Intel Atom Still Unsupported on Mac OS X 10.6.2 Seeds

[RazHyena]

Essentially, your premise is flawed, I think this is the source of your ignorance on the subject. Let me fix your premise so that you finally stop this non sensical banter :

Your premise is : If one is looking for a desktop computer and want the best performance at a reasonable price, Apple's current product line does not offer a product for the intended use.

There we go. You can't compare values of things that are non-equivalent. Such a comparison would be highly subjective and in no way indicate any kind of real world value or performance.

So please, stop the useless rants.

I think what he's trying to say is, why would a websurfing/email/family photo oriented customer spend $1,200.00 on the base line iMac desktop when they can get a desktop/monitor package deal from Dell or HP for less then $400.00?

Why would a serious gamer spend $2,000.00 on the ultimate model when they can get a faster, up to date PC for half? Well, we know it's not for the Apple hardware...which is perpetually behind on average by 3 years. The OS? Probably. But does that really matter to the casual user?

 

[KnightWRX]

I think what he's trying to say is, why would a websurfing/email/family photo oriented customer spend $1,200.00 on the base line iMac desktop when they can get a desktop/monitor package deal from Dell or HP for less then $400.00?

Why would a serious gamer spend $2,000.00 on the ultimate model when they can get a faster, up to date PC for half? Well, we know it's not for the Apple hardware...which is perpetually behind on average by 3 years. The OS? Probably. But does that really matter to the casual user?

Apple hardware 3 years behind ? Explain the Dell Studio Hybrid then. Let's no go back to 3 pages ago, where this has been debunked.

If those families are buying Apples, then that's because Apple fills their needs. If it doesn't fit yours, it doesn't mean Apple is overpriced, it just means they don't offer a product that fills your needs.

Comparing Apples to Apples (things like Mini to Studio Hybrid, or Mac Pro to Dell Precision workstations), Apple is very competitive price wise.

This is where your stand has no legs. Real world value is ALWAYS highly subjective.

A Philips screwdriver is of little value to me if what I need is a flathead.

B

Again with the ignorance. Real world value would be comparing 2 flathead screwdrivers in their performance to price ratio. If one is worth 1.50$ and unscrews your screw, and the other 2.00$ and unscrews your screw, one offers better value.

Comparing them to a hammer however, you'll be screaming for weeks how hammers are overpriced and can't get the job done.

So please, again, stop showering us with your insipid ignorance.

 

[balamw]

I think what he's trying to say is, why would a websurfing/email/family photo oriented customer spend $1,200.00 on the base line iMac desktop when they can get a desktop/monitor package deal from Dell or HP for less then $400.00?

Why would a serious gamer spend $2,000.00 on the ultimate model when they can get a faster, up to date PC for half? Well, we know it's not for the Apple hardware...which is perpetually behind on average by 3 years. The OS? Probably. But does that really matter to the casual user?

No that's really a different argument.

I am looking at MIPS/$ or MFLOPS/$. At the low end performance is degraded and most of the cost in a $400 econo-box is in things like the hard drive and case so you can't get much performance in MIPS/MFLOPS.

The best bang for your buck in MIPS/$ or MFLOPS/$ currently is with higher-end consumer-level (formerly known as "pro-sumer") i5/i7 boxes, so that is the yardstick I am comparing Apple's line to. You can usually identify this point as where the cost of the next higher performing CPU is more than double that of your baseline.

Again with the ignorance. Real world value would be comparing 2 flathead screwdrivers in their performance to price ratio. If one is worth 1.50$ and unscrews your screw, and the other 2.00$ and unscrews your screw, one offers better value.

Comparing them to a hammer however, you'll be screaming for weeks how hammers are overpriced and can't get the job done.

You speak of my ignorance yet you continue to ignore the fact that I have NEVER said that Macs are overpriced. EVER.

However, if you objectively compare MIPS/$ or MFLOPS/$ (as you suggest we should do for the screwdriver) none of Apple's current "desktop" products can compare with any current Lynnfield based desktop solutions because of their use of Penryn processors. Even for the 27" Lynnfield-based iMacs will fail by this simple metric, because they include the cost of a 27" monitor along for the ride pushing "$" up for no gain in "MIPS/MFLOPS".

You also ignore the fact that it is pretty easy to repurpose a screwdriver to drive nails. I've personally done it more times than I'd like to admit. It's also straightforward to repurpose a flathead screwdriver to drive a Philips screw, if that's the only tool you have, but the opposite is a lot harder.

And for those of you wondering how any of this is on topic...

The Hackintosh crowd are doing something similar with their devices. Repurposing them beyond their original intended use. Until Apple comes out with devices that are directly comparable with them in terms of form factor or performance, folks will continue to do what they can to make OS X work on those machines.

With 10.6.2, Apple seems to be (deliberately?) trying to make that harder which is a darn shame since they just don't offer any products in the netbook or "pro-sumer" niches right now, so it's up to the community to make their own tools.

B "the ignorant"

 

[KnightWRX]

You speak of my ignorance yet you continue to ignore the fact that I have NEVER said that Macs are overpriced. EVER.

You said they offer less performance/price. I think I'm repeating myself when I say you keep insisting Macs are overpriced in a runabout way.

Saying they don't offer good performance/price is saying they are overpriced when your only measuring metric is performance.

If you're in denial to how to compare Macs, at least stop being in denial about your own affirmations.

 

[balamw]

You said they offer less performance/price.

Mac "desktops" do offer less performance/price than comparable generic PCs. It's an easily verifiable fact.

You continue to state that currently shipping Macs are something totally separate from other Intel based personal computers, and thus these Mac "Apples" can't be compared with non-Mac "Oranges".

Never mind the fact that both are capable of running the same OSes and applications and thus benchmarks.

Who is in denial?

I will continue to recommend Apple's notebooks to pretty much anyone, even on performance/price, but for me to recommend any of Apple's "desktops" requires another major driver than performance and/or price. Works for Apple since most customers want a notebook anyhow these days.

HTPC? Check. Get the mini.
Carputer? Check. Get the mini.
Bedroom computer? Check. A Mini or iMac is a goo choice.
Small footprint AIO? Check. Nothing beats the iMac.
Beautiful Industrial Design? Check.
"Green" computer? Check. The iMac is king here, and the Mini isn't far behind.
Video Editing Workstation? Check. The Mac Pro is unparalleled.
High end engineering workstation w/gobs and gobs of RAM? Check. The Mac Pro is a great choice.
Don't want to fiddle with your OS? Check. Any machine that runs OS X out of the box is a great choice.
...

General consumer/hobbyist/"pro-sumer" desktop computer that doesn't need to be one of the above? No check.
Netbook? No check.

I will continue to recommend that someone looking for a netbook or desktop either settle on a Mac notebook, settle for Linux or Windows 7, or settle for Hackintoshing OS X on a generic Intel PC.

B

 

[KnightWRX]

Mac "desktops" do offer less performance/price than comparable generic PCs. It's an easily verifiable fact.

So you're saying they're overpriced ?

Mac "desktops" don't actually exist. Looking at Apple's online store, I see a Mac SFF, a Mac All-in-One and a Mac Workstation. I don't see any Desktop PCs. How are you comparing Apple's offering to desktop PCs again ?

Drop the flawed comparison already, it's getting old and you're not winning any points by further proving that Apple doesn't make a desktop. We all know that. Doesn't mean Macs are overpriced like you again claimed, or that they offer less performance/price ratio (they are very competitive in their own categories).

Again in case you're still missing the point : There is no Mac desktop computer in the sense of a mini/mid tower with consumer desktop chips and chipsets.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

OS/X isn't competing with Windows directly? So what is it competing with?

Apple as a company is competing with Dell, Sony, Gateway, etc. Are you contending that somehow they are failing in that regard?

The way I see it, Microsoft's steadfast refusal to produce and sell laptops directly is an admission on their part that they cannot directly compete with Apple. The oft-repeated nonsense that Microsoft is somehow more open because other companies produce their computer hardware is just marketing noise.

No OSX is not competing with Windows because Apple choose to allow it to run only on a select range of hardware. I believe that was in my original post but you seem a little slow so its repeated. Where in my post are Dell and other PC companies mentioned? And since we are on that topic I believe Apple are rated somewhere around 6th worldwide in PC sales. Its not a failure, but neither is it spectacular.

Microsoft have never produced hardware, your argument is irrelevant. Apple on the other hand, have produced an operating system for some time now that in the past was allowed to run on other companies hardware, that currently has been shown to be capable of running on hardware other than Apple's own. The fact that Apple feel the need to restrict their OS to limited hardware shows that they won't even try to compete with Microsoft in the OS sector. Apple don't truly produce their own hardware in any case. The CPU is from Intel, the motherboards Foxconn (although I heard they were moving away from Foxconn) the sound is made by another company. The point I am trying to make is that Apple don't develop the hardware entirely themselves, but they do develop their own OS (with a little help from the BSD guys). However they won't market that OS separately on its own merits because to do so would to run into all the problems that Windows has to deal with in order to work on such a vast variety of machines.

Apple fans mock Windows often but fact is, Apple doesn't have the balls even to try what Microsoft does. They play it safe, delivering their OS on a fraction of the hardware and charging premium prices while they do it.

 

[balamw]

Looking at Apple's online store, I see a Mac SFF, a Mac All-in-One and a Mac Workstation. I don't see any Desktop PCs. How are you comparing Apple's offering to desktop PCs again ?

This is the only basis of of any disagreement between us. I make a comparison, you say it can't or shouldn't be done.

I guess in your world the Mac SFF, Mac AIO and Mac Workstation represent such unique and different classes of products they can't even be compared with each other!

Of course the iMac is unparalleled and without compare, so it makes no sense to even try to compare it to a (Mac Mini + KB + Mouse + 24" Apple LED Cinema Display) system or a (Mac Pro + 30" Apple Cinema HD Display) because that would be ludicrous.

I still don't know which one is right for my application, but I definitely can't compare them to figure it out. No siree, Bob! What was I thinking!



B

 

[KnightWRX]

This is the only basis of of any disagreement between us. I make a comparison, you say it can't or shouldn't be done.

I guess in your world the Mac SFF, Mac AIO and Mac Workstation represent such unique and different classes of products they can't even be compared with each other!

Of course the iMac is unparalleled and without compare, so it makes no sense to even try to compare it to a (Mac Mini + KB + Mouse + 24" Apple LED Cinema Display) system or a (Mac Pro + 30" Apple Cinema HD Display) because that would be ludicrous.

I still don't know which one is right for my application, but I definitely can't compare them to figure it out. No siree, Bob! What was I thinking!



B

You can compare them, but not as individual systems. In fact, it's a very important phase of choosing a system for yourself. First you lay out your needs, and then you choose what type of computer fits your needs best, be it a standard desktop, a laptop, a netbook, a AIO, a SFF or a Workstation. Once you have chosen the type of computer you need, then you go comparison shopping between the different offerings in the category you chose.

And that is where Apple is competitive.

Seriously, do I really need to explain to you how all of this works ? Your problem is that you want a desktop PC and that Apple doesn't sell those. You then go saying all Macs aren't good performance/price (ie they're overpriced) in an ignorant, dare I say trollish fashion.

And no the iMac isn't without compare. Dell and HP both offer AIO offerings too and Dell has even had Quad cores in them for quite a while. My local Honda dealer exclusively uses the Dell's AIO instead of cheaper XPS towers for space saving concerns at the service and parts counter. For them, the space savings are more important than brute performance.

So stop applying your needs/wants to objective comparisons. It doesn't work that way. You can't objectively claim Macs aren't good performance/price based only on your subjective criteria.

If you insist on going on with your farce, please first go to Dell.com and Apple.com, price out an iMac vs a XPS One or Studio 19 One, price out a Mac Mini vs a Studio Hybrid and price out a Mac Pro vs a Precision. Then come back and talk about price/performance ratios.

We already did the Mini together. It trumps the Studio Hybrid that is in dire need of a refresh.

 

[balamw]

Once you have chosen the type of computer you need, then you go comparison shopping between the different offerings in the category you chose.

And this remains where we differ, You are apparently able to find a perfect black and white fit for your needs and can settle on a single category.

I am not so fortunate. My real world needs can be met by machines in various categories. Compromise is always involved through to the end until a decision is made.

One of those compromises may be that I have to Hackintosh to get a machine running OS X that is in the same performance class as the high end iMac without the 27" screen. Or, I'll have to compromise my workspace to accommodate a 27" screen.

And compromise is highly subjective.

B

 

[twoodcc]

man i wonder if the tablet is the reason behind this?

 

[KnightWRX]

And this remains where we differ, You are apparently able to find a perfect black and white fit for your needs and can settle on a single category.

I am not so fortunate. My real world needs can be met by machines in various categories. Compromise is always involved through to the end until a decision is made.

One of those compromises may be that I have to Hackintosh to get a machine running OS X that is in the same performance class as the high end iMac without the 27" screen. Or, I'll have to compromise my workspace to accommodate a 27" screen.

And compromise is highly subjective.

B

OS X is not a need. No one needs OS X. Windows pretty much runs any software you might need. And if you do, then Hackintoshing is not a valid comparison option. Apple doesn't compete against the hackintosh. Thus you can't call the Macs overpriced based on that premise.

It's not that I don't agree with you, I just find you completely ignorant and trollish. You keep spouting nonsense to prove some kind of point that only exists in your head.

Macs aren't overpriced. They are competitive offerings in their own segments. If what you want is top of the line performance at a very low price with OS X, you'll be sadden to learn that no one makes this product. Apple dropped out of the consumer tower type desktop business a few years ago.

Your refusal to realise this is astounding.

 

[balamw]

I just find you completely ignorant and trollish. You keep spouting nonsense to prove some kind of point that only exists in your head.

Exactly how I feel about you, though unlike you I don't resort to ad hominem attacks.

Yet another thing we agree on! So can we move on?

B

 

[pr5owner]

that peice of garbage MBA has no swappable battery, an Asus eee pc 1000HE can get 15 hours on the 13000mAH battery (alot of other netbooks also have extended battery options)

goes with the above, CRAP BATTERY LIFE

a large 13.3" footprint

no HDMI with audio, my MSi Wind has this and it was only $400

no upgradeable HDD, both my dell and msi have upgradeable components (i can go with a 750GB 2.5" platter or a 256GB SSD the MBA has nothing)

cannot upgrade the ram, again both my netbooks can be upgraded as they have been pushed to 2GB low latency ram

no usable ports, the 1 usb port that POS has doesnt even fit my Patriot usb flash drive, what a waste.

no video ports usable out of the box, both my dell and msi can hook up to any projector via VGA

 

[cheesymogul]

that peice of garbage MBA has no swappable battery, an Asus eee pc 1000HE can get 15 hours on the 13000mAH battery (alot of other netbooks also have extended battery options)

goes with the above, CRAP BATTERY LIFE

a large 13.3" footprint

no HDMI with audio, my MSi Wind has this and it was only $400

no upgradeable HDD, both my dell and msi have upgradeable components (i can go with a 750GB 2.5" platter or a 256GB SSD the MBA has nothing)

cannot upgrade the ram, again both my netbooks can be upgraded as they have been pushed to 2GB low latency ram

no usable ports, the 1 usb port that POS has doesnt even fit my Patriot usb flash drive, what a waste.

no video ports usable out of the box, both my dell and msi can hook up to any projector via VGA

You've got some valid points there. In a 10" version I think most of these compromises would be tolerable.
But now with the 13" MBP around which offers so much more while packed in a similar form factor, the Air lost most of its attraction.
It's only 0.2 inch thinner with a similar footprint. Are 1.5 pounds of weight saving really worth all these limitations?

Currently I'm noticing tons of used Airs being offered on auction sites. I'll bet most of these people went for a MBP 13 instead.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Air bites the dust soon...
The Cube had a similar effect. Everybody went "wow" at the presentation, but only a few people actually bought that cute thing. It had too many limitations compared to the G4 towers offered for the same price. The style factor alone wasn't worth it.

But there is still hope. The Cube later evolved into the highly successful Mini. Maybe the Air will celebrate a rebirth as the ultimate Mac netbook?