[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuroraProject /img/forum/go_quote.gif Slow first gen Core Duo?? I have a 2.16ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro and it's still plenty fast, even at 18 months old. After I installed Leopard it got faster! Not sure what you do with your comp, but the Core Duo is definitely not slow.

it is when you're limited to 2GB of ram, especially when integrated graphics is figured in. parallels requires a ton of memory to run its best...is the core duo 2.0 slow to do most daily stuff? well, no. but it is slow when you're trying to run a virtualization environment simply b/c i'm limited to 2GB of ram. with the newer core 2 duo models i can go up to 4GB of ram, which makes things a lot nicer.

 

[ruZZ.il]

Its perfect for someone like my father, he travels a lot, and all he does is e-mail, web, spreadsheets and the likes.. he has actually been ripping a selected few of his cd's lately, and watching some media.. the furthest he ever pushes his new macbook is while running virtualization for a few minutes here and there due to some sites incompatibility, which is slowly becoming less of an issue as the percentage of explorer browsers is dropping. He's most likely getting a MBA soon, and hand his 3 month old macbook down to my sister.. it was kind of my plan to convert the whole family

life is so much easier now.. literally. being the mac mr. fixit is usually just an app recommendation or something.. beats being mr pc.fixit.. but ultimately, its not for everyone, but it perfectly suits so many..

 

[Sherwood]

It just feels wrong to me. No firewire, no optical drive, 1 usb port ... yuk.

I'm an electronic musician, and Macs have always meant greater compatibility. The best external hardware uses firewire, and the best software is written with OSX in mind, if not exclusively for it. iMacs MBP's and Mac Pro's are basically industry standard in the high end world.

Apple is obviously trying to broaden their user base with this thing, but I think it's jumping the shark. Jobs' question was "how do we fit a mac in here?" I think the answer is that they didn't, really.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraseyboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now that Macs have Core 2 Duo's they're pretty much PC's with a glossy case and a high pricetag aren't they?

..and the ability to run Mac OS X, MS Windows, GNU/Linux, etc. Which no "PC" (a Mac is a PC as well

) can legally run.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif It just feels wrong to me. No firewire, no optical drive, 1 usb port ... yuk. I'm an electronic musician, and Macs have always meant greater compatibility. The best external hardware uses firewire, and the best software is written with OSX in mind, if not exclusively for it. iMacs MBP's and Mac Pro's are basically industry standard in the high end world. Apple is obviously trying to broaden their user base with this thing, but I think it's jumping the shark. Jobs' question was "how do we fit a mac in here?" I think the answer is that they didn't, really.

then it's not meant for you. seriously, i understand your concerns, but as a musician you'd probably want the MBP anyway, so what's the big deal?

this machine doesn't fit my needs, either, but that doesn't make it a bad product...

 

[Sherwood]

I think Apple's restrictive business practices are going to bite them again and again and again. People continually treat OS X as a gift because you "can't" run it on a PC. Fact is, a PC is perfectly capable of running OS X, but Apple has made it illegal.

Apple apparently doesn't see the downside to this, even though they market bootcamp as a reason to buy a Mac. They recognize that interoperability is inherently a good thing, and yet they persist in prohibiting it.

krmathis, I'm interested in your take on this as a mac true believer. Would you buy different hardware if you could run OS X on it? Lord knows I would run OS X on my PC if I legally could.

This is the only way to dependably crack 10% market share in worldwide OS distribution. I just don't understand why Apple doesn't see this. Windows isn't 13 times more popular because it's better, you know...

 

[grawk]

Apple sees it's OS as a feature for it's hardware. They're not in the business of selling operating systems, they're in the business of selling hardware. It's working for them, they're easily the most profitable of the hardware vendors out there. That you wish they'd sell you the OS doesn't mean it's in their best interest to do so. By restricting it to their hardware, they have a LOT more control over what components it will run on, improving the user experience. If microsoft had 100% control over the hardware windows ran on, it'd be better too.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino /img/forum/go_quote.gif then it's not meant for you. seriously, i understand your concerns, but as a musician you'd probably want the MBP anyway, so what's the big deal? this machine doesn't fit my needs, either, but that doesn't make it a bad product...

I agree with you, and I hope I didn't portray it as a bad product. I don't think that it is. I just don't understand the motivation, or the direction. I would (and do) want an MBP instead, which they still offer happily. Sometimes I think a yearly Macworld conference puts too much emphasis on groundbreaking products, which is to Apple's detriment. For every iPhone there is a ROKR, but the hype makes them difficult to bury.

Maybe the Air will suit a number of people's needs very well. I can imagine that being true. I'm going to keep eking life out of my old Compaq and saving money until Apple releases a powerful 13" multitouch tablet that lets me run Reason and Logic with my fingers. I would sell my children for something like that.

 

[aamefford]

It is a beautiful machine, but is too close to the cost of the 15.4 macbook pro, and gives up too much functionality for me - no optical drive and no firewire. I've got the 12" powerbook, and I love the size for portability. Unfortunately, my old eyes are struggling with the lack of screen rreal estate. Mine will be a new 15.4 pro.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by h4n9m4n /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is a buisness laptop contender though... If you want something small for basic tasks, an EEE PC is fine ($1500-$1400 cheaper!). As a full blown mac, it should not have sacrificed that much just for portability.

Still missing the point. It's emphatically NOT a full blown Mac, but comes awfully darn close, which is the minimalist genius of it all. If you already function with a Mac desktop for main tasks, the Air just fits in with it all.

For me and many people in my shoes, it doesn't compare with the eee PC because it has a more usable screen and keyboard. Plus, it already easily integrated with my main desktop environment without any Linux tinkering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino /img/forum/go_quote.gif it is when you're limited to 2GB of ram, especially when integrated graphics is figured in. parallels requires a ton of memory to run its best...is the core duo 2.0 slow to do most daily stuff? well, no. but it is slow when you're trying to run a virtualization environment simply b/c i'm limited to 2GB of ram. with the newer core 2 duo models i can go up to 4GB of ram, which makes things a lot nicer.

Yes, again, missing the point. The Air isn't meant to be a desktop replacement machine. It has just enough power (arguably more) than it needs to do what people like me need it to do when on the road. I know few people (myself included) who truly need virtualization, particularly on the road.

Are you paying a premium for looks and slimness? Absolutely. But compared to similar portable offerings with less usability (screen and keyboard) it is competitively priced. That is the genius of Apple: they identify what's most important to the non-specialist consumer (screen and keyboard) and work everything else around that.

--Chris

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif That you wish they'd sell you the OS doesn't mean it's in their best interest to do so.

The money isn't in the hardware. Hardware is a sinkhole. Microsoft doesn't want 100% control over the hardware their OS runs on. That's not profitable for them, and it's obviously unnecessary.

Microsoft's major hardware ventures have been failures, economically speaking. The biggest success has been the xbox and xbox 360, both of which are liabilities for Microsoft. They produce the hardware only to lock in software rights, and they don't make much money doing so.

OS X is seen as a feature only because the incentive to buy a Mac would be far, far less if you could get the OS elsewhere. There is obviously demand for Apple's software, but they're using that demand to prop up a dead-end hardware business. People like their iPod, iPhone, and macbooks for what they do, not for how they look. That's why I love mine. The user interface is unparalleled. I think it's bad business for Apple to make you buy the cow when they should really be in the milk market.

True, I have a dog in this fight. I would very much like to buy OS X from Apple and use it on whatever I please. That's not why they should sell it to me, though. They should do so because hundreds of companies already know that software is where the money is, not hardware. Apple doesn't seem to want it. If they did, they would stop leaving it on the table.

 

[grawk]

Funny, when apple was allowing clones, they were slipping into oblivion. Now that they've taken complete control over their architecture again, they're growing faster than anyone else. Apple seems to think there is a future in hardware.

 

[Sherwood]

They're the only ones. Ask google where the future is, then compare their position against Apple's five years ago. Tell me who's growing faster.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think Apple's restrictive business practices are going to bite them again and again and again. People continually treat OS X as a gift because you "can't" run it on a PC. Fact is, a PC is perfectly capable of running OS X, but Apple has made it illegal. Apple apparently doesn't see the downside to this, even though they market bootcamp as a reason to buy a Mac. They recognize that interoperability is inherently a good thing, and yet they persist in prohibiting it.

Thats because Apple are in the business for selling hardware.
By producing their own OS which run on their own hardware only, they have full control of both software/hardware so they can make it interact as best as possible. No need to support untested 3rd. party hardware drivers and such. In the end benefiting their customers!

If Apple allowed their OS to run on any i686 computer it would certainly hurt their hardware sales. Hence I don't think they will go there anytime soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif krmathis, I'm interested in your take on this as a mac true believer. Would you buy different hardware if you could run OS X on it?

I would stick with Apple hardware anyway.
Cause I love their hardware just as much as I love their software.

Yes, I am a Apple fan.

 

[grawk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif They're the only ones. Ask google where the future is, then compare their position against Apple's five years ago. Tell me who's growing faster.

Yah, hardware manufacturing isn't a great way to run a search engine business. You're comparing apples to numbers.