From a NY Times Bestseller

[Christopher Chisholm]

Fair enough!  All of that makes sense to me.  Do you think that because 
the processors are now Intel perhaps more hardware will become available 
and thus damage the positive points that you've mentioned?  Or do you 
think that they will continue to use very proprietary hardware overall 
to maintain the same benefits they've always had?  Also, do you feel 
like cross-platform programming languages/APIs/etc could ever do as good 
a job at providing developers with an easy to work with solution across 
hardware and operating systems?

-chris c


Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:00:58PM -0400, Christopher Chisholm wrote:
>   
>> I'm sure with a quick google I could easily find this out, but... the 
>> Intel processors that Macs are using; are they just a regular x86 
>> pentium?  or are they actually a different architecture? 
>>
>> I guess what I'm really wondering, are modern Macs just PCs with fancy 
>> cases?
>>
>> Additionally, I remember when I was working for the Merrimack school 
>> district, they ordered a lab of apple iMacs for one of the elementary 
>> schools.  I can't speak for other versions of the hardware but lots of 
>> those ended up having many problems; overheating, disk failures, etc. 
>>
>> To me, Apple appears to be very good at marketing, and very average at 
>> building systems.  Most people I know that use them seem to cite 
>> software as the primary reason to use one, and don't really know 
>> anything about the hardware.  Am I wrong believing that pretty much any 
>> software you can get for Mac OS you can find equivalents (or even the 
>> same software) for in other operating systems?
>>     
>
> The only reason I have a Mac is a combination of hardware and kernel
> support for a specific purpose: Bluetooth Dial Up Networking. A mac is
> the only device I could buy 2.5 years ago that would let me trivially
> set up a connection to the internet via Bluetooth on my Nokia 3650
> phone. I tried to do this for several weeks in Linux, and have only the
> loss of hours as a result to report.
>
> It's a small, fast, lightweight machine. It performs well, does
> everything I need, and doesn't do anything I don't expect of it.
>
> There are a number of things which tend to make Mac software more usable
> than other platforms: Because of the control over the hardware, it is
> easier to build software that exploits that hardware, and the Apple
> cartel has successfully built dozens of APIs around things that Linux
> simply doesn't have, making everything from Network Programming to GUI
> interfaces simple enough that far more developers can target the
> platform.
>
> Apple offers core access to the graphics capabilities on the machines
> through the OS (Which sounds strangely like another mega-corporation in
> the computer world) in a way that makes developing using those
> technologies more attractive. They have continually worked on making
> writing software as easy as it can be -- on their platform, and iwth
> their tools. They've done a good job with that: there is a lot of
> software out there whose functionality is replicated by the mac, but
> typically it's done in a way that's much less intuitive, much less
> friendly, and in many cases, much less useful. (Try doing cross-network
> interactive multiple-person editing on any other platform. I'm
> interested to see your results.)
>
> Apple can do this because they control the hardware. They can work with
> a limited subset of the graphics cards out there, and make sure
> everything works. That's not a bad place to be for Apple. Some people
> would say it's an unfair advantage  that Apple has over its competitors.
> I don't disagree, but in the end, I don't care. The current generation
> of Mac hardware and software is easy to use, works well, and does things
> that I can't (or couldn't) get anywhere else. That's why my laptop is a
> Mac.
>
> (Of course, the reasons why I'm probably going to pay the $200 Black Tax
> to get the black macbook when I buy a new computer are harder to
> quantify. They're more along the lines of "SHINY".)
>
> Regards,
>