A Mac is a PC, Really`

[gbrux]

Note: I posted this in "Off Topic" as well.

I must have missed the moment when the metamorphosis was complete, but I heard Steve Jobs say PC, and he said it often in his key note speech at the MacWorld thing today.

Since the late 70's, its always been Apple vs. IBM Compatibles, or most recently, its been Mac vs. PC. Am I right, or have I always totally misunderstand the nature of this war? It was always, "What's the difference between a Mac and PC?

Having listened to most of Job's presentation, I began to understand why he could embrace "PC" as his own. The new Apple system is practically a PC, with PC attributes from the nature of the new operating systme, OS X, to features of the chipsets. For example, Jobs readily admitted that OS X is a Unix derivative, or a proto-Linux distribution. Also, the new G4's will have Nvidia video chipsets, which have glorified the IBM Compatibles during the last two years.

So, has there been a defacto convergence of Mac and PC carried out single handedly by Steve Jobs?

 

[BDawg]

Mac becoming made of more standard PC parts happened when the Apple clones hit the marked 5 years ago. They offered much higher performance and lower price than apple because they relied on standard PC parts (at the time, IDE was one of the big ones).

Gradually, Apple has been adopting other PC standards like USB and AGP for 2 reasons:

1. They're good

2. It's cheaper than making your own NuBus

At the same time, PCs and Macs have been sharing similar memory all along. The only thing that differentiates Mac and PC motherboards now are Mac ROMS...

Edit: And OSX has nothing to do with Linux. OSX uses the BSD Unix kernel. Linux looks and acts like Unix, but doesn't have either BSD or Sys VR4 basis.

 

[MGMorden]

Not really. Mac is still using a non-x86 archetecture (probably the only thing I really like about a Mac, since the design of x86 really does suck), so they're still quite different.

BigDawg: Linux is actually slightly based on the SysV standard, but not to any huge degree.

 

[RossGr]

What does PC stand for? Personal Computer, Right? Are you saying that a Mac is not a Personal Computer? Only MS Windows machines are PCs, wrong! All modern desktop computers are PCs there are two main hardware/OS platforms, those using Intel Processors with MS Winblows OS add those powered by Motorola and the Mac OS. But they are all PERSONAL COMPUTERS. Just because the majority of us have PCs powered by Intel/MS does not mean that ALL PCs are powered by Intel/MS.

It is not clear, as in VHS and Beta, that the best hardware is winning.

It could be said that Steve Jobs one of the founding fathers of the modern PC. If it were not for him and Steve Woziniac there would be NO PCs. They started Apple, and anyone who does not reconize that the Apple II started the PC market needs to do a bit more research.

 

[HellRaven]

I wish the Mac platform would just die already. I was happy for a short time when they were about to go under but then Jobs came back and started digging up macs from the grave.

- You can't build your own Mac
- You pay more money because there is only once source that overprices their stuff.
- There is less software though there has been a little more interest lately
- For us gamers the performance is horrid when compared to a pc, even with more modern video cards like Radeon's and V5's

Oh yeah, and why do many G4's come with 64mb of ram? They also come lacking most standard peripherals.

Don't worry though, you will get slightly faster performance in a few highly optimized photoshop filters and they look cool cuz they are a cube!

 

[damien6]

How noticeable do you think the performances are between Power Mac G4 series if you spent the same about of moneys' worth building a IBM compatible PC??

 

[BFG10K]

As long as Apple is charging $3500 US for a G4 733 system, there's no danger of Macs being called PCs.

 

[sandorski]

Ross is correct, Macs are and always were PCs. As were the Atari and Amiga computers. Most of us use the term PC, but actually mean IBM PC or MS-DOS PC.

As for Apple, I hope they survive. The reason is simple, innovation. Do you like GUI interfaces, thank Apple. Clickable links(Hypertext), thank Apple. Hot pluggable interfaces(USB), thank Apple(Firewire). Desktop music and/or publishing, thank Apple.

Apple hasn't really been innovating for awhile now, but I wish I had a flipdown case side and those new titanium notebooks are cool. If you don't want a Mac do what I do, don't buy one. Whatever you do though, don't dismiss Apple as unecessary or as a waste of space.

 

[Fuse]

Xerox invented GUI

 

[MGMorden]

Ross, I'm not saying that a Macintosh is not a personal computer, I'm saying it's not a PC as the term is used in modern times. PC generally refers to the hardware design (runs Windows basically), and that was the comparision which the previous posters were making: the first guys spoke of the convergance of Mac and PC, which is a statement assuming they were once different, and the second on the fact that the only difference between Mac and PC motherboards is a Mac ROM, which is of course wrong.

 

[nuttervm]

mgmorden is correct. you people arguing that macs are PCs need to open your eyes a little and stop being so literal. yes pc stands for personal computer, but in todays consumer market it is generally accepted that when you say pc, you mean ibm compatible. same thing different name. you guys sound like some mac users with their panties in a bunch.

xerox invented the gui, so you mac people need to get over that one as well. jobs was a thief just like gates. doest it matter who stole it first?

and there are huge differences in the architectures of macs and pcs. do a little homework before you make statements like the only difference is a rom.

while macs have been pretty innovative.. big deal. mac users are quick to point out things like firewire. yeah firewire is great and all, but its only one of many many important technologies that we use in computers today. you dont see people saying 'ummm well oh yeah? unix computers were the first to use scsi so there!' (this is an example, i dont know if it is true or not). macs have had many great ideas, as well as their share of utter failures. the apple II did help bring the pc into the mainstream, but it is idiotic to think that computers would not have evolved someway without the apple movement in the 80's. more importantly, we cant speculate on what would have happened if apples werent so popular, so why bother trying?

 

[Eug]

Apple didn't invent most of these things, but they were the first big push for many.

eg.

1) GUI and mouse
2) 1.44 MB floppies
3) USB
4) Firewire
5) An actually usable UNIX-based GUI for the masses
6) Style in computers

I hope they survive. In the quest for cheapness, innovation in the x86 lines is sorely lacking sometimes. I don't own any Apple stuff, but competition is always good.



<< Oh yeah, and why do many G4's come with 64mb of ram? >>

That is a strange question. First off, the new G4s come with 128-256, but if I were a Mac user, I'd PREFER it to only come with 128 at most. Why, because it's usually cheaper to buy 3rd party RAM, whether you're talking about an x86 system from a major vendor, or if you're talking about Apple. For an example, if you get a Dell laptop it's over $200 Canadian to get an extra 64 MB. If you get Crucial memory online, it's under $150 Canadian to get an extra 128 MB.


<< You can't build your own Mac... You pay more money because there is only once source that overprices their stuff. >>

Yes and no. You can't buy the motherboard and case separately, etc., but you CAN buy most of components from 3rd parties. So when my friends upgrade their computers, they NEVER buy the stuff from Apple, just like AnandTechers don't buy their CD-ROM drives and monitors from Dell or Gateway.


<< For us gamers the performance is horrid when compared to a pc, even with more modern video cards like Radeon's and V5's >>

Yes. It sucks. Dunno why, because the hardware is good. Dunno how much is the architecture and how much is due to crappy drivers. I get better performance out of an overclocked Celeron and Voodoo 3 than a fast G4/Radeon does on some games at lower resolutions at 16-bit. WTH?

 

[Noriaki]

<< How noticeable do you think the performances are between Power Mac G4 series if you spent the same about of moneys' worth building a IBM compatible PC?? >>

Oh lord the difference at an even price point is huge. That's my biggest gripe with a Mac.

Look at Anand's Dec2000 High-End buyer's guide.

For $2345 You get a 1.1GHz Athlon, 256MB RAM, GeForce2, 19&quot; or 21&quot; (can't remember which) monitor, SBLive, Creative DTT3500 or ProMedias, 45Gig 75GXP, DVD and CDRW. Now it's not exactly cheap...but this is a pretty beefed system really. You don't get nearly as much out of a Mac for $2345....

And then there is the other side of the coin. If you want a cheap usable PC that's not really that hard. Anand's Budget PC Buyer's Guide $1045 for a Duron 700, 128MB RAM, GF2MX, 19&quot; monitor SBLive!, 15Gig 75GXP. That's pretty good for $1000 including 19&quot; monitor. You can't get anything from a Mac for that price.

I'm not going to say Mac's are bad, because frankly I don't think they are. But they are definately expensive. But then, so are PCs if you buy them from Dell or Gateway.

 

[CQuinn]

RossGr is right guys, just because you believe the hype of the
mass media for the past many years doesn't make it accurate.

Before IBM got into the microcomputer business, there were many
companies making &quot;personal computers&quot;, Apple being one of them.

The &quot;2 Steves&quot; were very popular and considered important to the
growing industry, but to say that without them there would be NO PCs
is missing the point. They just got there early with a popular design,
there were already companies that had parts, kits, and various types
of computer out - Steve Wozniak just put together a good combination of
features, and Steve Jobs had the will and energy to market it to the
masses. They were as important as Gary Kildall, Bob Noyce, Gordon
Moore, Ed Roberts, Bill Gates, Paul Allen and many others.

When IBM got into things, their first machine was label the
&quot;IBM Personal Computer&quot; or PC. Because IBM had the corporate clout
to make the technology seem like more than an idle hobby for consumers.
So the media stuck IBM designs, and the IBM clones, with the designation
of PC, while still recognizing that all the other designs were also
personal computers.

So, if you want to nit-pick:

The Concept of &quot;personal computer&quot; applies to every multifuntion computing
device that can be owned and used by an individual user; that ranges from
8088 baseboards to Cray's. That includes Macs, Amigas, NeXT boxen, Sparcs
etc etc etcetera...

The marketing of the &quot;Personal Computer&quot; has largely been to identify systems
evolved from the early IBM PC spec. I have to included the &quot;evolved&quot; because
the x86 computers we use today also would not meet the definition if compared
directly to the original IBM design.

IMO, Jobs may be credited with being a founding father of the modern PC with the
Apple I and II, but he abandonded that legacy with the rollout of the
Lisa, and the Macintosh.

 

[ElFenix]

apple had the first $1000 ummm... home computer?... in the mac classic. that was way before comcrap and the $1000 media gx piece of sh!t box in 1997.

 

[Noriaki]

Yes the term PC literally means personal computer, which is any computer used by a person. And the term Power PC has always meant motorola chips.

But in common usage the term PC has come to mean Windows/Intel machines, yes I know it's not litterally correct, but there are lots of terms that are used wrong in common usage. PC just happens to be one of them.

Apple/Motorola based PCs are commonly referred to as Macs, Windows/Intel based PCs are commonly referred to as PCs. No it's not literally correct but that's how it's used, deal with it.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about terms that have one literal meaning and a totally different common usage. We won't get anywhere, you're not going to convince people to stop using them. So why waste the time?

 

[Eug]

<< The &quot;2 Steves&quot; were very popular and considered important to the
growing industry, but to say that without them there would be NO PCs
is missing the point. >>

True, but I grew up at that time and the bottom line was that they seriously accelerated the acceptance of computers. Basically everything affordable at the time was essentially useless crap for the average user, except for the Apple ][ series computers. The Apple ][ was a truly versatile computer that didn't take an engineering degree to setup, and it ran great software unlike anything else at the time. Everyone was saying it was stoopid to try to introduce a truly 'home' computer. Yet the 2 Steves went ahead and pushed it anyway. So, no, Apple didn't invent the industry really, but they were key in its acceptance and I thank them for that.

By the way, the Apple ][ was essentially a beige PC. I defected from Apple with the Mac was introduced. It was revolutionary of course, but I hated it because it ran as slow as molasses (because of the GUI) especially considering the price, and the games sucked. (Hmmm... sounds familiar.)

 

[sandorski]

&quot;Mac fans&quot;? Not me. The only time I used a Mac was back in '89 when a clueless friend couldn't figure out how to get a printer to work. I showed up, read a page from the manual, installed drivers, printed. It was a dream to work on compared to IBM-PC/MS-DOS, where I would have had to manually select the driver then manually add lines to the autoexec and/or the config.sys, then go into every application and install drivers for them too. The Mac was pleasant, to say the least, and I gained a new respect for Apple after that experience. Never bought one though, too expensive.

That said, let me confess this, I never was a big fan of the IBM-PC. What I always wanted was an Amiga! Alas, all I ever could afford was an IBM-PC and I've been stuck using them for 14 years.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I'm not a mac fan. Crapintosh sucks!

Anyway, strange how Mac is trying harder to become more PC-compatible than they are to stay in their own groove. I know it's more cost effective if they do, but still.

Interesting how a Mac will read a PC disk as well, but a PC chews up Mac disks and spits them out saying &quot;This is substandard. How dare you feed me crap!&quot;