Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mhollis · Jun 8, 2005, 11:34 AM

MacNN quoted an article from Gundeep Hora in today's news. He wrote of Possible Doom for Mac OS X on x86

I wrote the following to the author of the article:

I appreciate your article, which was quoted, in part on MacNN (http://macnn.com/) today.

I would like to offer a couple of cogent arguments as follows:

Apple did allow clones some time ago and it caused considerable problems with their bottom line. No matter what, Apple needs to keep profits up and their software just isn't as profitable as their hardware. You can sell a Cadillac for a lot more than an engine for a Cadillac, and Apple's bottom line canot exist on the slimmer profit margin of their software "engine."

So, when you wrote: "if Apple remains loyal to its hardware business, it will never know the potential revenue to be had from "OS X for PC" sales." you were essentially ignoring your own argument: "if Apple were to make the decision to become a software company and market its OS independently, it may very well prove to be devastating."

This is old ground, already covered by Apple during the "clone wars." Apple, under Jobs, will never be a software-only company.

Here's a bit of research worth pursuing:

Companies like Avid and Autodesk employ "dongles" that keep people from pirating their software. I have never heard of a "dongle penetration" that would allow someone to run an Avid Media Composer or Autodesk AutoCAD workstation on a computer that does not have a dongle. You might look at that.

Additionally, Intel's DRM code that is hard-wired into its processor might be the means by which Apple secures its Mac hardware and I doubt that it could be penetrated easily (were Apple to also include a proprietary ROM chip that is tied to it).

Lastly, you are ignoring the significance of Apple's advanced hardware that is not available on the Wintel boxes: Apple's Dual G-5 mini-towers benefit from IBM's proprietary mainframe bus configuration that features 128-bit access to RAM. This allows the RAM speed to be much slower (and cheaper) than that of the Wintel boxes while at the same time increases the speed of access to system memory. This is at the heart of Apple's innovation to make their products stand out.

I am writing this on a G4-400 that has been upgraded to 1MHz. It's a single-processor model. With the exception of Apple's Shake and Motion, I can run any current application on my Macintosh and I can run their latest operating system. I purchased the computer in 1999 and it will last for 7 years (when I shall look to Apple's new class of Intel-based products.

I know of no Wintel machine that is useful for that period of time. If you can run Windows XP Professional on a seven-year-old pee cee, it's slow and cranky, suffers from configuration headaches and is useful only for simple word processing, spreadsheet and internet work. Generally, one replaces a pee cee every three years (the company for which I work will need to do that soon), a Mac is good to go for a lot longer.

So when you suggest that Windows pee cees are "costing a fraction of the price" that is false. By my estimate, I saved a lot of money in purchasing a Mac. The initial outlay was more but the superior quality of a computer from a top-tier manufacturer that actually innovates in hardware (as opposed to innovates in purchasing on the commodity market as companies like Gateway do) saves money in the long run.

Additionally, the Apple user-installed base supports my contention, from http://www.wizzardsoftware.com/Inves...s/2005/141.htm Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs.

One in five is a larger market share than any number currently bounced around because the figures quoted are based on sales, not how long people are liable to keep a computer after buying it. Since Macs are kept longer than Wintel pee cees, more people use Macs than one might suppose and those users are saving money over the purchase of a Wintel box because of the length of the usefulness of the Macintosh computer.

Will this continue when Apple shifts to Intel? Hmm ... That sounds like a good topic for a column.

I did not want to offer you a diatribe on your article, which raises excellent points (Apple will struggle to keep their boxes proprietary and hackers all around the world will try to penetrate Apple's armor) but you wrote some things based on false premises.

OreoCookie · Jun 8, 2005, 11:58 AM

Sorry, wrong forum.

RAILhead · Jun 8, 2005, 12:00 PM

Lord have mercy, HOW MANY MAC ON INTEL THREADS MUST WE PUT UP WITH?!?!?!?

starman · Jun 8, 2005, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Lord have mercy, HOW MANY MAC ON INTEL THREADS MUST WE PUT UP WITH?!?!?!?

Eleventy Billion

JoshuaZ · Jun 8, 2005, 12:14 PM

He he he, he upgraded his 400 G4 to a 1mhz. Thats quite an upgrade. I bet it plays quake real well.

Person Man · Jun 8, 2005, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Eleventy Billion

...until things quiet down in two weeks, then things will get back to normal until the first Intel based Mac ships... then it will be just like any other new Mac announcement... eleventy billion new threads, threads getting locked, and people getting upset at the Moderators.

turtle777 · Jun 8, 2005, 03:44 PM

IBL.

-t

wdlove · Jun 8, 2005, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

He he he, he upgraded his 400 G4 to a 1mhz. Thats quite an upgrade. I bet it plays quake real well.

I would call that a massive downgrade.

olePigeon · Jun 8, 2005, 04:10 PM

I'll show you gaming on 1MHz...

Ultima V and Karateka, baby!

Randman · Jun 8, 2005, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Lord have mercy, HOW MANY MAC ON INTEL THREADS MUST WE PUT UP WITH?!?!?!?

Especially mentioning someone's blog or something. Who is this person?

mhollis · Jun 15, 2005, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

He he he, he upgraded his 400 G4 to a 1mhz. Thats quite an upgrade. I bet it plays quake real well.

Actually, Quake functions more as a result of a high-end graphics chip than it does processor power but I hve to admit, I don't play Quake. Or Duke Nukem or any of the POV "flinch" games. I used to play Mechwarrior on it but that was when I had time to kill.

The real reason why I switched from a Windoze pee cee to a Mac was to get my work done. I was always messing around with my Windoze box to try to get it to work and it didn't very well. The G4-400 was my second Mac.

Since I don't write (software, manuals or PR) for the people who make Quake, I don't play it. What I do sometimes requires Final Cut Pro, though I usually find myself working on something that Avid makes.

But I do get your point. My old Macintosh cannot run the current crop of processor and graphics card-intensive personal shooter games with anything near high frame rates. But niether can a three-year-old pee cee.

ReggieX · Jun 15, 2005, 02:11 PM

I've run the After Effects Production Bundle on MacOS 8 and 9 using a dongle emulator that's just an Extension. The thing's been around since the Cosa/System 7 days, and works just fine on the later systems.

ReggieX · Jun 15, 2005, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by mhollis

But I do get your point. My old Macintosh cannot run the current crop of processor and graphics card-intensive personal shooter games with anything near high frame rates. But niether can a three-year-old pee cee.

You totally missed his point. 1 megahertz?

Chuckit · Jun 15, 2005, 02:15 PM

What did he upgrade it from? 500 Hz?

starman · Jun 15, 2005, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by mhollis

But I do get your point. My old Macintosh cannot run the current crop of processor and graphics card-intensive personal shooter games with anything near high frame rates. But niether can a three-year-old pee cee.

Define "three year old pee cee". What was out 3 years ago? I know for a fact my machine, which is three years old, runs UT2K4 at fluid framerates (ATI X800 Pro video card). It runs WoW, EQ1, EQ2, Doom 3, and all other games just fine. Why? Because it's 2.53 GHz which was out three years ago.

Even the 1.4 GHz P4 was introduced in 11/2000.

Mike

mitchell_pgh · Jun 15, 2005, 04:22 PM

To be honest, a new Mac generally can't play any games nearly as well as a PC.

Dollar for dollar, a PC will always win in games. I'm not saying the mac can't play... but I'm not going to sugar coat the issue.

James L · Jun 15, 2005, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by mhollis

Actually, Quake functions more as a result of a high-end graphics chip than it does processor power but I hve to admit, I don't play Quake. Or Duke Nukem or any of the POV "flinch" games. I used to play Mechwarrior on it but that was when I had time to kill.

The real reason why I switched from a Windoze pee cee to a Mac was to get my work done. I was always messing around with my Windoze box to try to get it to work and it didn't very well. The G4-400 was my second Mac.

Since I don't write (software, manuals or PR) for the people who make Quake, I don't play it. What I do sometimes requires Final Cut Pro, though I usually find myself working on something that Avid makes.

But I do get your point. My old Macintosh cannot run the current crop of processor and graphics card-intensive personal shooter games with anything near high frame rates. But niether can a three-year-old pee cee.

The reason people are goofing is because you said you upgraded your 400 machine to a 1 Mhz machine.... that is an amazingly huge downgrade of your machine.

I think you meant to say you upgraded your 400 Mhz machine to 1 Ghz!

PacHead · Jun 15, 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

To be honest, a new Mac generally can't play any games nearly as well as a PC.

Dollar for dollar, a PC will always win in games. I'm not saying the mac can't play... but I'm not going to sugar coat the issue.

That makes sense, since most games are made for the PC to begin with. The Mac people have to do a decent job of porting it, and even then it makes sense that it won't match the original.

The biggest downside to Mac gaming is the fact that there's nobody to freakin' play with. The last Mac game I bought was not too bad, but when there's 6 people worldwide who play the same Mac game online at any one time, it kind of sucks in a major way.

Give me the Mactel, and say goodbye to porting of games ! I will buy the PC version of the game 1 year earlier than it comes out for Mac. It will run better and the most important thing, I'll be able to play with tons of people, unlike today. Imagine the huge library of past PC titles that will automatically be available on the Mactel. (I hope. . . . . )