MacBook Pros in High Demand, Increased Mac Market Share?

[gnasher729]

Im not asking why people would want to do it. Im asking why do you HAVE to do it. Thats what was said. 🙄

Nobody HAS to run Windows. Just as nobody HAS to run MacOS X. However:

1. There are people who can buy any computer they like (within reason) as long as it is Windows XP compatible. Some of these people buy a PC, remove Windows, and install Linux on it (buying a PC without Windows is hard); that's fine because the PC is still Windows compatible. Ok, you would have to remove Linux and reinstall Windows, but it is Windows compatible. Some of these people would love to buy a Macintosh and use MacOS X. They can if the Macintosh is Windows compatible. They can't if it is not Windows compatible. That kind of Mac will never, ever run Windows - but the fact that it is Windows compatible allows it to be bought!

2. There are people who want to run Windows and who don't give a **** about MacOS X, but they like the MacMini or the iMac. I would rather have those people buy Apple hardware than Dell hardware. You can put an iMac or MacMini in your living room. You can't do that with a Dell, at least not if you have a wife, a girlfriend, taste, or any combination of those. I would want people who want to run Windows on a computer in their living room to buy an Apple computer.

And actually, just yesterday there was a report that Windows XP on a MacBook Pro 2.16GHz is the _fastest_ way to run Windows XP on any notebook. One Acer notebook came very very close, but everything else was much slower.

3. There are people who would like to switch, but are unhappy about the risk. What if you buy a Macintosh and it turns out you don't like MacOS X? If a potential switcher knew that for $199 they can turn a Macintosh into a very fine Windows PC, that would reduce the maximum risk to $199 instead of the full price of the Macintosh. Clever purchasers check their risks as well to find out what happens if they don't like what they bought. Smaller risk of switching means more people will switch.

 

[janstett]

OSX on a Apple, I still can't see why you'd buy a superiour product and put XP or Vista (if it's EVER released) on an Apple. Anyway most of the major software packages you can get Mac versions of.

First, let me point out everybody is hung up on the supposed superiority (can you say Bose?). I see it as different, superior in some ways, inferior in others.

Anyway, what if you really DO think Apple is perfect bliss, nectar of the gods (which some of you apparently do). The OS is perfect, the hardware is perfect, the combination of the two cleans the air, cures cancer, feeds the hungry, reverses global warming, and makes baby seals giggle.

But let's say you have to have a PC. No way around it. If you don't know why by now, you have poor reading comprehension or you are in denial.

Is it not better to have XP on an Intel Mac than to have it on some other generic hardware?

And again, "most of the software packages you can get Mac versions of", are you in denial or what? People have gone to lengths to show things that don't exist on the Mac -- Autocad, Project, Access, FrontPage, Visio, et al.

 

[janstett]

That thing is a brick! Over 10lbs and 2 inches thick.

Some people want mobile desktops -- I have an HP laptop that uses a desktop Pentium 4 (good luck getting 2 hours on it) and weighs 9.5 pounds, but has a GORGEOUS 17" display. It's a desktop I can lug with me. This is bigger hammer than anything Apple offers. Weight and poor power consumption are the price.

Some people want ultra portable laptops -- I have a Thinkpad that weighs 3.2 pounds, almost half of what the 12" Powerbook weighs. This is a smaller, lighter ultraportable than anything Apple offers.

Apple isn't playing in the extremes of the laptop market. Maybe it should? Maybe it will?

 

[janstett]

Maybe I'm just old school. I think Intel should try and get one 64-bit core working right before they shoot for dual. Dual is overhyped. I don't agree there are real world benefits for a hot and power hungry CPU adding the numbers the way the 386 did it in 1987!

You are completely missing the point.

Back in the old Intel days, there was a tangible benefit in moving from 16-bit to 32-bit. 16-bit architecture meant a 64k max memory block and going beyond that meant segment-offset (like block-switching). 32-bit meant a flat address space. But the 386 had other improvements like DOS virtualization, preemption, and protected mode operation, which had nothing to do with being 32-bit.

The only tangible advantage of 64-bit processing is access to more than 4 gigabytes of RAM. The home user is not going to benefit from this now. Professional applications (databases, etc) already have hacks on the 32-bit platforms to work around this but they will benefit from > 4gb ram.

As I pointed out, a simple add of two numbers is twice as much work (registers are twice as big, twice as many operations at the flip-flop level) for zero benefit. There are exceptions, there are 64-bit ints in the 32-bit world and it's common to use them in DSP, so that could see some benefit in single-step 64-bit operations instead of going HIWORD/LOWORD. But it's very limited, and all the small int operations are wasted with a 64-bit path.

Whereas with two cores, you essentially have two parallel processors that can multitask. How is that not better than a single processor regardless of how many bits wide it is?

It's debatable whether a 64-bit processor is better than a single 32-bit processor (the performance advantages of things like the AMD64 are due more to other improvements in the design and cache, not neccessarily 64-bit operations). We don't have a 64-bit architecture that contains no improvements other than 64-bits to make the comparison. To say it's better than a dual-core is ludicrous.

Furthermore, 64-bit processors will spend most of their time running 32-bit code. Did you know large parts of Windows 95/98/ME remained 16-bit? That's because the 16-bit code was so well optimized that 32-bit code that replaced it was actually SLOWER. So they kept the optimzed 16-bit code around and partnered it with 32-bit thunking code. Also Intel had optimized the 32-bit processors up to the Pentium Pro (386/486/Pentium) for 16-bit code because that's what they spent their time running.

So, in short, there are very few tangible advantages to 64-bit code for the sake of being 64-bit. The transition will be met with a giant YAWN and things will remain 32-bit for the forseeable future. The only positive movement is with the AMD64 largely due to gaming performance.

 

[janstett]

I don't know why all this rawkus is about...windows on a mac.??!?!?
that concept is strange AND foreign to me right now.yet interesting to see two OS's operating on a MAC..
so..WILL DELL START RUNNING OSX SOON?

I have it running on a Gateway...

 

[janstett]

Never say never. If the Macs take a bigger chunk of the market anybody who cares about their market share will have to consider supporting Macs also.

First, I don't think you understand what a vertical market means -- it means proprietary inhouse applications, things that happen behind the curtains. You think UPS is going to rewrite its internal package tracking applications for the Mac OS?

Ignoring that and talking about mainstream apps -- what market share would have to be achieved for that to be possible? 10%? 20%? 50%? 90%? If the Mac were to hit 50% I still don't see EVERY application being ported. For this to happen, Microsoft would have to IMPLODE/COLLAPSE (which would open the door for Linux more than it would for Mac OS) and Apple would have to scoop up the 90% market share. Good luck. Not going to happen. Even if it did, organizations would take time to transition. There are organizations still using OS/2 even though it's been dead for 10 years, precisely because they don't just throw out their applications on a dime.

Until they do some of their customers will have both and I can speak for myself, I would be very happy to switch to Mac and have no Windows at all. As it happens I can, and I will switch to Mac completely by the end of the year.

Good for you. For those of us who have work to do that involves applications that DO NOT EXIST on the Mac, we can't do it.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

First, let me point out everybody is hung up on the supposed superiority (can you say Bose?). I see it as different, superior in some ways, inferior in others.

Anyway, what if you really DO think Apple is perfect bliss, nectar of the gods (which some of you apparently do). The OS is perfect, the hardware is perfect, the combination of the two cleans the air, cures cancer, feeds the hungry, reverses global warming, and makes baby seals giggle.

But let's say you have to have a PC. No way around it. If you don't know why by now, you have poor reading comprehension or you are in denial.

Is it not better to have XP on an Intel Mac than to have it on some other generic hardware?

The point I was trying to make you can get most software packages for a Mac now anyway, and unless you have a massive collection of PC software it would be better if you bought a Mac and the Mac version of PC software to go with it (e.g. MS Office).

It also seems inane to a certain extent to spend big on a MacBooK Pro and turn it into "another" Windows machines. The majority of the software out there you can easily get a Mac versions of (there are some exception I know.... 3D Studio MAX, I use PCs a lot for that software). I would much prefer a Mac with a Mac versions of Windows software than Windows XP with Windows software. The Windows thing on a Mac could be useful for people who use both Mac OSX and Windows but a person buying a Mac just to put Windows XP on it is redundant.

Personally I have had far less problems with Apple than I have had with the numerous Dells, HP, Compaqs and Osbornes I have used over the years, that's why I'm sold on the Apple thing. I find with Mac OSX there is far less software maintenance compared to any Windows system and so far I have had basicly no problems with Apple hardware (just a memory issue).

I never said the Mac OSX was perfect, it has it's perks like kernal panics, but from using Apple, Linux and numerous Windows PCs Apple is definantly a better choice, hence a better overall product.

 

[YunusEmre]

First, I don't think you understand what a vertical market means -- it means proprietary inhouse applications, things that happen behind the curtains. You think UPS is going to rewrite its internal package tracking applications for the Mac OS?

They do not have to re-write. Just mostly re-compile. Do you think UPS likes to keep updating their PCs, servers with security pataches every day?

There will be a lot of folks who only know Mac, training them to use Windows is not always practical. They typically only need to learn a single application, but it helps if they can perform other simple tasks on the computer without supervision. Now there are proprietary hardware that the software runs on or uses it for somekind of I/O, those are not going to switch to Mac. Outside of those, vertical or horizantal, Apple can grab market share and those companies who provide software for the vertical/horizontal markets will have to acknowledge that. They are in businiess to make money and they cannot ignore a big chunk of the market.

For this to happen, Microsoft would have to IMPLODE/COLLAPSE (which would open the door for Linux more than it would for Mac OS) and Apple would have to scoop up the 90% market share. Good luck.

Never say never, again 😉

Not going to happen. Even if it did, organizations would take time to transition. There are organizations still using OS/2 even though it's been dead for 10 years, precisely because they don't just throw out their applications on a dime.

Right, it is going to take time. Nobody is saying this is going to happen by next Tuesday 🙂 I am not saying Apple can grab 90% of the market (of any type). But they can start stealing some of the pie from others.

Good for you. For those of us who have work to do that involves applications that DO NOT EXIST on the Mac, we can't do it.

If you want to use a Mac instead complain about it. From time to time I have to use Windows (at work also), but we all know we would be more efficient if it was more reliable and would love use Mac or Linux instead.

 

[Multimedia]

OS X Running On A Gateway?

Originally Posted by oaksteez SM
I don't know why all this rawkus is about...windows on a mac.??!?!?
that concept is strange AND foreign to me right now.yet interesting to see two OS's operating on a MAC..
so..WILL DELL START RUNNING OSX SOON?

I have it running on a Gateway...

OS X? How? 😱 😕

 

[janstett]

They do not have to re-write. Just mostly re-compile.

I take it you don't write code for a living. Or a hobby.

Does Mac OS all of a sudden work with the Windows and OS/2 APIs and nobody told me? Recompiling will work if you write ANSI-compliant console mode "Hello World" applications, which most applications are not. Anything that is a GUI program is most decidedly NOT cross platform (the only exceptions are Java, cross-platform toolkits like QT, and now people have ported Microsoft's .NET framework to Linux and Mac OS).

Writing cross-platform code is HARD. I spent the last two years writing server code that works on Linux and Windows. It's a lot of hard work to make it work in both places. And other than an HTTP server, there is no GUI code involved. Writing cross-platform GUI code is impossible without a 3rd party toolkit.

Do you think UPS likes to keep updating their PCs, servers with security pataches every day?

The reason I said UPS is because I worked for them in the 1993-1995 timeframe, when I wrote code for OS/2 2.0 and Novell Netware 3. The heavy lifting is done by big iron IBM mainframes, stuff that makes even the best XServe blades look like tinker toys. A friend of mine who worked there at the same time as me returned to the place as an external salesman, and tells me the code we wrote is still in use some 10+ years later and they look at us as legends for writing it.

They didn't port that OS/2 code to Windows or Linux, what makes you think they're going to port it to the Mac?

OS/2 is secure-by-obscurity like the Mac, not to mention it is DEAD. They don't spend any time updating their PCs with security patches.

And what would be the cost of replacing all those PCs with Macs?

There will be a lot of folks who only know Mac, training them to use Windows is not always practical.

I find that hard to believe as Windows is so ubiquitous. In fact, most people say they chose the Mac because they know how frustrating Windows is. To make that assessment, they must have used Windows. And if it's really that much of a problem for a Mac user to learn to use Windows, go to www.portraitofakite.com or www.winosx.com. You can make your PC look and work 99% like a Mac, and it runs your Windows software you need. It's almost the best of both worlds. If I were a Mac user who just had to have a PC, I'd use flyakite.

 

[janstett]

OS X? How? 😱 😕

http://maxxuss.org/index.html

 

[YunusEmre]

I take it you don't write code for a living. Or a hobby.

I have been in software business for over 15 years and I know it is not easy to move from one OS to another. I know there would be a lot of resistance to it. I also know the shortcomings of the existing system would come up regularly and typical conversation would go like this "well sir if you want people to be able to do that we need to upgrade our OS/system". It is a two way street. Companies have to consider upside and risks as well as the cost of such a move. And I totaly understand a compnay like UPS or whatever would be very reluctant to make such a change. But that does not mean all will do the same. It does not mean one day that company will not be forced to upgrade their system for other practical reasons (such as the H/W or S/W are no longer supported by their manufacturer).

Does Mac OS all of a sudden work with the Windows and OS/2 APIs and nobody told me? Recompiling will work if you write ANSI-compliant console mode "Hello World" applications, which most applications are not. Anything that is a GUI program is most decidedly NOT cross platform (the only exceptions are Java, cross-platform toolkits like QT, and now people have ported Microsoft's .NET framework to Linux and Mac OS).

Writing cross-platform code is HARD. I spent the last two years writing server code that works on Linux and Windows. It's a lot of hard work to make it work in both places. And other than an HTTP server, there is no GUI code involved. Writing cross-platform GUI code is impossible without a 3rd party toolkit.

Yes you are right about cross platform support. But POSIX has been around since the mid 80s and I suspect some of the code used complies with POSIX or very close to it. I understand a part of their existing code will require some work. And it means cost and risk. So companies will shy away from it. But at the same time there will be software vendors who've developed software that can be used on Macs. Again, I am not saying all major vendors are going to do this. But I can see it happening over time. As the obsolete systems become impossible to maintain and support they have to move. I sure hope Apple can get a good chunk of this market. But I agree, when there is Linux it would be hard to sell a Mac. But when it comes to larger scales like we are talking about a deal could be struck.

 

[janstett]

Yes you are right about cross platform support. But POSIX has been around since the mid 80s and I suspect some of the code used complies with POSIX or very close to it.

Well, yeah, SOME code is POSIX, but the problem is (1) POSIX is so watered down to be "compatible" everywhere that it doesn't doo too much that's useful and certainly not anything involving a GUI, and (2) Microsoft's POSIX implementation isn't very compelling. It's basically there to get Windows in the door of government shops, which require POSIX support as a checkbox. There are other technologies to help bridge the gap but they aren't changing the world. For example, Microsoft actually has a Linux subsystem for Windows called "Windows Services for Unix" or something like that, it basically gives Windows a Linux personality and all the Linux tools. There's also Cygwin, which gives you all the Linux tools on Windows; finally there is MinGW which gives you the Linux tools as well. I used the latter with FFMPEG on Windows. But these don't address the GUI, there is no X Windows in Windows (by default).

Just for example, the project I was discussing on Linux/Windows was targeted to be as cross platform as possible using POSIX calls where possible, but one area that stuck out was the socket implementation, we had to do some special tricks on Windows and resort to evil #ifdef statements. The project was more of a daemon or behind the scenes application with the only "public" face being a web interface for configuration.

So POSIX isn't really going to be any help with any interactive user application such as the missing ones we're discussing, AutoCad, Project, Visio, etc.

My hopes there are:

(1) Apple will bring "yellow box" to life, so you can create a Mac application with XTools and be able to also run it on Windows.

(2) Individuals have gone through the trouble to port Microsoft's .NET architecture including a CLR for the Mac, and it's called Portable .NET (it's called MONO on Linux). This lets you write an app on Windows using Visual Studio .NET and you can get it to work on Mac and Linux.

 

[airkarol]

I'll be getting mine this week.

 

[Di9it8]

MacBook Pros

I advised a friend to buy an MBP on Wednesday, and we went and bought one from John Lewis Ox St that morning🙂