4 ms·

Return of the Mac

16 points by manish 17y ago

scythe 17y ago
[2005] (relevant, since it's a current events article)
kelnos 17y ago
And then there are the people like me, who buy a MacBook Pro and install Linux on it. Interesting to note pg pointing out Apple's openness. I don't really consider them all that open these days, but I suppose they're better than many companies. I guess my perception of their lack of openness is more due to their treatment of the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch than that of their laptops. Apple is open when they think that can make them money, closed when they think that can make them more money.
- BudVVeezer 17y ago
  Or there's people like me who get a MacPro tower from work and promptly install Windows on it because it compiles huge projects significantly faster than XCode... Seriously, it's about getting a job done -- use what works. Who cares what the name of the OS is? I don't care whether I'm using a Dewalt drill or a Black & Decker. I care whether the drill works. Why is a computer any different?
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    Because the interfaces and their intricacies are pretty different as one switches OS. When you switch drill brands, it works exactly the same way; you pull the trigger and the drill drills. On Windows or OS X or whatever, you have to log in a certain way, open a program a certain way, install things a certain way, and so on. Not so much a problem for people who use this site, but a problem for the layman.
    - nex3 17y ago
      It can get to be a pretty big problem for hackers, as well. When I'm on Linux, I use the Awesome tiling window manager and Emacs, both of which are tweaked far beyond their usual configurations. Using Windows or OSX (or even Linux without my configuration) is very jarring for me, and will only become more so the more I customize my UI.
  - pmjoyce 17y ago
    I agree, it's about getting the job done. We have both Windows and OSX in our house. Most people (not to mind hackers), have no problem switching between both OSs or using both concurrently and that includes my wife yet she never uses the Windows machines. Whenever I hear people getting uptight about or tightly espousing one OS/Platform over another I'm baffled. The differences I can perceive are miniscule and marginal. That said, Umberto Eco's 1994 essay on the Mac vs. Dos Holy War [http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_mac_vs_pc.html http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_mac_vs_pc.html] does resonate with me to a certain extent.
    - rimantas 17y ago
      Most people (not to mind hackers), have no problem switching between both OSs or using both concurrently I was working this way without any problems for a couple of years: Mac at home, Win/Linux at work. And only when I spent significant amount of time working on Mac exclusively I started really appreciate all those tiny and not so tiny differences.
      - pmjoyce 17y ago
        Could you elaborate on this? Would love to get an insight into the differences you're talking about. That's not to say I don't notice any differences but I struggle to see the multitude of tiny differences that, on aggregate, would make genuine and appreciable positive difference to how I work.
- olefoo 17y ago
  And it should give us hope that when they start to see slippage in the growth rate of their mobile share; they will come to their senses and let people run whatever software they want.
- froo 17y ago
  >I don't really consider them all that open these days, but I suppose they're better than many companies Note the article is from 2005, before Apple started that stuff with their iphone/ipad/ipod touch. Things have definitely changed. I hope this is a far as Apple is willing to draw the line in the sand, otherwise... well, I don't even want to think about that.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    Also before they started with the irreplaceable battery thing.
    - froo 17y ago
      I actually don't mind the unibody stuff. I'm prone to fiddling with batteries in my electronic devices and end up breaking clips consistently. But I'm an edge case at best.
- bad_user 17y ago
  Personally I would buy a Macbook only for OS X, because Xcode is the only way to develop / deploy iPhone apps, and customers want iPhone gadgets nowadays. But when decision time came, I just couldn't find the justification for shelling out for a Macbook ... and I bought an Acer Timeline. Cheaper than the cheapest Macbook classic, the battery lasts longer, the hardware is more capable, bigger display, slim, stays cool, decent design. Have both Windows 7 and Ubuntu on it. Works great. And I did own a Macbook Pro a year ago ... broke down when I spilled coffee over its keyboard. By contrast, my Dell Inspiron took a coffee bath quite well.
  - yungchin 17y ago
    So then, how did you solve your need for Xcode / App development?
    - bad_user 17y ago
      With a VMWare image ... not really legal, but I don't really care. I bought the software legally (owned a Macbook), and their EULA is not enforceable in many parts of the world.
  - ido 17y ago
    Are an extra few hundred dollars every couple of years really that significant? If you hire even one programmer their salary cost exceeds that within a week. Even if we are talking personal use, I can understand that line of thinking for poor students- not so much for well payed software engineers.
    - bad_user 17y ago
      > Are an extra few hundred dollars every couple of years really that significant? Well yeah, why pay more to get less? And I also work hard for those few hundred dollars ... at the end of a productive day I'm so tired I can barely speak. Few hundred here, few hundred there, oops, there goes the fruits of my labor. > If you hire even one programmer their salary cost exceeds that within a week. Maybe in Silicon Valley, but not where I live.
- mapleoin 17y ago
  I've thought about doing this several times. Do you really think that the hardware quality justifies the price when comparing to a ThinkPad for example? Also, it feels a bit wrong to pay for an operating system I'll never use.
  - kelnos 17y ago
    I've had and used ThinkPads, both before and after the Lenovo acquisition (personally I've found the Lenovos to be crap). Yes, I would say that the price is justified -- or, rather, that I'm willing to pay the price. Perhaps I'm just being deceived by shiny things, but, well... I can live with that, sometimes. I guess I'm also something of an aesthete, and I absolutely love Apple's product design. Not saying it's for everyone, but I'm willing to spend a bit extra for something that I'm genuinely happy to look at.
- pistoriusp 17y ago
  I tend to agree with you that it appears to be a perception thing more than actual fact. Webkit has done a lot for web developers and continues to do so today.
- yungchin 17y ago
  > Apple is open when they think that can make them money, closed when they think that can make them more money. I suppose this was meant as criticism, but isn't it often the right thing to do for a company? You could argue the same statement applies to Google; they're open where they think it will please devs or where it may lower development cost, but they're certainly not giving away their custom server OS, or the secret sauce of search... and good for them.
  - kelnos 17y ago
    I think it's sort of a criticism of companies in general; I suppose it's unfair to specifically target Apple in my comment. But I really hope it's possible to be a successful business owner/executive/whatever and adhere to some principles... openness, ethical behavior, etc. Certainly founders and investors want their companies to grow, whether it's in share of their current market, or branching out into new markets. But is it really that awful to settle for a little less -- still successful by any measure -- but be able to sleep at night?
wyclif 17y ago
I'm curious why pg, even then, referred to Macs as open. I don't seem to remember that. What definition of "open" is he using?
- froo 17y ago
  He's talking about a powerbook. By open, he means what happens when you lift the screen.
- pistoriusp 17y ago
  It's more open than you would think; They incorporate 200+ open source projects in to the OS and that's code that they return to the community. (Webkit is a good example.) http://www.apple.com/opensource/ http://www.apple.com/opensource/ Darwin, Grand Central Dispatch are some other examples that I can think of.
- SwellJoe 17y ago
  Apple had a brief moment where they were swept up in the excitement of the Open Source revolution, and it was a contributing factor to their revival amongst hackers. They've since regained their senses, and now only choose open when it's the only way for them to compete effectively (for example, if they are facing off against a seemingly unbeatably strong foe, like Microsoft or Adobe, they will opt for openness because it tilts the playing field, but if they have a near-monopoly they will be the most tightly controlled vendor in the space...such as in smart phones). Openness for Apple is not an end, it is a means to an end. Money and market strength are the goals, even if it is at the expense of consumers and developers. In short, this article is from 2005, though I think many folks are still under the misapprehension that Apple products are "open", when they are actually often even worse than Microsoft products in terms of openness, which is pretty darned bad (though it's also a reflection of the fact that Microsoft has become more open in the intervening years due to market pressure and a few gadflies within Microsoft).
patio11 17y ago
Y Combinator is (we hope) visited mostly by hackers. The proportions of OSes are [in 2005]: Windows 66.4%, Macintosh 18.8%, Linux 11.4%, and FreeBSD 1.5%. Just curious: has the Mac percentage continued to increase? My perception is that All The Cool Kids are using them these days but that might just be my gratuitous stereotyping.
- c1sc0 17y ago
  Last weeked I had a day where 3/4 of my traffic (3K uniques) came from HN. The breakdown; OS: 1. Macintosh (49.60%) 2. Windows (26.23%) 3. Linux (11.81%) Browsers: 1. Chrome (33.5%) 2. Firefox (29.55%) 3. Firefox (27.70%) 4. Mozilla (4.92%) 5. IE (1.43%) Notice that this may be biased towards Mac since the Fakepad.com blog is about iPads.
  - jacobolus 17y ago
    Is one of those Firefox percentages supposed to be labeled "Safari"?
wenbert 17y ago
I wish they would sell Mac OS X that run on non-apple hardware. I would save so much money and love apple again.
- pistoriusp 17y ago
  It's a common misconception that PC hardware is cheaper. If you compare a normal PC to a Mac Pro - Hardware for hardware you'll save ~$5 on the price of the PC. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-window... (Article is a bit old; would love to see if with a 27" iMac. I doubt that you could get a PC equivalent for cheaper.)
  - wenbert 17y ago
    What about in laptops? I could easily find a laptop that is half the price of a Macbook Pro but with the same specs.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  And they would make so little money and go out of business. Apple's not a software vendor. OS X is nice, yes, but it's a value-add to entice you to buy physical devices from them.
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    Apple thinks they are a hardware vendor, but their users just want the UI software. When clone vendors were allowed to sell MacOS with near-commodity hardware, users promptly abandoned Apple's outrageous boutique hardware and flocked to the clones. Now Apple sells near-commodity hardware with just enough custom junk to screw tinkerers (e.g., you still can't buy a motherboard up the street).
    - andrewtj 17y ago
      I'd agree if it were still the mid 90s but it's 2010 — Apple Computer Inc are now Apple Inc, a major OS X release has been stunted by a phone and an update of their laptops has been pushed aside for the release of a tablet. Apple are a hardware vendor but I don't think their users focus on computers anymore, hence nor do they.

16 points by manish 17y ago

[2005] (relevant, since it's a current events article)

And then there are the people like me, who buy a MacBook Pro and install Linux on it. Interesting to note pg pointing out Apple's openness. I don't really consider them all that open these days, but I suppose they're better than many companies. I guess my perception of their lack of openness is more due to their treatment of the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch than that of their laptops. Apple is open when they think that can make them money, closed when they think that can make them more money.

BudVVeezer 17y ago
Or there's people like me who get a MacPro tower from work and promptly install Windows on it because it compiles huge projects significantly faster than XCode... Seriously, it's about getting a job done -- use what works. Who cares what the name of the OS is? I don't care whether I'm using a Dewalt drill or a Black & Decker. I care whether the drill works. Why is a computer any different?
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  Because the interfaces and their intricacies are pretty different as one switches OS. When you switch drill brands, it works exactly the same way; you pull the trigger and the drill drills. On Windows or OS X or whatever, you have to log in a certain way, open a program a certain way, install things a certain way, and so on. Not so much a problem for people who use this site, but a problem for the layman.
  - nex3 17y ago
    It can get to be a pretty big problem for hackers, as well. When I'm on Linux, I use the Awesome tiling window manager and Emacs, both of which are tweaked far beyond their usual configurations. Using Windows or OSX (or even Linux without my configuration) is very jarring for me, and will only become more so the more I customize my UI.
- pmjoyce 17y ago
  I agree, it's about getting the job done. We have both Windows and OSX in our house. Most people (not to mind hackers), have no problem switching between both OSs or using both concurrently and that includes my wife yet she never uses the Windows machines. Whenever I hear people getting uptight about or tightly espousing one OS/Platform over another I'm baffled. The differences I can perceive are miniscule and marginal. That said, Umberto Eco's 1994 essay on the Mac vs. Dos Holy War [http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_mac_vs_pc.html http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_mac_vs_pc.html] does resonate with me to a certain extent.
  - rimantas 17y ago
    Most people (not to mind hackers), have no problem switching between both OSs or using both concurrently I was working this way without any problems for a couple of years: Mac at home, Win/Linux at work. And only when I spent significant amount of time working on Mac exclusively I started really appreciate all those tiny and not so tiny differences.
    - pmjoyce 17y ago
      Could you elaborate on this? Would love to get an insight into the differences you're talking about. That's not to say I don't notice any differences but I struggle to see the multitude of tiny differences that, on aggregate, would make genuine and appreciable positive difference to how I work.
olefoo 17y ago
And it should give us hope that when they start to see slippage in the growth rate of their mobile share; they will come to their senses and let people run whatever software they want.
froo 17y ago
>I don't really consider them all that open these days, but I suppose they're better than many companies Note the article is from 2005, before Apple started that stuff with their iphone/ipad/ipod touch. Things have definitely changed. I hope this is a far as Apple is willing to draw the line in the sand, otherwise... well, I don't even want to think about that.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  Also before they started with the irreplaceable battery thing.
  - froo 17y ago
    I actually don't mind the unibody stuff. I'm prone to fiddling with batteries in my electronic devices and end up breaking clips consistently. But I'm an edge case at best.
bad_user 17y ago
Personally I would buy a Macbook only for OS X, because Xcode is the only way to develop / deploy iPhone apps, and customers want iPhone gadgets nowadays. But when decision time came, I just couldn't find the justification for shelling out for a Macbook ... and I bought an Acer Timeline. Cheaper than the cheapest Macbook classic, the battery lasts longer, the hardware is more capable, bigger display, slim, stays cool, decent design. Have both Windows 7 and Ubuntu on it. Works great. And I did own a Macbook Pro a year ago ... broke down when I spilled coffee over its keyboard. By contrast, my Dell Inspiron took a coffee bath quite well.
- yungchin 17y ago
  So then, how did you solve your need for Xcode / App development?
  - bad_user 17y ago
    With a VMWare image ... not really legal, but I don't really care. I bought the software legally (owned a Macbook), and their EULA is not enforceable in many parts of the world.
- ido 17y ago
  Are an extra few hundred dollars every couple of years really that significant? If you hire even one programmer their salary cost exceeds that within a week. Even if we are talking personal use, I can understand that line of thinking for poor students- not so much for well payed software engineers.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    > Are an extra few hundred dollars every couple of years really that significant? Well yeah, why pay more to get less? And I also work hard for those few hundred dollars ... at the end of a productive day I'm so tired I can barely speak. Few hundred here, few hundred there, oops, there goes the fruits of my labor. > If you hire even one programmer their salary cost exceeds that within a week. Maybe in Silicon Valley, but not where I live.
mapleoin 17y ago
I've thought about doing this several times. Do you really think that the hardware quality justifies the price when comparing to a ThinkPad for example? Also, it feels a bit wrong to pay for an operating system I'll never use.
- kelnos 17y ago
  I've had and used ThinkPads, both before and after the Lenovo acquisition (personally I've found the Lenovos to be crap). Yes, I would say that the price is justified -- or, rather, that I'm willing to pay the price. Perhaps I'm just being deceived by shiny things, but, well... I can live with that, sometimes. I guess I'm also something of an aesthete, and I absolutely love Apple's product design. Not saying it's for everyone, but I'm willing to spend a bit extra for something that I'm genuinely happy to look at.
pistoriusp 17y ago
I tend to agree with you that it appears to be a perception thing more than actual fact. Webkit has done a lot for web developers and continues to do so today.
yungchin 17y ago
> Apple is open when they think that can make them money, closed when they think that can make them more money. I suppose this was meant as criticism, but isn't it often the right thing to do for a company? You could argue the same statement applies to Google; they're open where they think it will please devs or where it may lower development cost, but they're certainly not giving away their custom server OS, or the secret sauce of search... and good for them.
- kelnos 17y ago
  I think it's sort of a criticism of companies in general; I suppose it's unfair to specifically target Apple in my comment. But I really hope it's possible to be a successful business owner/executive/whatever and adhere to some principles... openness, ethical behavior, etc. Certainly founders and investors want their companies to grow, whether it's in share of their current market, or branching out into new markets. But is it really that awful to settle for a little less -- still successful by any measure -- but be able to sleep at night?

wyclif 17y ago

I'm curious why pg, even then, referred to Macs as open. I don't seem to remember that. What definition of "open" is he using?

froo 17y ago
He's talking about a powerbook. By open, he means what happens when you lift the screen.
pistoriusp 17y ago
It's more open than you would think; They incorporate 200+ open source projects in to the OS and that's code that they return to the community. (Webkit is a good example.) http://www.apple.com/opensource/ http://www.apple.com/opensource/ Darwin, Grand Central Dispatch are some other examples that I can think of.
SwellJoe 17y ago
Apple had a brief moment where they were swept up in the excitement of the Open Source revolution, and it was a contributing factor to their revival amongst hackers. They've since regained their senses, and now only choose open when it's the only way for them to compete effectively (for example, if they are facing off against a seemingly unbeatably strong foe, like Microsoft or Adobe, they will opt for openness because it tilts the playing field, but if they have a near-monopoly they will be the most tightly controlled vendor in the space...such as in smart phones). Openness for Apple is not an end, it is a means to an end. Money and market strength are the goals, even if it is at the expense of consumers and developers. In short, this article is from 2005, though I think many folks are still under the misapprehension that Apple products are "open", when they are actually often even worse than Microsoft products in terms of openness, which is pretty darned bad (though it's also a reflection of the fact that Microsoft has become more open in the intervening years due to market pressure and a few gadflies within Microsoft).

patio11 17y ago

Y Combinator is (we hope) visited mostly by hackers. The proportions of OSes are [in 2005]: Windows 66.4%, Macintosh 18.8%, Linux 11.4%, and FreeBSD 1.5%. Just curious: has the Mac percentage continued to increase? My perception is that All The Cool Kids are using them these days but that might just be my gratuitous stereotyping.

c1sc0 17y ago
Last weeked I had a day where 3/4 of my traffic (3K uniques) came from HN. The breakdown; OS: 1. Macintosh (49.60%) 2. Windows (26.23%) 3. Linux (11.81%) Browsers: 1. Chrome (33.5%) 2. Firefox (29.55%) 3. Firefox (27.70%) 4. Mozilla (4.92%) 5. IE (1.43%) Notice that this may be biased towards Mac since the Fakepad.com blog is about iPads.
- jacobolus 17y ago
  Is one of those Firefox percentages supposed to be labeled "Safari"?

wenbert 17y ago

I wish they would sell Mac OS X that run on non-apple hardware. I would save so much money and love apple again.

pistoriusp 17y ago
It's a common misconception that PC hardware is cheaper. If you compare a normal PC to a Mac Pro - Hardware for hardware you'll save ~$5 on the price of the PC. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-window... (Article is a bit old; would love to see if with a 27" iMac. I doubt that you could get a PC equivalent for cheaper.)
- wenbert 17y ago
  What about in laptops? I could easily find a laptop that is half the price of a Macbook Pro but with the same specs.
ubernostrum 17y ago
And they would make so little money and go out of business. Apple's not a software vendor. OS X is nice, yes, but it's a value-add to entice you to buy physical devices from them.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  Apple thinks they are a hardware vendor, but their users just want the UI software. When clone vendors were allowed to sell MacOS with near-commodity hardware, users promptly abandoned Apple's outrageous boutique hardware and flocked to the clones. Now Apple sells near-commodity hardware with just enough custom junk to screw tinkerers (e.g., you still can't buy a motherboard up the street).
  - andrewtj 17y ago
    I'd agree if it were still the mid 90s but it's 2010 — Apple Computer Inc are now Apple Inc, a major OS X release has been stunted by a phone and an update of their laptops has been pushed aside for the release of a tablet. Apple are a hardware vendor but I don't think their users focus on computers anymore, hence nor do they.