatenly my roots are with the pc; I grew up with an XT and worked my way up to Win2K. I always have a pc around, though now just for Linux. I, for one, can truly be m$-free.

As for the 5% comment, I guess I'm saying I'm different. I'm not the type of person to go around saying I'm better than everyone else. I think though, that releasing OS X for the x86 architecture would be a disaster. Almost every single windows user I've known balks at the idea of using a Mac, so why bother porting it over? The windows community would probably just find more reasons to bash it. In that way, I'm elitest: if they're going to be ungrateful, forget it. To me (without any statistical basis, mind you) it seems like there is a rather small number of people who want to see OS X on x86. If I'm wrong though, I appologize.

Sorry for the long post :p

idkew
Oct 28, 2003, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by 5300cs

Maybe it's just me, but the iPod seems to be a born-again Newton in a way..

I think it is just you. Apple did not even make the OS for the iPod.

Not to mention a smaller screen, no touch abilities, not even close to the NOS....

I miss my old MP200, and my iPod is no replacement for it. But, my Sony Ericsson P800 is damn near a Newton.

manitoubalck
Oct 28, 2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by 5300cs
I think though, that releasing OS X for the x86 architecture would be a disaster. Almost every single windows user I've known balks at the idea of using a Mac, so why bother porting it over? The windows community would probably just find more reasons to bash it. In that way, I'm elitest: if they're going to be ungrateful, forget it. To me (without any statistical basis, mind you) it seems like there is a rather small number of people who want to see OS X on x86. If I'm wrong though, I appologize.
:p

No need to appologize, I just can't see an apple mac at this time as an economical computing choice. This is due to there limited expandablity and the fact that I can't buy 2 G5 chips and a motherboard and build my own system.
I still have my old LC-475, because when that was release it was an economical buy, and way ahead of the windows machines of the day.

I still would however, like to see the Mac OS released on x86 platform just to have the choice.

5300cs
Oct 28, 2003, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by idkew
I think it is just you. Apple did not even make the OS for the iPod.

Not to mention a smaller screen, no touch abilities, not even close to the NOS....

I miss my old MP200, and my iPod is no replacement for it. But, my Sony Ericsson P800 is damn near a Newton.

Don't you have a Newton anymore?

I guess it is just me then. Oh well :p

No need to appologize, I just can't see an apple mac at this time as an economical computing choice. This is due to there limited expandablity and the fact that I can't buy 2 G5 chips and a motherboard and build my own system.
I still have my old LC-475, because when that was release it was an economical buy, and way ahead of the windows machines of the day.

I still would however, like to see the Mac OS released on x86 platform just to have the choice.

Although I don't build my own systems, I can see where you're coming from. I personally like the fact that I can just buy a Mac, turn it on and it works. I'm pretty hopeless at building my own machines, if I built my own G5 it would most certainly explode.

jxyama
Oct 28, 2003, 08:36 AM
i personally don't think people using windows is an idiot... nor do i think i'm an elite for using a Mac. only time i object to Windows users is if they speak badly of Macs without really using them...

i just kind of feel bad that most people (not technies, but "regular" people) who use windows don't really know that there are alternatives. they think all the quirks and annoyances associated with Windows (whether they realize about them or not) are part of the computing experience. most people think it's normal that computers need weekly patching and that malicious virus come out every other week.

i think OS X is far superior than Windows and wish more people knew about it.

cubist
Oct 28, 2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
Call me nieve but there are more than a few apple zeolites who plug the "windows sucks, and anyone who uses it is an idiot" line. There are fanitics on both sides of the fence, no one is perfect.

Also about the 'elitest' bit, is that saying that you are using a mac just to be different, or because you feel you are better than 95% of the computing world?

"Apple is The USSR in the Cold War, Everybody else is a member of the Free world" Where are your loyalties


You are what we call a troll. The last quote is particularly annoying. You must be a teenager; anyone who has been in personal computing since the 1970's knows that Microsoft is the computing equivalent of the Soviet Union. You should read up on what they did to Seattle Computing - to Digital Research - to Novell - to IBM (OS/2) to Netscape - how they handle relations with their OEMs - on and on. If you read the testimony from the DOJ case, you can't help being amazed at their brazen assumption that they can routinely crush their competitors by any means fair or foul.

If you're expecting to build a Mac clone for $200, forget it. If you want to whine that that makes Apples too expensive, please do it on somebody else's board.

jxyama
Oct 28, 2003, 08:51 AM
i agree with cubist. the quote is kind of disturbing.

using words such as "loyalty," "patriotic" is an easy way to coerce people out of choices.

loyalty does not mean turning a blind eye to the White House. (or your gov't authority, if you are not in the U.S.)

patriotic does not mean wearing an American (or other) flag.

i personally find W's old motto "you are either with us or against us" quite disturbing and extremely un-American. what happened to choice? freedom?

here's another point before this thread turns into a full fledged political war, which i wouldn't like - freedom of speech is measured by the extent such freedom applies to unpopular opinion. freedom of speech exists perfectly well even in a totalitarian state if it only applied to "popular" or "accepted" speech.

----
back to topic.

i don't think apple PDA will happen just because jobs said he believes PDA will merge with phones and he's not interested in competing in that market.

dual processor laptop would be useful, i think, only as a hype creator. ("world's first dual processor laptop!") i don't think the market is there to justify the development cost..? may still happen.

OS X on x86... this one, won't happen.

jefhatfield
Oct 28, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by cubist
You are what we call a troll. The last quote is particularly annoying. You must be a teenager; anyone who has been in personal computing since the 1970's knows that Microsoft is the computing equivalent of the Soviet Union. You should read up on what they did to Seattle Computing - to Digital Research - to Novell - to IBM (OS/2) to Netscape - how they handle relations with their OEMs - on and on. If you read the testimony from the DOJ case, you can't help being amazed at their brazen assumption that they can routinely crush their competitors by any means fair or foul.

If you're expecting to build a Mac clone for $200, forget it. If you want to whine that that makes Apples too expensive, please do it on somebody else's board.

i actually saw it another way

democracy won the battle, and communism lost

well, windows PCS won the battle, and macs lost

democracy puts money first, communism is not good about financials

microsoft puts money first, apple inc is not good about financials

the one place where the analogy did not make sense is that many communist leaders were brutal and apple inc is not the brutal, aggressive one here...microsoft is:p

GregA
Oct 28, 2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
OSX on a PC? Apple will need to be a much bigger player in the computing world (larger percentage of market share) and have more software available. That and much better machines than the PC world. If you could get an Apple OS on a PC (Intel/AMD machine) and its cheaper and out performs the Apple machines, Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot as a hardware company.

Don't hold your breath on that one.And yet, there ARE people out there who don't get a chance to play with a Mac who would play with OSX on a PC. In particular I'm thinking of some unix buffs at my old work who would try it out in the server arena.

Maybe Apple could release MacOS X Server for Intel (as was originally planned back with 10.0!) and restrict to specific server hardware from a few manufacturers. A 6 month trial license preloaded on a new server?

The advantages seem to be:
1) smaller base of hardware
2) quality intel hardware.
3) gives pc guys a chance to use it and see what it's like - many companies have guys with Unix skills.
4) costs more than MacOS X (it's US$500)
5) might be used in place of some unix/linux servers
6) although people argue about whether Apple's entry level stuff is too expensive, the high end stuff is considered competitive. So if they like OSX and check out the server hardware Apple has they'll be pleasantly surprised.
7) in general gives an entry for Apple hardware into the rest of the company.

LethalWolfe
Oct 28, 2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i actually saw it another way

democracy won the battle, and communism lost

well, windows PCS won the battle, and macs lost

democracy puts money first, communism is not good about financials

microsoft puts money first, apple inc is not good about financials

the one place where the analogy did not make sense is that many communist leaders were brutal and apple inc is not the brutal, aggressive one here...microsoft is:p

Democracy puts choice, not money, first. Do you mean capitalism?

And I really don't seen how Apple would qualify as communist. Linux would be a good example of computer communism (everyone working w/the community in mind, not the individual). Apple is more like a benevolent dicator where as MS is more like a beligerant dictator.


Lethal

jefhatfield
Oct 29, 2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Democracy puts choice, not money, first. Do you mean capitalism?

And I really don't seen how Apple would qualify as communist. Linux would be a good example of computer communism (everyone working w/the community in mind, not the individual). Apple is more like a benevolent dicator where as MS is more like a beligerant dictator.


Lethal

yeah capitalism fits better

apple can't be a dictator...most of what they dictate will never be heard by the 95 percent of the public that uses windows...apple is kind of like a small compound out in the wilderness with steve jobs as their spiritual leader and everybody there eats locusts and wild honey:p