Standalone OSX

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Limited in that I've used a couple of friends' iPhones/iPods on occasion, done some work on our CEO's Mac at work and when given a hand-me-down Mac Pro I installed Linux as quickly as I could.

So not a whole lot of experience then. It took me some time to fully get used to OS X, but once I did, I was happy for the experience, and it would take quite a bit from Windows or Linux to get me to move away, much as it appears that it would take a lot to get you away from Linux.

I am guessing that you get a lot of phone calls then? Just because by that statement, one might think that you are saying that just by having the phone on vibrate drains the battery.

No, I get a lot of emails, txts, facebook updates, etc. I do have single number reach setup on our Call Manager so when my desk phone rings my cell phone does too a couple seconds later, but I usually catch it before a full ring happens on my cell.

Ah, fair enough. I don't have a smartphone, so I have never run into the whole 'I need more battery life' problem on my cell phones. Hell, my current one blows me away, if it wasn't for the fact that I want to check personal email I work, I would never let it go.

And software, they don't even let you change the theme of their window manager.

You can change the theme, you can't do it from System Preferences, but it can be done. But, then again, I am the wrong person to say that to, I never have been huge into theming and skinning really.

I am going to assume that you also knew that Apple, after acquiring KHTML and WebKit (or however it is supposed to be spelled, apparently it matters) they have since kept it open source, and contributed to it greatly. Now, answer me, the basis of a great number of mobile browsers (particularly some of the best ones) and the third and fourth most used desktop browsers is?

Yes, I did know about KHTML. And for playing nice, Apple gets a cookie. But they also took Mach and FreeBSD and left that open source while tacking on a ton of closed software. In this day and age it's impossible to avoid OSS software, even the most staunch closed source companies like Adobe and Microsoft have contributed in various ways.

Ugh, I hate Adobe...

My general problem with a lot of open source software, is that a lot of it feels like software made by committee. A lot of the open source software that I have messed with often feels like it is only 90% complete. Compiz Fusion (at least last I played with it) was really indicative of this to me. Yes, it is fancy, ooh look the windows wobble, but it is a lot of fancy OpenGL effects with no substance (and OS X has its fair share too. Next time you are on an OS X system, minimize a window and hold shift while doing so, it will be slo-mo) and the worst part was when I would start moving them around or whatever and the window chrome would half disappear leaving me with a window that was half Ubuntu and half like Windows 3.1 looking.

I don't want it to appear that I am bashing this stuff, I mean, I suppose I am, but I don't want it to sound like I am all hate, I am just pointing out my problems with some open source software.

And I say they'd do a little better if they had a middle of the road tower. What reason do they really have for using Xeons other than to jack up the price? I'd love to see Apple's margin on that thing, it's probably around 40%.

I don't know, when I have looked in the past at pricing on a home built dual Xeon system the Mac Pro came pretty close. And the pricing on Dell's workstations isn't exactly at the floor.

Which is nice for the people that want a compact desk computer. However, I want a tower that I don't have to take out a loan to afford. I wouldn't even mind the extra $50 or so that they tack on for the OS X license, not that I'd use it.

Out of curiosity, if you are just going to immediately install Linux on it, why buy a Mac at all? Most people buy them in order to get OS X, that is why I would buy one. I can understand why some would get a MacBook Pro and put another OS on it, not because OS X is bad on a portable, it is in fact, incredible on portables, it feels great on a small screen, but because Apple makes IMO, some of the best portables on the market right now. And have done so for quite some time.

 

[Nothinman]

So not a whole lot of experience then. It took me some time to fully get used to OS X, but once I did, I was happy for the experience, and it would take quite a bit from Windows or Linux to get me to move away, much as it appears that it would take a lot to get you away from Linux.

Exactly. I don't see any compelling reasons to consider OS X with everything I've got in Linux.

Ah, fair enough. I don't have a smartphone, so I have never run into the whole 'I need more battery life' problem on my cell phones. Hell, my current one blows me away, if it wasn't for the fact that I want to check personal email I work, I would never let it go.

It's my first BB and now that I have it I don't know what I'd do without it. I use it more for communication than I do my personal computer now.

You can change the theme, you can't do it from System Preferences, but it can be done. But, then again, I am the wrong person to say that to, I never have been huge into theming and skinning really.

I vaguely remember reading how to change the theme by replacing PDFs via the command line back when a friend of mine got his first Mac but that was a few years ago. But just the fact that they either didn't consider letting you change the them or considered it and decided that they knew best is a major strike against them in my book. I understand that not everything can be totally modular and customiztable but even Win 3.x had limited theme support. And I probably wouldn't even care if not for the fact that I really dislike the theme they chose. =)

My general problem with a lot of open source software, is that a lot of it feels like software made by committee. A lot of the open source software that I have messed with often feels like it is only 90% complete.

And that does happen, it's unavoidable in software development. Features get half-done or removed completely before release. It just seems a little more pronounced with OSS software because the whole process is out there for you to see. I'm sure if you got to sit in on some of the development meetings at Apple or MS you'd see the same petty arguments and such that you see on OSS mailing lists.

And attitude plays a huge role in this. When looking at software you like by a company you like you tend to look at it through rose colored glasses and shrug off little things that would cause you to throw your hands up and scream "WTF?" when looked at with more critical eyes.

I don't want it to appear that I am bashing this stuff, I mean, I suppose I am, but I don't want it to sound like I am all hate, I am just pointing out my problems with some open source software.

I don't mind bashing Apple because corporations always make a good target. =) And I do feel that in general closed source software is bad and that hopefully at some point the OS will become like the firmware in your TiVo, invisible to the end user. And also hopefully at that point all of the closed OSes will be relegated to a museum. =)

But as I said, it's all in your attitude. I've been running Linux at home for around 10 years now, I even followed lkml at one point; kinda wish I still had the time for that. So when I look at Linux, Gnome, Firefox, etc I don't see them as 90% complete. I see them as the work in progress that every piece of software is and in most aspects they're so much better than previous versions that it's not even funny. Just take a look at the pictures of Gnome 1.0 and 2.26 on it's Wikipedia page. They've done in ~10 years what took MS ~20.

I don't know, when I have looked in the past at pricing on a home built dual Xeon system the Mac Pro came pretty close. And the pricing on Dell's workstations isn't exactly at the floor.

I haven't really looked at any hardware in a while, but 5min on Dell's site and I configured a machine for under $900. I think if Apple just had a version without Xeons it would go a long way to getting some of those middle of the road people. And I don't know what Dell's markup for themselves is but I do know that we make very little margin whenever we get a Dell desktop/laptop opportunity.

Out of curiosity, if you are just going to immediately install Linux on it, why buy a Mac at all? Most people buy them in order to get OS X, that is why I would buy one. I can understand why some would get a MacBook Pro and put another OS on it, not because OS X is bad on a portable, it is in fact, incredible on portables, it feels great on a small screen, but because Apple makes IMO, some of the best portables on the market right now. And have done so for quite some time.

Because as you said, they're quality machines. I don't care enough to keep up on all of the hardware that's out there these days. If you put 5 video cards in front of me the only thing that I would have to decide on which is better is the price tag. I'm willing to pay a little more for peace of mind, just not that much.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Ah, so what most were reporting then was their current assets, not necessarily cash on hand. Again, still not sure if this is a case of me misreading, or misunderstanding or them. Let's say its my fault.

Uh, that IS cash on hand.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TheStu

Ah, so what most were reporting then was their current assets, not necessarily cash on hand. Again, still not sure if this is a case of me misreading, or misunderstanding or them. Let's say its my fault.

Uh, that IS cash on hand.

I don't know, a person's house or car can be considered an asset, but it isn't cash.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: Ayah
Apple should stop charging the 200%+ price premium over comparable hardware. =\

Give me a break

Apple charges a premium no doubt but it is nowhere near 200%

it is 15% to 50% depending on the hardware



when a PC maker makes something pretty much exactly the same than the prices come in line

see HP Envy

Are you gonna point to the Mac Pro and say Xeons are the same as Quad Core and ECC memory is no different than non-ECC than you're argument is pointless.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TheStu

Ah, so what most were reporting then was their current assets, not necessarily cash on hand. Again, still not sure if this is a case of me misreading, or misunderstanding or them. Let's say its my fault.

Uh, that IS cash on hand.

I don't know, a person's house or car can be considered an asset, but it isn't cash.

Look at the balance sheet again. The line I posted was:

For 2009:
Cash & Equivalents 5,263.0 ($millions)

That's hard currency and bank deposits, ie cash.

Other assets are listed separately. For example, Apple's "house" (their property and buildings) are listed as:

Property/Plant/Equipment, Total - Net 2,954.0 ($millions)

So yes, $5.2b is cash.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TheStu

Ah, so what most were reporting then was their current assets, not necessarily cash on hand. Again, still not sure if this is a case of me misreading, or misunderstanding or them. Let's say its my fault.

Uh, that IS cash on hand.

I don't know, a person's house or car can be considered an asset, but it isn't cash.

Look at the balance sheet again. The line I posted was:

For 2009:
Cash & Equivalents 5,263.0 ($millions)

That's hard currency and bank deposits, ie cash.

Other assets are listed separately. For example, Apple's "house" (their property and buildings) are listed as:

Property/Plant/Equipment, Total - Net 2,954.0 ($millions)

So yes, $5.2b is cash.

I was talking about how they had this line
Total Current Assets 36,265.0

And I had seen other sites mention the $36B number, and I interpreted it as that being their available cash.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TheStu

Ah, so what most were reporting then was their current assets, not necessarily cash on hand. Again, still not sure if this is a case of me misreading, or misunderstanding or them. Let's say its my fault.

Uh, that IS cash on hand.

I don't know, a person's house or car can be considered an asset, but it isn't cash.

Look at the balance sheet again. The line I posted was:

For 2009:
Cash & Equivalents 5,263.0 ($millions)

That's hard currency and bank deposits, ie cash.

Other assets are listed separately. For example, Apple's "house" (their property and buildings) are listed as:

Property/Plant/Equipment, Total - Net 2,954.0 ($millions)

So yes, $5.2b is cash.

I was talking about how they had this line
Total Current Assets 36,265.0

And I had seen other sites mention the $36B number, and I interpreted it as that being their available cash.

Ah, well that makes a little more sense then 🙂

Assets are generally listed in order of decreasing liquidity. Cash is first, then deposits, etc. Current assets are generally assets you plan to hold for less than 1 year, so that won't include buildings, but it would include inventory of macbooks etc.

I guess it's a bit of a moot point now though.

 

[pukemon]

Originally posted by: MStele
You know if Apple would stop trying to control the world and release OSX as a standalone operating system for all PC users, they would seriously give Microsoft a run for their money. Apples already run Intel chipsets so its not like they would have to go far to do it. Just get driver support from the major manufacturers.

Well... we know that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

Although there isn't anything stopping them from selling an official Apple motherboard bundled with Mac OS X. It would have all the official supported firmware, chipsets, etc. Would be nice, but you know that's not happening either.

 

[TheWart]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: TheStu

Ah, so what most were reporting then was their current assets, not necessarily cash on hand. Again, still not sure if this is a case of me misreading, or misunderstanding or them. Let's say its my fault.

Uh, that IS cash on hand.

I don't know, a person's house or car can be considered an asset, but it isn't cash.

Look at the balance sheet again. The line I posted was:

For 2009:
Cash & Equivalents 5,263.0 ($millions)

That's hard currency and bank deposits, ie cash.

Other assets are listed separately. For example, Apple's "house" (their property and buildings) are listed as:

Property/Plant/Equipment, Total - Net 2,954.0 ($millions)

So yes, $5.2b is cash.

I was talking about how they had this line
Total Current Assets 36,265.0

And I had seen other sites mention the $36B number, and I interpreted it as that being their available cash.

Ah, well that makes a little more sense then 🙂

Assets are generally listed in order of decreasing liquidity. Cash is first, then deposits, etc. Current assets are generally assets you plan to hold for less than 1 year, so that won't include buildings, but it would include inventory of macbooks etc.

I guess it's a bit of a moot point now though.

To be fair, the WSJ says that: "Marshall also said Apple continues to remain strong with its total cash on hand, which now totals $31.1 billion after the company reported generating $2.3 billion in cash during the June quarter."

Plus, looking at their 10K, they have $5 billion cash and another $18 billion in short term securities, which for leverage-buyout purposes is basically as good as cash, is it not?

In the end, I guess everyone can agree that they have lots of cash sloshing around cupertino

 

[Kenmitch]

Well... we know that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

Although there isn't anything stopping them from selling an official Apple motherboard bundled with Mac OS X. It would have all the official supported firmware, chipsets, etc. Would be nice, but you know that's not happening either.

Until Apple admits the Mac is just a PC inside Os X will never be released to the masses.

I'd think that the profits from a MB or barebones Apple system bundled with Os X would outway the losses they would have in Mac sales.

Lets face it most PC and Mac users aren't smart enough to build their own systems anyways. Most people just buy whatever is on sale or whatever looks good to them at the time of purchase.

 

[Nothinman]

Until Apple admits the Mac is just a PC inside Os X will never be released to the masses.

Which won't happen because it's not true. Apple presents a "Mac" as the whole package, meaning the hardware, the software and all of the QA and design that go with them. Then tack on all of the accessories that Apple makes that work OOTB without any fiddling.

I'd think that the profits from a MB or barebones Apple system bundled with Os X would outway the losses they would have in Mac sales.

Lets face it most PC and Mac users aren't smart enough to build their own systems anyways. Most people just buy whatever is on sale or whatever looks good to them at the time of purchase.

And those same people are also willing to pay the higher costs to have Apple put it all together for them. I agree that a minimal bundle like that most likely wouldn't hurt their bottom line, but I highly doubt it would help either. And if it's not going to get Apple more money why should they consider it?

 

[Kaido]

I like things the way they are. If they publicly allowed OS X to go on other computers, there would be 2 results:

1. OS X would become unstable, due to supporting a million drivers

2. OS X's reputation would be tranished, because you could buy a $199 OS X PC and it would be crap - people would start equating Apple with crap, instead of Apple with high-end quality

I like Hackintosh as it is now - Apple mostly ignores it, and everybody's happy. I'd be estatic if they opened it up for PCs, but I dunno, too many pitfalls, I think. Apple is a hardware company; they'd lose a big chunk fo their business if Dell could outsell them by the tens of millions on their own OS.

 

[Nothinman]

I like things the way they are. If they publicly allowed OS X to go on other computers, there would be 2 results:

1. OS X would become unstable, due to supporting a million drivers

2. OS X's reputation would be tranished, because you could buy a $199 OS X PC and it would be crap - people would start equating Apple with crap, instead of Apple with high-end quality

Except that doesn't track. Linux supports hundreds of more devices across over 2 dozen architectures and no one would say that the Linux kernel/drivers are unstable.

I like Hackintosh as it is now - Apple mostly ignores it, and everybody's happy. I'd be estatic if they opened it up for PCs, but I dunno, too many pitfalls, I think. Apple is a hardware company; they'd lose a big chunk fo their business if Dell could outsell them by the tens of millions on their own OS.

If Dell started winning over Apple's current customers that means Apple started doing something terribly wrong. Apple's customers are willing to pay that extra buck (or thousand, in this case =) ) for the name brand. The blind loyalty from Apple's users is pretty astounding. I think the only place it might hurt is in the Mac Pro arena since those things are so ungodly expensive. I don't think someone like Dell would be able to beat out notebooks, iMacs and such on price alone.