Jump to content

petition for apple to release unrestricted operating system


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21
track09

track09

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts

This would never happen...ever. If it ever happens....hell will freeze over, and there WILL be flying pigs. Think about it, Apple's credibility as having the most safest, realiable OS, and stylisticly desgined hardware will be shattered if they ever release the OS to all the usual computer manufacturers. I hope that day never comes.



Safest, no. Reliable, hell no.
Look at the safety reports. Not only is Windows arguably better in some respects, FreeBSD is way more secure. Reliable, far from it, look at all the bricks each update causes on the legitimate macs. Rosetta and compatibility problems, oh please. Great OS, but don't listen to whatever Jobs says.

#22
ResX

ResX

    InsanelyHack

  • Retired
  • 818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Art, Music, People, Macs

Safest, no. Reliable, hell no.
Look at the safety reports. Not only is Windows arguably better in some respects, FreeBSD is way more secure. Reliable, far from it, look at all the bricks each update causes on the legitimate macs. Rosetta and compatibility problems, oh please. Great OS, but don't listen to whatever Jobs says.


PPhhsshhaaa, Windows Fanboys.... ;)
I'm not even gonna waste my breath...

Ok, the thread is about releasing Mac OS X for *snickers* PCs with no *snickers* TPM, not about how Windows is "aguably better" and how FreeBSD is "way more secure".

Whatever.

#23
Alessandro17

Alessandro17

    Retired Administrator

  • Supervisors
  • 8,488 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sector 001, Italy

This would never happen...ever.


Never is a very long time.
Stranger things have happened. Wasn't every Mac fan sure that a move to Intel would never happen?
As I explained in post #9, SJ is showing a catastrophic short sightedness right now.
Macs as they are now can only appeal to the existing Mac aficionados, and maybe a few more.
With a few changes SJ could extend Apple market share beyond your wildest dreams.
And please don't tell me that market share doesn't matter: explain that to Microsoft.

#24
track09

track09

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts

PPhhsshhaaa, Windows Fanboys.... <_<
I'm not even gonna waste my breath...

Ok, the thread is about releasing Mac OS X for *snickers* PCs with no *snickers* TPM, not about how Windows is "aguably better" and how FreeBSD is "way more secure".

Whatever.


Look at your posts, you're nothing short of a Mac fanboy either. I'm not a Windows fanboy, it's Mac fanboys like you that {censored} me off, saying Macs are suddenly going to make a revolution, and everyone will start using them. Get off your high horse, most people like Windows, as it's cheaper and familiar.

#25
EFI

EFI

    Photoshop CS3 Elite

  • Retired
  • 629 posts
  • Location:A galaxy far, far away...(Canada)

...
And please don't tell me that market share doesn't matter...


But it doesn't...if that were the case, Mercedes and BMW would not be the top (for the average user). And also would you say the quality of Microsoft's products are reflective of their market share( it could be a yes..but ill go with no)? You would think that they would want to make quality products in order to maintain their userbase...but thats seriously not the case. Yes, Apple has a very small userbase...but its the outcome and the end results that matter ultimately.



Get off your high horse, most people like Windows, as it's cheaper and familiar.


You have the Stolkholm Syndrome my friend...the stolkholm syndrome.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#26
Alessandro17

Alessandro17

    Retired Administrator

  • Supervisors
  • 8,488 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sector 001, Italy

most people like Windows


That is extremely difficult to prove. In fact most people I know detest Windows, especially the ones who have tried Vista.
If you say though that most people will use whatever OS comes with their computer, would never dream trying anything else, especially Macs which in Europe are twice as expensive as PCs, you sound more credible.
But tell them that there is a nice, free OS (Linux) or a hacked, pirated one (OS X) which will run on their existing computer without any extra cost, and you'll be amazed how many are willing to listen.


But it doesn't...if that were the case, Mercedes and BMW would not be the top (for the average user). And also would you say the quality of Microsoft's products are reflective of their market share( it could be a yes..but ill go with no)? You would think that they would want to make quality products in order to maintain their userbase...but thats seriously not the case. Yes, Apple has a very small userbase...but its the outcome and the end results that matter ultimately.


Well. let me try to explain something, once and forever.
There are two kinds of users:
1)Ordinary ones: they'll get a computer they can afford, maybe recommended by a shop assistant or by a friend or relative.
The *vast* majority of them is likely to buy a PC.
2)Geeks: the majority of them aren't just software geeks, but also hardware geeks. Try and convince them to buy something pretty standard as most Mac Intels at twice the price they would spend if they chose the parts and built it themselves.
The comparison with Mercedes and BMW is old and it doesn't work any longer. If you want to compare a computer with top car brands, you are looking at something self built or maybe like Alienware.
A good OS on itself doesn't justify selling computers at twice the price.
And besides most of us dual or multiple boot with Linux or Windows.
The old stereotype of a Mac user running OS X only on superior hardware doesn't work anymore.

#27
EFI

EFI

    Photoshop CS3 Elite

  • Retired
  • 629 posts
  • Location:A galaxy far, far away...(Canada)

Well. let me try to explain something, once and forever.
There are two kinds of users:
1)Ordinary ones: they'll get a computer they can afford, maybe recommended by a shop assistant or by a friend or relative.
The *vast* majority of them is likely to buy a PC.
2)Geeks: the majority of them aren't just software geeks, but also hardware geeks. Try and convince them to buy something pretty standard as most Mac Intels at twice the price they would spend if they chose the parts and built it themselves.
The comparison with Mercedes and BMW is old and it doesn't work any longer. If you want to compare a computer with top car brands, you are looking at something self built or maybe like Alienware.
A good OS on itself doesn't justify selling computers at twice the price.
And besides most of us dual or multiple boot with Linux or Windows.
The old stereotype of a Mac user running OS X only on superior hardware doesn't work anymore.


I'm not saying OS X is perfect...nor Apple. But what I am trying to say is the quality of the end product that you receive, which is less with Windows. I too dualboot windows (XP)...and will openly admit that OS X sucks at gaming (even though it has "some" popular games). Windows has such a vast library of games that OS X cant compete with....but thats pretty much it, thats the only factor in which Windows shines that OS X does not.

Why do you say that the comparison between Mercedes and BMW is old and doesnt matter? Its the same niche market both the scenarios right? Its not like the majority is all of a sudden driving Benzs' and Beamers right? or that the price of both the car manufacturers have gone down to say that this statement is old and does not work any longer.

In regards to the price issue..most macs now are cheaper than Dells, when you configure them equally. This has already been proven with the MacPros, which are cheaper than Dells of equivalent hardware, so this theory that Macs are double the price is not true at all. No other laptop maker out there offer ambient light sensors for screen dimming, and keyboard backlighting, and definately not a motion sensor for disabling the hard-drive head to prevent data damage....and not many laptops out there have a 15" screen and is only 1" thin. The closest to that measurement are sony vaios...dells are the most far off out of all of them, and same with HP to some degree.

The operating system (OS X) is not worth "double the price" of the entire system because its not priced that way....but its definatelly worh more than a $499 Windows Vista, which does not even come close to performing as what hte price says it should. OS X has always been $130, while even the cheapes version of windows (which doesnt have Aero and all the other effects and even features) right now sells for $199. So how could you possibly be justifying the Windows's value over OS X's?

Excluding OS X 86, Mac Users never ran OS X on superior hardware, it was always above the industry medium..but not bleeding edge or anything like that. As far as I know, the only company that still weighs...looks, functionality, and price equally is Apple. All other manufacturers have one or the other higher or lower.

my 2 cents. <_<

#28
Alessandro17

Alessandro17

    Retired Administrator

  • Supervisors
  • 8,488 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sector 001, Italy

In regards to the price issue..most macs now are cheaper than Dells, when you configure them equally. This has already been proven with the MacPros, which are cheaper than Dells of equivalent hardware, so this theory that Macs are double the price is not true at all.


Not sure about Dell (I'd never buy one), but I can prove that I can build a Mac Pro equivalent for half the price (using a core 2 quad). That will be especially true once the Intel prices go down dramatically in quarter 3.

#29
glassJAw

glassJAw

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts
HAHAHAHAHA If this pulled through it would be a corporate suicide.


Of course you can build a computer cheaper then a MacPro, but that is unfair to compare to Apple. You can build a computer cheaper then a Dell as well...

You have to compare 2 built systems from companies, not a DIY.

#30
Alessandro17

Alessandro17

    Retired Administrator

  • Supervisors
  • 8,488 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sector 001, Italy

Of course you can build a computer cheaper then a MacPro, but that is unfair to compare to Apple. You can build a computer cheaper then a Dell as well...

You have to compare 2 built systems from companies, not a DIY.


You are right: you can't compare. Computers built by companies are utter rubbish when compared to those built with every single component chosen for quality.

#31
EFI

EFI

    Photoshop CS3 Elite

  • Retired
  • 629 posts
  • Location:A galaxy far, far away...(Canada)

You are right: you can't compare. Computers built by companies are utter rubbish when compared to those built with every single component chosen for quality.


Thats true. Thats exactly why I have a custom PC with XP just for gaming. It feels much better when you custom build your PC. There is a great satisfaction.

#32
track09

track09

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
Actually, most people could care less about their operating system. Most people are content with the way Xp works.

Anyway, give me a mid range desktop mac, with a DVD burner, 1 G of RAM, Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz, GMA 950, 19" Widescreen, and 320GB HDD for the $589 I paid for my gateway. When you do, I'll switch. Till then, don't profess a point that isn't true.

No mid tower, the cheap macs are basically overhyped laptops.

#33
elvira

elvira

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Most people are content with the way Xp works.

Most people are ignorant of any other way of doing things. They're used to being terrified of viruses, frequent updates, and all the other things that come with XP.

I know a lot of you are power users, but I am not. (I'm an intermediate Windows and Mac user.) Most people I know are not even intermediate users. They just want to get on the Internet, play music, videos, do word processing, and perhaps make graphics and video projects. If they were persuaded to use a Mac over a PC, they'd be equally happy, if not more so.

I'd say that there are many (many many many) computer users who are at my skill level or lower. I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of computer users are at my skill level or lower.

One of my online friends was a longtime PC user, but was recently given an iMac as a gift. She was unimpressed at first and didn't think she'd need it. Until she started using it. Then she never wanted to go back. The amazing work she does in iMovie has made the iMac worth it to her.

Most of the people I know (again, these are NOT power users) are basically easily led when it comes to computers. They're easily cowed into choosing the same computer that their friends/relatives use. They're too afraid to branch out and try something new—they'll get all sorts of flak for it if they do. So they stick with XP, just because they have some tenuous grasp on how it works, and because all their friends use it. And because they know if they dare to switch to something else, they'll get grief for it.

I'm not saying that every XP user fits the above description. But oh my word. Many I come in contact with do. I was one of these people at one time. (Though I wasn't quite as timid as some of them.) I asked some more computer savvy friends about Macs—I got hyperbole and untruths, and basically a horrified, "OMG!!1! YOU CAN'T USE A MAC!!!1!" (Okay, not quite that extreme, but I got hyperbole and untruths.) I dared to try out a Mac anyway. I liked it. I got more flak.

Switching away from Windows is not that easy when there's a lot of peer pressure. That doesn't mean that people are all "content" with Windows XP. (Note that I'm not saying that XP is bad. I'm just saying that "content" isn't quite the right word for the kinds of people I'm talking about. "Resigned," "ignorant of the alternatives," or "not willing to fight the peer pressure" might be more accurate in some cases.)

#34
Ferret-Simpson

Ferret-Simpson

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:EXETER

But tell them that there is a nice, free OS (Linux) or a hacked, pirated one (OS X) which will run on their existing computer without any extra cost, and you'll be amazed how many are willing to listen.



Um. Very few?

Users rarely want to switch. They have MANY reasons.

Family computers: They want to be able to use CD-Roms from magazines, play a few games, download the odd program, etc etc etc.

Office computers: Linux etc are free. Training people to USE them is expensive. Even similar software (Openoffice, formerly Sun Starofice) Are not identical and the smallest changes can confuse inexperienced users.

Kids Computers: Games.

Then there's support. Let me put it like this: Most of my University's TV station (Xtv) know that a Mac would be best for them to use. However, they get free parts and labour from the University for PC's - and the Technician that ofers them this will not touch Macs. And they do go wrong, especially in a place full of dodgy wiring and precariously placed props.

Track, you're being antisocial again, and this time careless to boot.

WINDOWS IS NOT CHEAPER. Retail boxed - Windows comes at a far higher price. Apple Computers can be had for small money - The Mac Mini for example, but people have to purcahse the peripherals. That in itself puts many people off. From Dell, PC world, you get everything for one price.

FreeBSD is far more secure than Windows, and reasonably more secure than Mac OS X. OpenBSD is essentially "Completely" secure from install. It's also bugger all use to anyone without at least 6 months of very heavy UNIX experience. Mac OS X happens to be the only UNIX currently available with Applications, Simplicity and Security in well balanced doses. Windows has {censored} security, Solaris has no applications and no typical UNIX/LINUX is easy to use. Some are moderately easy, such as Ubuntu and Gentoo - They're even getting close to full on simplicity, but technologically speaking, they're still a generation behind Vista, Sabayon, DreamLinux, MacOS.

On the note of comparison between manufacturers, and with DIY - To think that a Core 2 Quad is comparable with twin Xeons is ludicrous. They're not. Xeons are by far the better chip, otherwise they wouldn't bother selling them, certainly not at an increased price.

the 1.4GHZ Wintel Vs the 1.25 Mac Mini? Of course the mini will outstrip it! A 1.4 x86 is based on a very different design than a G4 and is years behind it, technologically speaking. a 1.25 G4 is comparable to a 2.5 or 2.6 ghz previous generation Single Core P4. Now that the Multicore Pentium-M based processors are everywhere, such as the new Xeons and Core 1/2 Duo chips there is no way to reasonably compare. We need to wait till the PA Semi Power Architecture chips are out to compare, and by then we'll almost be on the verge of the Megascale 50 and 80 core intel chips.

#35
Soliber

Soliber

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

Look at your posts, you're nothing short of a Mac fanboy either. I'm not a Windows fanboy, it's Mac fanboys like you that {censored} me off, saying Macs are suddenly going to make a revolution, and everyone will start using them. Get off your high horse, most people like Windows, as it's cheaper and familiar.

I know this has been said already but I can't help myself
130$<--------->200$+
Even the cheapest Vista, which is even arguably rightfully called Vista (no Aero for example), is more expensive than OS X. And I'm not even talking about the difference in potential between the two.
And familiarity? You do not need familiarity if you're working with OS X. Everything is just so bloody easy compared to everything else, that even the die-hard novices of computers in general, would feel right at home.
I mean, most of the time, one single file for an entire program. Bloody fantastic ^^ I've just recently bought a MacBook Pro, and the only time I use Win XP is through Parallels if I have to use Maple of Together Architect or so. I hardly ever boot Win XP natively on that MacBook anymore >_>
Though I am quite accustomed to Win XP, and I still like it, I like OS X far better :)
But I agree, most of Apple's computers are a tad to expensive. Instead of pushing them to release OS X (which would be nice though), it would make more sense to slash their prices down for 100-200€ or so. I do feel that 2000€ for a Macbook Pro is somewhat too expensive, 1800€ would be more on the mark. And that would probably make a lot more people convince to go Mac.

#36
Ferret-Simpson

Ferret-Simpson

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:EXETER
No, the Macbook Pro is far more than 200 euros overpriced.

The issue here, is in comparing the Macbook Pro (esentially a gaming/multimedia notebook) with models from the common notebook manufacturers, e.g. -

Fujitsu(-Siemens),
Acer,
Hewlett Packard/Compaq,
Dell,
And multiple others, including MSI.

What do you notice? "Big jump" features like the big screen and advanced PCI-E GPU are considered standard features at the pricerange of the MacBook. The Macbook is a valuable product - the small form factor and "Apple" styling make it an essential product for th Apple Range. But it should be around £100 to £200 cheaper, and the MacBook Pro should be at the MacBook prices.

#37
EFI

EFI

    Photoshop CS3 Elite

  • Retired
  • 629 posts
  • Location:A galaxy far, far away...(Canada)
well, you also have to consider things on the MBP such as a good resolution camera (compared to the mediocre average in the PC market)...ambient light sensors that enable automatic keyboard backlighting, and a motion sensor that detaches the HD head to prevent HD damage and data loss. And everything is under 1" thin. Its these little things that you have to take into consideration for the final price.

#38
Sabi

Sabi

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
Apple ca'n't do it..it wont be special anymore if they do...

#39
Houli-Mouli

Houli-Mouli

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Just Joined
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
I did read all through this thread today because I am close to buy a MacPro.
When I saw the statement that Apple should be twice as expensive than a Dell or HP I can tell you that you are definitely wrong.
A Dell and an Hp are both more expensive when you build the system exactly like the Apple and the huge difference is not just the price but also the software functions coming with a plain package.

Xeon Dual 2,66
4 GB DDR2/677
250GB
Care protection
Quadro FX4500
Dell: Windows Pro XP Only

No other features selected.
Apple around 5600€
Dell around 7400€

So what is with the factor "2" ?? Its all bollocks.


I am a Windows power user ever since and I'd never have thought that I might change one time but now the time has come. Vista is not like I thought it was going to be and the stability is more than {censored}.
I'll wait for Leopard and then I'll catch my copy of it.

#40
.ark

.ark

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
Haha, this was good for a laugh on an otherwise mundane day.

The Apple Product entry in the PC market is a specific construction of hardware and software. It's about scope. Apple doesn't make operating systems for PCs. The Mac "Solution" is both a hardware and software one.

So if you say "But I don't want OS X" the response is "Don't buy a Mac". There's nothing anticompetitive involved.

That's one of the problems with PCs... too much hardware. I'm pretty sure Linux could take off in an amazing direction if it didn't try to support every piece of hardware ever built.

Wait, that's what Apple did. Nevermind.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2017 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy