Did Apple Court Other PPC Vendors Before Intel Switch?

[thogs_cave]

as for the guy with the E5000 sun, sweet system, hope you did not pay a high price for that, wow that is one very very exspensive computer. It such cheaper to purchase a cluster of Xserves. There is only one reason why i would chooce a 14 processor sun over 7 xserves and that is to have 14 core on one program (solaris has some wow features for loads, databases rock on this platform). but the money it cost for a 14 processor sun I can purchase (my guess new, is somewhere around $130,000 to $500,000), see how many xserve is about 16 xserves(minimum for $130,000 do the maths yourself for $500,000) each dual processor, with 4 gb ram each and 1.5 tb of HD each, now add xsan, i now have a very hot system, use 2+ as controllers I can have a more powerful server solution than the sun.

Actually, I "bought" it twice. Back in late '97 I bought it for the company I was IT manager of at the time. It was configured with 10 CPUs and 4G of RAM at the time. The list was close to $500K. When I heard they were decomissioning it last year, I "bought" it again for about $250, this time with my money. Since then I've added RAM and CPUs as they are cheap on eBay.

All you'd need to thump it today would probably be one Xserve. (I've got one at work, so I could benchmark it if needs be.) But, big SMP systems do really rock for things like databases. That's why companies like Sun and IBM still sell some huge SMP boxes. It's kinda fun to load up a box with a few hundred gigs o' RAM and 72 dual-core CPUs and watch it smack data around.

To sorta return to my original point: You need to use what works for you. At this point, I can't dun Apple (too much) for switching to Intel, as they are right in the markets Apple wants to be in. I'm sure that's also the space that most of the people on this list are in. I just happen to spend a large percentage of my time working over a serial or ssh connection and have some different goals. Not that I don't want a fast system on my desk for browsing and such, but I find that most anything will get me through the day.

 

[munkees]

Actually, I "bought" it twice. Back in late '97 I bought it for the company I was IT manager of at the time. It was configured with 10 CPUs and 4G of RAM at the time. The list was close to $500K. When I heard they were decomissioning it last year, I "bought" it again for about $250, this time with my money. Since then I've added RAM and CPUs as they are cheap on eBay.

All you'd need to thump it today would probably be one Xserve. (I've got one at work, so I could benchmark it if needs be.) But, big SMP systems do really rock for things like databases. That's why companies like Sun and IBM still sell some huge SMP boxes. It's kinda fun to load up a box with a few hundred gigs o' RAM and 72 dual-core CPUs and watch it smack data around.

To sorta return to my original point: You need to use what works for you. At this point, I can't dun Apple (too much) for switching to Intel, as they are right in the markets Apple wants to be in. I'm sure that's also the space that most of the people on this list are in. I just happen to spend a large percentage of my time working over a serial or ssh connection and have some different goals. Not that I don't want a fast system on my desk for browsing and such, but I find that most anything will get me through the day.

I must say I am green with envy, I used to 25 suns, it was a cool setup, I had one utlra sparc 5 2.7 Mhz for development, 2 ultra sparc 2 with dual 167Mghz processors ( all this had 21 inch sun CRT), then I had 2 sun sparc 10, with dual 80 Mhz processor (upgrade from the 40Mhz) with dual 10 base T, and 20 Sun LX. I used the 2 sparc 10s as access to 2 cluster of 10 sparc lx, it was my mini supercoputer cluster i used for nureal network image recognition. the 2 ultra 2 was used for image processing before the information was passed into the network.

It was a cool network, made my office very hot in summer.

Well I sold it all when I purchased my first Mac OS X computer, so I could purchase more macs, I never could look back, and I still have to make my system again on macs.

Today I have 2 iMacs G3, one is used for image capture (scan, and fax), the other is a front end to my microsope. I have an iBook G3 300 which is used to do some research on, some of the programs used are Mac OS 9.
I have an iBook 700 which is used as a remote communitication terminal for family to contact us from the UK. I have a powerbook G4 1.5 Ghz laptop for mobile computing and playing Americas Army. I just purchased a 400 Mhz G4 Sawtooth tower, which I put 3 120 GB drive in, plus external 200 and using it as a server, running it with Mac OS X 10.4 server (go that for $100 ebay for unlimited version). I have an iMac CD 2.0 which I do all development on.

I will be purchasing 2 more macs this year, a MacBook for my wife, and latter on I want an 64bit Mac for my second desktop computer, Don't really want a PowerMac, waiting for maybe a 64Bit iMac CD.

I used to have a iBook 500, G4 Cube 450, and G4 733 Sawtooth, there are what replaced my sun, but had to sell my new lab, when the dot com crash happened and I ended up joining the Army because my software job outlook sucked.

 

[Evangelion]

But a million things can be done with firewire.

And most people don't need it. And pray tell: what "million uses" can you think for the webcam? Well, you can use it to take low-resolution pictures and.... that's just about it.

And what is more elegant than having a port that can hand;le a million uses compared with a card reader that can read, erm, just memory cards (and which ones would you support?)

for the third time: card-readers these days support MULTIPLE FORMATS by default! And are you REALLY saying that having a built-in card-reader would be "un-elegant", whereas having external card-reader is more elegant, and it's therefore OK to not have built-in card-reader? Is that the core of your argument? That a slot for memory-card would look ugly, whereas external card-reader is the epitome of elegance?

 

[zac4mac]

It seems obvious at this point that there are as many people who do want some of these features as there are that don't. I'm in the latter group, I prefer my portables to be as clean as possible, ergo I am not miffed at no FW800 or more ports than I got. God forbid putting a kludge of a card reader on my Mac - every PC portable I've seen looks like total ***** with all the ports, switches and indicator LEDs - and stickers; not my MBP.

Again, I'm pleased with this MBP and I'm surprised at how fast this "craptastic" Intel processor is...

Z

 

[milo]

External device? So much for "elegance"

Are there laptops that have card readers built in with every available card format?

Are there PC slot card readers that can fit every available memory format?

I don't see why a USB unit is such a big deal. After all, you already have a camera and a card so any shot at "elegance" is already gone.

for the third time: card-readers these days support MULTIPLE FORMATS by default! And are you REALLY saying that having a built-in card-reader would be "un-elegant", whereas having external card-reader is more elegant, and it's therefore OK to not have built-in card-reader? Is that the core of your argument? That a slot for memory-card would look ugly, whereas external card-reader is the epitome of elegance?

Slots for a bunch of different memory cards are only appealing if you have the need to use them. USB is much more multipurpose.

For me, it's much easier to just hook up the camera, too much trouble to be yanking the card out.

 

[matticus008]

But even though you must own previous software/hardware, the boxed version is a full version. It doesn't upgrade software, because you can wipe the HD and install a fresh install.

No, it's not a full version. You can wipe the hard drive and do a fresh install with an upgrade as well. The only reason that OS X doesn't check for a previous install is that they already know that you own an eligible copy of Mac OS. It's impossible not to, so they've streamlined the install process.

Unless you live in a place where EULAS are actually enforceable, your software purchase is just that - a purchase. You own your one copy, and you can do whatever you want it it (other than make copies for distribution.)

I can take a Mac OS DVD and glue it to the wall as a decoration, and Apple can't stop me from doing that either.

No, it's not a purchase. It has never been defined in case law as a purchase, and EULAs have never been ruled to be unenforceable as a blanket provision. There are certain EULA terms which have been ruled to be inappropriate, but UCITA is not necessary for a EULA to be legally sound.

Even outside the EULA issue, buying a copy of OS X is not a full right to do as you please. You can glue the DVD to the wall, you can back up the DVD, you can sell it, you can break it, you can copy it to a hard drive. You CANNOT modify the contents to defeat built-in copyright and access prevention mechanisms, and you CANNOT legally install it on any other hardware platform. Copyright law does not give you full reign over the intellectual property contained on that disc. It gives you a right to use that in a way which is consistent with Apple's terms. Nowhere under copyright law do you have the right to use a product beyond its copyright, and with the DMCA in force, you don't have the right to modify the security mechanisms on the disc or participate in the distribution of software tools to do so. Both of those are wholly and definitively illegal.

For example, you can't buy an upgrade copy of an application and then use it as a full version, simply because it contains the full version on the disc and you paid for the disc. You can't buy the Windows version of Dreamweaver and then install it on a Mac. You can buy a rabbit, but you can't beat it to death.

 

[joecool85]

Wouldn't it be strange if apple switch back to PPC?? I mean, its not going to happen, not after making all these companies make universal binaries and all that, along with a lot of other reasons, but its still fun to think about. And like others have talked about, this could mean some pretty cool upgrades for some of the PPC hardware that is already out. I wouldn't mind upgrading my Dual 2ghz G5 PM to a dual 3ghz quad core

 

[pth-webdev]

And I thought that Apple is about "elegance"?

No! Apple is about user experience. Now, elegance is part of that, but no more then that: a part of the total user experience.

And now we are required to carry around external devices to work around shortcoming in the hardware?

Basically, your camera is an external device, too. So is an iPod. Or a cell phone (bit of a point of view, I know). Devices that can be used stand-alone or in combination with other hardware, so best they are not integrated. My Vosonic X-Drive II is the same. When I have a three week vacation or just a weekend away, I don't want to take a laptop with me. This portable device is enough (it is about the size of a compact camera)

It is not working around shortcomings in the hardware but about extending the user experience. At least, it is about extending *my* user experience.

However, it somehow feels like you want to be argumentative. The point was: why does Apple include one thing and not the other. The reason I came up with was that some hardware fullfill an immediate need while other hardware is something that each user has to choose for himself or that perhaps is in a state of flux. It is a balance and Apple needs to find a sweetspot. Perhaps they are missing that, but I feel I generally understand why they make a certain decision.

 

[matticus008]

The point was: why does Apple include one thing and not the other. The reason I came up with was that some hardware fullfill an immediate need while other hardware is something that each user has to choose for himself or that perhaps is in a state of flux.

Absolutely. I've gone through three different memory card types for my digital cameras, and trying to buy a computer with the necessary slot is a ridiculous game. CF Type I/II, SD, mini SD, micro SD, xD, MMC, Memory Sticks, SmartMedia, MMC Plus, TransFlash...it's a mess. It makes sense for Sony, because they make the Memory Sticks, but for everyone else, it's a waste of time to include a non-upgradeable, dust-collecting slot in the computer that most people will never touch.

If memory cards were as standardized as optical discs, then it would make sense to include an internal reader. But they're not, and who knows what formats cameras will be using in two years? They all use USB, and that's the only hope for universal compatibility.

 

[AidenShaw]

You're so right

Also, Apple was one of the first to recognize ... the need for builtin ethernet for consumer-level Macs; direct function.

So true, none of the other companies making Macs put Ethernet into the systems nearly as soon as Apple did. You had to buy an Apple Mac to get it builtin.

 

[Carson]

I'm still wondering why apple went with the least energy effecent chips (intel) it seems like AMD, motorola and others all seem to have better options right now. if they went with some one else it seems like the heat problems in the macbooks would be dramaticly less.

 

[Morgan]

No, it's not a full version. You can wipe the hard drive and do a fresh install with an upgrade as well. The only reason that OS X doesn't check for a previous install is that they already know that you own an eligible copy of Mac OS. It's impossible not to, so they've streamlined the install process.


No, it's not a purchase. It has never been defined in case law as a purchase, and EULAs have never been ruled to be unenforceable as a blanket provision. There are certain EULA terms which have been ruled to be inappropriate, but UCITA is not necessary for a EULA to be legally sound.

Even outside the EULA issue, buying a copy of OS X is not a full right to do as you please. You can glue the DVD to the wall, you can back up the DVD, you can sell it, you can break it, you can copy it to a hard drive. You CANNOT modify the contents to defeat built-in copyright and access prevention mechanisms, and you CANNOT legally install it on any other hardware platform. Copyright law does not give you full reign over the intellectual property contained on that disc. It gives you a right to use that in a way which is consistent with Apple's terms. Nowhere under copyright law do you have the right to use a product beyond its copyright, and with the DMCA in force, you don't have the right to modify the security mechanisms on the disc or participate in the distribution of software tools to do so. Both of those are wholly and definitively illegal.

For example, you can't buy an upgrade copy of an application and then use it as a full version, simply because it contains the full version on the disc and you paid for the disc. You can't buy the Windows version of Dreamweaver and then install it on a Mac. You can buy a rabbit, but you can't beat it to death.

Give it a rest will you.
What you say has been shot down time and time again.
Unless you live in DMCA-land, EULAS are simply unenforcable.
In Europe, there is no way in hell that someone has legal stand based
on an EULA. It might not please Apple, but i can buy a copy of MacOSX
and use it as i please since i paid for it.

 

[matticus008]

Give it a rest will you.
What you say has been shot down time and time again.
Unless you live in DMCA-land, EULAS are simply unenforcable.
In Europe, there is no way in hell that someone has legal stand based
on an EULA. It might not please Apple, but i can buy a copy of MacOSX
and use it as i please since i paid for it.

1. No, it hasn't been shot down.

2. If you'd read it, you'd see that I'm not talking about only the EULA. I'm talking about copyright law and the DMCA along with intellectual property law. The EULA is the least of your worries. The posts clearly state that the EULA is far from the only issue, and even if there were no EULA, it would STILL be illegal to install OS X on a PC.

If you disagree, tell me what gives you the right to use OS X how you please. In particular, I'd like an example from case law that identifies purchase of a software disc as a transfer of ownership rights over anything other than the physical disc and packaging. I'd also like your legal perspective on hacking OS X and where it becomes permissable to defeat copy and access prevention.

 

[pth-webdev]

So true, none of the other companies making Macs put Ethernet into the systems nearly as soon as Apple did. You had to buy an Apple Mac to get it builtin.

I had to smile about this one. I reread my posting, but missed this implication. I had a lengthier text about ethernet, but removed it as it was too much beside the point.

My response, however, is simple: try to explain in my language (dutch) what I said wrong in this langues (english) and I can see if you can take being made fun off as well as I can.

 

[Evangelion]

Are there laptops that have card readers built in with every available card format?

No, should there be? Are you saying that if they can't include every single reader in there, they shouldn't include any? Macs are missing tons of connectivity-ports, why should they then have ANY ports? Isn't that same logic? And like I have (repeatedly) said: modern card-readers can read several different formats. And they WILL read just about every type of card used by camera-manufacturers.

Are there PC slot card readers that can fit every available memory format?

Propably not. So? Or is this the "This reader can't read these uber-cards that have 0.005% market-share. Therefore Macs shouldn't have ANY card-readers!". The readers can read commonly used cards just fine, I fail to see why you get your panties in a bunch over the fact that they can't read every single card out there.

Hey, the MBP has a Expresscard-slot. But it doesn't have PCMCIA-slot. Therefore, they should eliminate the Expresscard-slot as well, since it doesn't accept every single expansion-card out there.

I don't see why a USB unit is such a big deal. After all, you already have a camera and a card so any shot at "elegance" is already gone.

You could have several cards, and you need pics from one card. Currently you need to put the card in the camera (hope that the camera has a charged battery!), and plug the camera in the computer. Why not simply plug the card in to the computer? "Because the card-reader might not be compatible with the card!". Bullcrap! The reader IS compatible! The cameras use fairly standard types of cards, and the card-readers DO read them just fine!

Slots for a bunch of different memory cards are only appealing if you have the need to use them. USB is much more multipurpose.

So, Apple should drop the webcam and Expresscard as well? Expresscard doesn't have much use currently, and webcam is singlepurpose device.

For me, it's much easier to just hook up the camera, too much trouble to be yanking the card out.

*sigh*.... If you had a card-reader, you could still plug the camera in to the computer if you wanted to! Just because the computer has a card-reader does NOT mean that you are somehow prevented from plugging the camera in to the computer if you want to.

And what if you have a memory-card but no camera? Many cell-phones and PDA's ship with memory-cards.

 

[Evangelion]

However, it somehow feels like you want to be argumentative. The point was: why does Apple include one thing and not the other. The reason I came up with was that some hardware fullfill an immediate need while other hardware is something that each user has to choose for himself or that perhaps is in a state of flux. It is a balance and Apple needs to find a sweetspot. Perhaps they are missing that, but I feel I generally understand why they make a certain decision.

Maybe I was just a bit dumbfounded when people were actually defending shortcomings in Apple-hardware by basically saying "this lack of functionality is not a flaw, it's a feature!". Um, no. to me, that is "lack of functionality", period. I know you guys have Apple-goggles on, but come on!

Having a card-reader in the computer does NOT make the computer worse in other areas. I might understand your current feelings on this issue, if having a card-reader means that the system would have to be made worse in some other areas. But since that is NOT the case, I fail to see the reasoning here. Is it basically "Apple decided not to do it, therefore it's OK"?