15inch PowerBook Details and Supplies

[Squire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by lord_flash
It's exactly that sort of thing that worries me. I don't want the need to arise - I want to be confident of compatibility. In amongst my many jobs, my favourite is writing about computer programs. Publishers aren't gonna be keen in something for a niche market if there could be something for the windows market. Only while PS remains identical on each platform (and prettier on the Mac) does the Mac remain a tempting prospect.

And there must be others out there who would desert if Photoshop was no longer on the Mac. That would be the difference, surely, between being in a smaller boat, which I can cope with and a sinking ship.

I agree that Apple's applications have always been good (even if they do use the public as beta testers with woefully bug-riddled releases from time to time - iMovie, anyone?), but they need a critical mass too...

Sorry. Let me clarify my point.

I agree that it would be better for Apple and its users as a whole to have a lot of third-party developers. (Wait...who are the second-party developers?) I was simply talking about my individual situation.

Squire

 

[robodweeb]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

We worked with plenty of Mac clones and they worked great!

Hear, hear!! I still have a PowerComputing PowerCenter Pro with a PowerLogix upgrade card running over-clocked at 400 MHz that's running OS 9 fine. I use it to provide DNS and backup services for the rest of my net so it's been on and working pretty constantly since June 1996 (power supply replaced in Nov 2000).

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
Instead of restructuring to survive in a new environment, they just shut it down and went back to the same old situation. The fact that introducing competition and PC-class prices into the Mac market caused Apple to nearly go bankrupt proves that Apple wasn't matching price/performance in a competitive clone marketplace.

But Apple was the one footing the bill for the R&D of the hardware. If they 'restructured', as you put it, then there wouldn't have been any more serious hardware development on the Mac platform. It would have fallen way behind, long before now, and died a pittiful death. Personally, even if this is the only reason, I'm glad Apple chose to do it. The time wasn't right for clones. Who knows, it may never be...

As to my sources for info about clone reliability, it is mostly annecdotal, coming from a number of friends who work either in IT or Mac service centers who indicated that they had about three times as many hardware problems with clones as with true Macs. Now, it should be noted that there were more expensive clones and cheaper clones. The more expensive ones were just a little less expensive than true Macs, and they had roughly equivalent reliability. It was the cheaper clones that were really the problem. Or so I have been told...

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by lord_flash
And there must be others out there who would desert if Photoshop was no longer on the Mac. That would be the difference, surely, between being in a smaller boat, which I can cope with and a sinking ship.

I seriously doubt we'll see Photoshop leave the Mac any time soon. It is one of Adobe's primary revenue sources, and a huge part of their market is still on the Mac...

 

[sacrilicious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by lord_flash
That's whay I want to switch (at home - already got Macs at work now). OS X is how an OS should be, as far as I'm concerned. More than anything else, not immediately quitting an application just because I've closed the window strikes me as great.

Other nice touches - iMovie, the lack of viruses and the look and feel are factors.

That's not to say I won't miss Window's software market, price/power ratio and the like. The last straw was when I realised I'd have to get XP with a new PC, which has that stupid dog in its search engine...

Agreed, again.

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Snowy_River
But Apple was the one footing the bill for the R&D of the hardware. If they 'restructured', as you put it, then there wouldn't have been any more serious hardware development on the Mac platform.

The PC platform has had a certain structure to it that allows some companies to write operating systems, others to create chipsets, others to create CPUs, and others to build boxes. I don't see why it would have been impossible for Apple to recreate at least some of that diversity without going under.

 

[chazmox]

Just a little on topic info....

The Apple Store is now reporting 1-3 day availability on the 17 inch. This model has previously been in stock...

 

[panphage]

Originally posted by lord_flash
Also, if I calculated that it was that much cheaper to design a website for the 90% (bearing in mind PC users can easily switch browsers, so they could get there if they really wanted), than the expected earnings from the 5-10%, then no, I woudln't bother making the site compatible. At the moment that's not a problem as must stuff is cross platform in design terms, but it might not always be so.

This was the thinking I wast trying to convince you was faulty. The internet had it's wild west period where the big browsers (NN and IE during the "war") dictated proprietary HTML extensions that you had to meticulously code around. The browsers all have quirks still, yes, but it you code to the standard you can be sure of decent rendering on any platform. Listen to me when I say it: I am a web developer, it is CHEAPER and EASIER and QUICKER to code to standards. Using IE-specific extensions IS NOT STANDARD and takes more time and effort, and all you gain is blocking out other users. IE displays valid, well-formed HTML pretty well. As a developer, I spend more time making sure IE 5 AND 6 render my page well than I do with all other browsers. I code to the standard, gecko and khtml (from kde, the rendering engine used by safari) render the page fine, and IE might have some quirks but the page still displays acceptably.

Please also rest assured that the W3C doesn't completely dance to MS's tune. There have been several implementations pushed by MS that the W3C decided not to use. MS is only one member of the consortium, and they only seem to be a 250pound gorilla in that sphere.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by lord_flash
If, however, the market share gets to the point where software developers get nervous that's anotheer story. and that, looknig at evidence from Adobe of late, would seem to be about now.

Dear god, why?

Adobe withdrew Premiere because Premiere sucked compared to the competition. Adobe isn't stupid. They know they won't make any more money from Premiere. They will make money from Photoshop, which is why they don't cancel Photoshop. So the only reason they'd withdraw, say, Photoshop, would be if there was a Photoshop alternative that was even better.

Adobe users are Mac users more often than the general public. Adobe is here to stay (until they're replaced by something better, at least)

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
The reason they killed the clones was your first reason--Apple couldn't compete on price. They are set up to be able to survive in a little local monopoly, and that's it. Instead of restructuring to survive in a new environment, they just shut it down and went back to the same old situation. The fact that introducing competition and PC-class prices into the Mac market caused Apple to nearly go bankrupt proves that Apple wasn't matching price/performance in a competitive clone marketplace.

Maybe it had more to do with the fact that Apple had to design the OS and motherboards for all the clones? All the clone manufacturers did was play around with clocking and adding other hardware. Bigger hard drive, faster processor, etc. I think Power Computing actually overclocked! The only real innovation came from Daystar (who built quad-processor Macs and sold them for $10,000) and, ironically, Motorola, who built the first G3 and the first and only true CHRP machine in the Starmax 6000.

At the time, Apple was bloated (but rapidly shrinking thanks to Gil Amelio). The leaner, focused Apple of Steve Jobs might be able to actually compete in a clone market. But then they lose their top asset: utter control over everything. Total control means you can kill the floppy more easily. It is a great advantage to being a Mac user. I don't care what potential switchers think about that either.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Squire
Apple is a formidable software company. I'm sure that they could come up with a Photoshop replacement if the need arose.

In the Rhapsody days, when Photoshop or anything else would have needed to have been totally recoded, a Photoshop replacement actually emerged. It was called TIFFany.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Squire
I agree that it would be better for Apple and its users as a whole to have a lot of third-party developers. (Wait...who are the second-party developers?)

First Party=Apple
Second Party=Consumer
Third Party=Anyone Else

If you write your own software, you are a second-party developer.

 

[Snowy_River]

Re^18: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
The PC platform has had a certain structure to it that allows some companies to write operating systems, others to create chipsets, others to create CPUs, and others to build boxes. I don't see why it would have been impossible for Apple to recreate at least some of that diversity without going under.

Very different business model. You're asking not for Apple to undergo a restructuring, but the entire Mac market to undergo a restructuring. It hasn't grown that way, and to try to make it that now (or a number of years ago) would be a nearly impossible task.

I still say that if Apple hadn't pulled the plug on the Mac clones there would be no Apple computers today; no Mac OS, nothing. We'd all be stuck working with Windows, and MS wouldn't even have a good company to rip ideas off from.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

We would have probably diffused among Windows, Linux, and Be, more Windows and Be than Linux at the time, I think. And Be might have survived. I much prefer Apple, however.

 

[bikertwin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^10: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by lord_flash
Only while PS remains identical on each platform (and prettier on the Mac) does the Mac remain a tempting prospect.

That's the exact opposite of the way Steve Jobs thinks about it. As long as Adobe (or Microsoft's or anyone else's) applications remain identical on both platforms, why buy a Mac? Heck, the PC is cheaper. You'll never win converts that way.

No, to make people buy a Mac, its software has to be better than any Windows software. And I think what's happening is Steve is saying, "Well if no 3rd party developers will develop software that's better on the Mac than on Windows, we'll do it ourselves."

And that's exactly what they're doing. FCP4, DVDSP2, iLife--they're all far better than anything on Windows at the same price. Their existence is a real incentive to switch.

And like it or not, Photoshop is in Apple's line of sight. Not this year. Maybe not next year, but it's coming.

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I seriously doubt we'll see Photoshop leave the Mac any time soon. It is one of Adobe's primary revenue sources, and a huge part of their market is still on the Mac...

Photoshop isn't nearly as important to Adobe as it used to be. Their big thing now is Acrobat. They sell lot$$ of it to big corporations. It's a much bigger market than all their creative apps put together.

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Re^18: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Very different business model. You're asking not for Apple to undergo a restructuring, but the entire Mac market to undergo a restructuring. It hasn't grown that way, and to try to make it that now (or a number of years ago) would be a nearly impossible task.

I maintain that this would have been a good thing for Mac users if it could have been made to work.

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I still say that if Apple hadn't pulled the plug on the Mac clones there would be no Apple computers today; no Mac OS, nothing. We'd all be stuck working with Windows, and MS wouldn't even have a good company to rip ideas off from.

As the clone market was structured, yes I will concede that. As Phil mentioned, the cloners were getting the OS and motherboards for free (or at least for less than what it should have been). But this does not demonstrate an inherent problem with clones.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Total control means you can kill the floppy more easily. It is a great advantage to being a Mac user. I don't care what potential switchers think about that either.

I disagree. The PC market is far more agile than the Mac market, because of the diversity of companies involved at every level. The MacOS market could benefit from a similar diversity, if it could be created. In the Mac world we have to wait 9-12 months between updates. Killing the floppy--if one doesn't like the floppy, one need not use it.



But getting back to the point where this little clone branch sprouted, that same diversity would mean more reasonable prices for Macs of a given performance. There is no magic here--competition lowers prices and generally improves quality to the consumer. Switchers care about these things. Maybe at this stage in the game, clones are not the answer. But something needs to be done to solve this problem. Going back to Squire's point:

Originally posted by Squire
So, I guess I disagree with you. I think most switchers do so because of the OS.

If this was the case, everyone would have switched already. Why hasn't that happened? I mean, I am sure you would all agree that Apple has been innovating for quite some time now (before the G5 and before the G4 stagnation, Snowy), and we have OSX too. What else does anyone need? Why isn't everyone a Mac user?

And I think you are incorrect to brush off marketshare so lighly, Phil. As another poster said, it might become irrelevant if MacOS was at 20%--but for now developers definitely think twice about making Mac products. I have experienced holes in Mac software availability myself, and I am sure we have all run into the frustration of wanting some company to do a simultaneous release of some hardware or software at the same price as the PC counterpart (if it is even released at all on the Mac).

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re^18: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by soggywulf
I disagree. The PC market is far more agile than the Mac market, because of the diversity of companies involved at every level. The MacOS market could benefit from a similar diversity, if it could be created. In the Mac world we have to wait 9-12 months between updates. Killing the floppy--if one doesn't like the floppy, one need not use it.

I still maintain that Apple can innovate faster. Replacing everything with USB on the iMac, for instance.

Originally posted by soggywulf
But getting back to the point where this little clone branch sprouted, that same diversity would mean more reasonable prices for Macs of a given performance. There is no magic here--competition lowers prices and generally improves quality to the consumer. Switchers care about these things. Maybe at this stage in the game, clones are not the answer. But something needs to be done to solve this problem.

The performance issue can adequately be addressed by Apple and IBM alone. The Mac advantage over the PC continued through the G3 and early G4 eras. It was not the clones who gave the Mac the performance advantage, it was IBM and Motorola. As for prices, the clones were underpriced. If there was a fair price structure, there wouldn't be any advantage with clones. And since Apple must at least somewhat compete with the Windows market, costs have gone down and will continue to go down. I consider the $749 price of the eMac to be an absolute bottom for Mac prices, simply because Macs by nature will always have some cost premium, a cost premium which is well worth it.

Originally posted by soggywulf
If this was the case, everyone would have switched already. Why hasn't that happened?

Changing operating systems in and of itself is kind of like switching to the metric system: the costs of switching (or the perceived costs of switching), which involve learning something completely new, are so high that it takes quite a bit for people to even consider it. If they do consider it, however, they will often discover that Mac OS X is an excellent operating system.

Originally posted by soggywulf
And I think you are incorrect to brush off marketshare so lighly, Phil. As another poster said, it might become irrelevant if MacOS was at 20%--but for now developers definitely think twice about making Mac products. I have experienced holes in Mac software availability myself, and I am sure we have all run into the frustration of wanting some company to do a simultaneous release of some hardware or software at the same price as the PC counterpart (if it is even released at all on the Mac).

Maybe with games. Not if I want to actually get something done though. I'll buy a console if I want to game.

 

[new user]

clone

i was thinking on my way home that if apple had a competitor (ie clone producer), their line of products would be updated with much greater frequency. thus ending my what seems like forever wait for the 15pb update. there would be no way apple would stand pat and do nothing while competitors and their version of g4 notebooks eat away pb sales. s jobs would be force to update quicker, and possibly announce (god forbid) product release schedules. at this moment, i'm afraid the new pb will be announce and it'll be weeks before the release, and i'll just be waiting and waiting.

anyway, i have to concede, if there were clone competitors, there would be no apple today, or pb to wait for.

in other words, when? i hope soon. update please.

 

[Squire]

Re: Re: Re^18: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Squire
So, I guess I disagree with you. I think most switchers do so because of the OS.

If you re-read your response to my comment, I think you'll agree that there are several variables you're neglecting.

Originally posted by soggywulf
If this was the case, everyone would have switched already. Why hasn't that happened?

People switch from a PC to a Mac for a number of reasons. In my opinion, the cause of this most recent migration is the operating system. These are people who are unhappy with the way their PC is performing. Think of this: You just finished a big project and, somehow, all the data got lost. You stay up all hours of the night and finish the project. Afterwards, you feel like trashing your stupid computer. Then you see a "Switch" ad. And you're interested.

Of course, this doesn't happen to everybody (or does it?). You're forgetting the people who are completely satisfied with their PCs or, more likely, the people who are patient enough to deal with these problems regularly. This is where your argument is flawed. 😉

I mean, I am sure you would all agree that Apple has been innovating for quite some time now (before the G5 and before the G4 stagnation, Snowy), and we have OSX too. What else does anyone need? Why isn't everyone a Mac user?

Why isn't everyone a Mac user? One reason is ignorance. If all computer users in the world were forced to read the "Mac Myths" section of Apple's website, I'm sure a lot more people would be Mac users. A lot of people fear change. Switching to a Mac is change.

There are, of course, other reasons and I wouldn't be doing your side of the argument justice if I neglected to mention them.

Price: A lot of people are simply not prepared to pay a premium for the reliability and ease-of-use of a Mac. If the knew how reliable and easy a Mac was to use, maybe they would. (see "ignorance above)

Software: Sure, most of the popular software programs are available for a Mac and work better than their PC counterparts. However, when it comes to gaming, the Mac is still a little behind.

So, in a nutshell, a PC user must make a few sacrifices in order to reap the rewards of owning a Mac. Some are willing to do this; most are not.

Squire

 

[dantec]

Re: Re: Re: Re^18: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Squire

Why isn't everyone a Mac user? One reason is ignorance. If all computer users in the world were forced to read the "Mac Myths" section of Apple's website, I'm sure a lot more people would be Mac users. A lot of people fear change. Switching to a Mac is change.

There are, of course, other reasons and I wouldn't be doing your side of the argument justice if I neglected to mention them.

Price: A lot of people are simply not prepared to pay a premium for the reliability and ease-of-use of a Mac. If the knew how reliable and easy a Mac was to use, maybe they would. (see "ignorance above)

Software: Sure, most of the popular software programs are available for a Mac and work better than their PC counterparts. However, when it comes to gaming, the Mac is still a little behind.

So, in a nutshell, a PC user must make a few sacrifices in order to reap the rewards of owning a Mac. Some are willing to do this; most are not.

Squire [/B]

I think also I big issue, is that because of the upgrade system of the PC side, PC users feel locked in, and don't want to dish out money to buy lets say a full version of Photoshop 7 & Word v.x... Perhaps if Apple gave an incentive, that would help a bit.

 

[Squire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^18: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by dantec
I think also I big issue, is that because of the upgrade system of the PC side, PC users feel locked in, and don't want to dish out money to buy lets say a full version of Photoshop 7 & Word v.x... Perhaps if Apple gave an incentive, that would help a bit.

Good point- upgrades on both hardware and their existing software.

Squire

P.S. What's the title of this thread again? Oh, yeah...something about PowerBooks. I wonder how many people are waiting to switch based on what kind of 15" PowerBook is released. A lot?

 

[chancellor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^18: Comparing notebooks

Originally posted by Squire
P.S. What's the title of this thread again? Oh, yeah...something about PowerBooks. I wonder how many people are waiting to switch based on what kind of 15" PowerBook is released. A lot?

I'm planning on switching (currently on a Dell PIII 550 MHz) to a 15" laptop. I'm waiting for the first revision of the next 15" model.

 

[new user]

i hate steve jobs

but the problem is that i've fallen in love with apple, and pb especially. i've been a life long user of pc, and after having to reboot 3 times daily, and the associated loss of data, i'm switching. anything else gots to be better than the microsoft crap i'm using.

the only delay now is the delay of the release. if i knew it would have taken this long for the update, i would have bought a ti in june, july, even early august. but now, it seems stupid for me not to stick it out. which is why i hate steve jobs.

as wonderful as the updates may be, i prefer utility more. considering this thread, no one is not expecting an update... any minute now. right? i am fighting the temptation (or perhaps frustration) not to place an order right now.

 

[filmmaker2002]

Re: i hate steve jobs

Originally posted by new user
but the problem is that i've fallen in love with apple, and pb especially. i've been a life long user of pc, and after having to reboot 3 times daily, and the associated loss of data, i'm switching. anything else gots to be better than the microsoft crap i'm using.

Welcome to the light side...sorry we couldn't get you a new Powerbook yet.

 

[emoore]

I am also a long time user of PC's and are looking to switch. I currently have a Dell PIII with Windows 2000. Everyone told me that Windows 2000 is supposted to be a stable OS but I have to reaload the OS atleast every 6-9 months! I think I am going to hold out for the G5 PB even if the next PB update is only a G4 speed boost.