Apple’s Next Move: Make the PC Obsolete

| Hidden Dimensions

“Complacency is a state of mind that exists only in retrospective: it has to be shattered before being ascertained.”

-- Vladmir Nabokov

Some companies dream up cool products or look at market trends and try to fulfill a need. Apple, however, seems to be doing more. By analyzing critical and single failure points in Microsoft's strategy, Apple could, with one close-out product, make the need for desktop PCs for the home customer irrelevant.

In order to figure out how the Windows PC could become obsolete in that environment, one has to ask the question, "Why do people buy PCs and how do they use them?"

The next question to ask is, "Is a PC the only device that can get the job done for the majority of home users?"

Another good question, then, is "if people are buying PCs to watch traditional video content, how can one solve the convergence issue in one fell swoop?" Loosely, the TV convergence issue has to do with legacy TV (cable, satellite) watched at 3 meters (10 ft) and a PC or Mac on the Internet watched at 0.5 meter (20 inches). That division and its solution (a convergence) has stymied corporation for years, going back to the failure of WebTV.

PC Activities

Note that I'm not talking about tasks that are best done on a desktop PC or Mac in a business environment. Some typical examples are giant, complex Excel spreadsheets or movie making in Final Cut Pro. Apple, as we know, sets the standards for the home user with individual purchase authority, then lets the technology trickle into business, like the iPhone.

If one examines the principle activities conducted by home users on a PC, such as web browsing, e-mail, calendaring, instant communications like Twitter and iChat, it'll be obvious that all of those activities can be conducted on a tablet. Probably TurboTax as well with the right kind of gesture and keyboard refinements.

Note also, that I'm not talking about capturing 100 percent of PC users. There will always be those people who take work home, require a capable desktop PC, or want to solve Navier-Stokes fluid flow equations with a Fortan compiler. It would be sufficient for Apple to capture only a fraction, say 20 percent at first, of the PC market to trigger a cascade failure at Microsoft. Surface computing is not the salvation Microsoft is looking for.

TV Convergence

The convergence issue is tricky, and involves an enabling platform that can serve as a desktop on the lap, yet manage video content on the home HDTV. Because Apple doesn't need to and probably cannot compete against Sony, Samsung, Sharp, and Pioneer in the TV market, any solution has to be separated from but beautifully integrated into the home user's typical set up.

Before I make the formal argument, I want to note that the iPhone is essentially running in the old Multi-Finder mode. One app at a time is all the mobile smartphone user can deal with -- plus some background music. On a 10-inch tablet, however, one can expect many apps to be running at once. And there are 100,000 of them to chose from. Apple's task is to leverage all those 100,000 apps by freeing them from the confines of an iPhone display.

The Solution

Consider a headless home server with a 4 TB drive that holds all the customer files and iTunes content. Consider such a device connected to an HDTV with HDMI. The display is a tablet in the user's lap. When content is desired on the HDTV, the user selects it in iTunes, and it plays in 1080p. When content is desired on the Internet, the user launches Safari on the iTablet. Home file management is also done on the iTablet. For generally young people with no (eye) accommodation problems, switching context and distance is no problem. (Not even for us older people who wear "progressive" eye glasses.)

Best iTablet concept

Credit: Jesus Diaz, Gizmodo

Suddenly, for most people, of either a PC or Mac persuasion, they have everything they need on their lap. The only extra device needed is a super Apple TV running Mac OS X that has monster storage and connects to the TV. The sum of the costs is about what one would pay for a mid-range iMac.

This model gets people away from their dens, siting in isolation, and gets them out and about with the family. The more time customers spend with iTunes on their laptop tablet, the more money Apple makes.

Problems

This scenario isn't without some problems. That doesn't mean the scenario is defective. It just means that new solutions need to be found.

  1. This product mix cannibalizes the traditional Mac. The loss in Mac desktop sales would have to be weighed against the gain in new tablet customers.
  2. Apple is loving the security of the iPhone apps in contrast to the old technology of Windows and its horrendous security issues. A new focus on iPhone-like apps, which will likely grow to several hundred thousand, has to be weighed against the health of the developer community for classic Mac OS X apps.
  3. Many Apple customers have come to appreciate Mac OS X, its access to the underlying UNIX. They'll scream bloody murder as Apple appears to be moving its software base from the legacy, desktop UNIX Mac OS X and to tightly controlled iPhone apps.

However, as with most Apple transitions, this process will take years. Apple will continue to sell Mac Pros, MacBooks, and iPhones/iPods to all comers. Remember, Apple has been through this already as the iPod touch cannibalized but surpassed the old iPods.

At this time of year, we tend to think about the future. It's hard to conceive of a future, five years from now, when Apple's product line is just more of the same, but better. Apple has the opportunity to slam the door shut on the traditional, isolated, constraining home PC and move millions of customers to a new era of media convergence and system security. Just exactly how Apple does this has to be handled delicately. If Apple is thinking along these lines, it explains the stagnation of the Apple TV and the delay in the introduction of the iTablet.

That is to say, the iTablet is not just another toy that is added to Apple's product line. Rather it's a strategic product that changes the game. It exploits the casual attitude Microsoft has about the traditional PC enduring forever. Such a transition would require tremendous planning, flawless product design, keen marketing, and maybe even a new data center to support it.

It all makes the hardware design look like the easy part.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

John Martellaro

Microsoft’s critical failure points:
1. OS System security.
2. Complacency about future of WIndows.
3. Failure to fully deal with the convergence issue.
4. Lack of vision, other than WIndows as a cash cow instead of an enabler of new technologies.
5. Ambiguous approach, torn between a business staple and glamor of Macs and iPhones for home users.
Any others?

rahhb.riley

Well written. I love speculatory tech ideas in general, plus i’m a lameo inerd and this is of course my dream. if not apple then someone will do this concept.

davebarnes

“solve Navier-Stokes fluid flow equations with a Fortan compiler”

would be better if written as:
solve Navier-Stokes fluid flow equations with a Fortran program.

Personally, I prefer FORTRAN.

Jeff Beddow

I remember having a conversation with Apple’s Larry Tesler back at the first JPL scientific visualization conference in 1988 about the lag in human interface design relative to consumer computing.  Even then PARC had some stuff in prototype that still hasn’t made it to the Big Box stores via info appliances.

Given the possibilities for interaction, and the reciprocal impact on cognitive task performance as a function of body posture and gross motor involvement, it is amazing that WII and multi-touch are the interface news of the first decade of the 21st Century.

So your article is well thought out and shows definite savvy regarding the real world probabilities of consumer direction.  But it makes my head spin 20 years after the introduction of HDTV and VR was available through Nintendo, that we are talking about slates that require increasingly artificial combinations of gestures to interact with a Euclidean, photo-realistic window of information. Slouched on a couch, of course. Just hangin’.

And why is that, exactly?  Because Tom Cruise wowed everyone with the cyber-aikido in Minority Report.  Yeah, it is Hollywood that holds the product design and marketing imagination in thrall yet.  And we still don’t have voice capable of the chilling defiance of an almost 40-year-old HAL.

Well, it would be nice if Apple would throw around a few of PARC’s old interface equivalents of the custom rod show jaw-droppers.  Even the simplest hyperbolic display on a home computer to manage fido’s water level and the previews for Fringe simultaneously would be a welcome change of pace for these old eyes who “have seen it all” but have seen nothing yet.

graxspoo

While I think the tablet is interesting, I don’t think its going to be quite as revolutionary as some people think. For many computer activities, a keyboard is a real necessity. While the iPhone’s virtual keyboard is fine for quick notes, I wouldn’t want to type anything as long as this post on it. Similarly, on a tablet, I don’t see how you’re going to type on it while propping it up in your lap. A laptop works great for this (hence the name) as the base holds the screen up at a decent viewing angle while giving you access to the keyboard. I can’t see myself being happy typing on a tablet flopped on the couch. My wife watches a lot of Hulu on her laptop while working in the kitchen. Again the base holds the screen at a nice viewing angle for her so she can see it from across the room. You’d need a stand to do that with a tablet, and unless its integrated, who would want to carry that around?
The iPhone is wonderful because you can stick it in your pocket, but something the size of a tablet needs a carry-bag… and then why not just have a laptop?

As far as software goes, I see that despite the large number of titles, the iPhone software market is in trouble. Why? Because the average price of a paid app is next to nothing. People are not going to pay $79 for an iPhone app, and developers are not going to risk working for a year just to have their app rejected for a silly reason. This pushes iPhone apps squarely towards the “toy” category, which is OK for a small pocket computer, but would be disastrous and unacceptable for a desktop replacement.

JAmes sparling

I’m very much in agreement with this. I’ve been thinking along similar lines for a while, the stagnation of Apple TV is because the solution is to take it away from the box on the floor beside the TV to a tablet which is in appearance the complete replacement of the remote.

You end up with devices that do things that they should do. Cookers cook, TV’s display programmes, movies and stuff that requires a big screen stuck in the corner. But the control of them and the content is somewhere else, possibly in your hand. You want to control the lights, the heating, pre-heat the cooker, set the alarm, close the blinds, put some music on… you do that with the control in your hand. The music, the videos, the films are in the device or easily streamed/downloaded to the device to be spread out to where you require. You can sit at your desk with your remote/tablet/iphone and control the music from there, while you do work on your computer. You can sit on the couch and decide what shows up on your TV. Since most of the activities we do are controlled by our hands this makes perfect sense.

It’s a bit like the fact that the webpage is fast becoming obsolute, as one size does not fit all. Most of the iApps go round the back straight to the content, a process that was started with the humble widgets. The 100,000 or so iApps are to a certain extent the replacement for customised web pages. Web pages will be left as company brochures, in a similar way to suppliers sending out leaflets/brochures etc in the olden days! News websites will become, as they are now, read on iphones/tablets/kimbles etc, or diverted onto the TV if you want to sit back and read them, or just watch the multi-media elements, just like rolling news and video casts.

I’ve got a hunch that this central controlling device is what Apple are trying to work towards. It doesn’t so much matter where the content is as to where is it to be displayed/heard/output.

You’d end up with a small, easy to use, portable hub in your hand, which is, like the iphone, highly capable of being adapted and updated. And to return to your main point John, I quite agree, keyboards and mice and such are quaint but out of date, we’ve learned to use them rather than vice versa. They are still going to be the primary method for certain tasks, but like apple has tried to prove with the over minimal Apple remote, for many thinks, you don’t need a ton of buttons, you just need a way to navigate through options. By not having a physical keyboard on the iphone and moving to total touch Apple has laid down a marker, think beyond the keyboard, leave it for writing, and with the vast improvements in voice recognition, even the writing part of it will possibly soon diminish.

All good interesting stuff, it’s just a question of how soon and how fast this will happen.

deasys

developers are not going to risk working for a year just to have their app rejected for a silly reason

They are never rejected for “silly” reasons.

Your scenario is silly.

Gunner

Apple TV or server connected to a single display with HDMI? How about Apple TV/server connected to several displays using the new mini-DisplayPort (mDP) standard, which allows for content to more than one display at a time. In a serial fashion? I can envision an AppleTV with mini display port sending display info to 4, 16 or even 64 low-cost, smaller size LCD screens in an array format. All over thin cable. Heck! Why not have an iPhone or ‘iTablet’ with mDP   send video info to a 52-inch HDTV. The HDTV provides the power. The hand-held supplies the signal and controls the TV.

eugenio

Stop calling it an iTablet! that’s a gross name. Like people calling the iPod touch an iTouch. Ugh.

John Martellaro

iPod super touch
Apple iPad
Apple iTablet
Apple slate
Apple tablet

Which one do you guys like?

Lancashire-Witch

The programmer writes Fortran programs; the computer requires a Fortran compiler.

I still have a couple of pads of Fortran coding sheets - and some 80 column cards - but alas I don’t have an 026 punch or an IBM 7090 anymore. Happy daze!

I vote for iPod Super Touch or iPod Touch S.
I also vote for the one that Steve likes (because I hate to back a loser)

xmattingly

Which one do you guys like?

How about the tAPPlet? smile

Al

People are not going to pay $79 for an iPhone app

Yep, people will not pay $79 in one fell swoop for an iPhone app, but they will pay $4.99 (or some other low threshold) repeatedly through in-app payments if they find the app to be useful and the increase in functionality per in-app payment is significant enough as to not feel like a rip-off.  The iPhone really has changed things.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Forget it John. If the tablet follows the closed iPhone model, it should be called the crAPPLEt. Mark your calendars today, 12-Nov-2009, the day Apple lost the living room. Dell has a $229 computer that in its base model ($299 with Windows 7 and 802.11n), is better than either Apple’s Mac Mini or its Apple TV. See it here.

BTW, deasys wins funny comment of the year for: They are never rejected for ?silly? reasons. Comedy gold! Because if you really think that rejecting an app because it pokes a little fun at public officials is anything less than silly, you, my friend, are (Godwin Alert! Godwin Alert!) a fascist.

xmattingly

If the tablet follows the closed iPhone model, it should be called the crAPPLEt.

Since all you seem to do on this site anymore is poo-poo on anything Apple-related, we should call you the Turd Burgler. But doesn’t the screen name “Bosco” already allude to that?

Tiger

Wait, Dell creates a knock off of the Mini 4 years after it is first introduced by Apple, attempts to sell it at a ridiculously low price meaning it has ZERO profit margin, and you think that’s going to pull Dell’s sales out of the toilet? The company is in serious trouble Bosco and Wall Street knows it. Investors see that it is not only struggling, it’s losing ground. And just as an added knock, it looks like a Transformer toy.

deasys

Dell has a $229 computer that in its base model ($299 with Windows 7 and 802.11n), is better than either Apple?s Mac Mini or its Apple TV.

Really, Bosco? “Better?”

Looking at the Zino base model for $229,
- Is it better because it’s 2.5 times larger than the mini?
- Is its single core AMD Athlon 2650e CPU @ 1.6 GHz better than the mini’s Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.26 GHz?
- Is “Windows 7 Home Basic 32-bit” better than Mac OS X Snow Leopard?
- Is its DDR2 RAM on an 800 MHz FSB better than the mini’s DDR3 on an 1066 MHz FSB?
- Does its lack of WiFi and Bluetooth make it “better?”

How about the fact that it has just 4 USB ports instead of the 5 on the mini? Maybe its lack of optical audio I/O appeals to you? Maybe the tray loading optical drive (you know, the one that can double as a cupholder) rather than the mini’s slot loading drive?

Ah—I know! It’s those colorful top designs, right?

I know you love to inject a little humor into your article comments but you’ve outdone yourself with this one. Thanks for the laugh, Bosco.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Or maybe it’s $299 with Windows 7 and 802.11n, and maybe I’ll be buying quite a few of these in the next year. Tens if I’m not too successful, hundreds if moderately successful, and if you stop hearing from me, then thousands. The reason it is “better” is because I can hook it up to a flat screen with a short HDMI cable for a professional looking install. DVI—> HDMI from a Mini has all sorts of sync issues with cheaper flatscreens. The reason the Zino is “better” is because it adds only $299 to the cost of my solution, which, BTW, does not need an input device tethered to it by wire or Bluetooth. Mac Mini adds $599. If Apple had a sanctioned Mac OS X story—even a “lite” story—for its $225 Apple TV, I wouldn’t even be looking around. But price matters a lot more than a menu bar and a dock that nobody will ever see.

And as a Christmas gift… I can give 2 of these for the cost of a Mac Mini. Trust me, the female recipients on your gift list who might need a new computer would much rather get a cute $299 Dell and a $300 trinket from Tiffany than a $600 Mac to hook up to their living room TVs. Your mileage may vary, but don’t say your friend Bosco didn’t clue you in.

chano

John.
You outdid yourself.
An intelligent article that provokes my thoughts.
Thank you.

ChandraC

Lancashire-Witch

Geez John - you have really started something here.

It reminds me of my early days in programming. A colleague of the 1960s said to me once : “If you want something that doesn’t work too well - You don’t have to spend megabucks or wait years for it- You can have it now.”

daemon

Apple?s Next Move: Make the PC Obsolete

Obsolete? You mean like how the electronic office made paper obsolete?

MaX

The key point is the software. The Apple iTablet must have Mac OS X (touch) inside (not the limited OS X of iPhone or iPod touch). Then, as light as possible. And then, as small as possible. Finally, video-out and USB 2 ports for the ultimate Keynote and PowerPoint tool.

Gareth Harris

The key to all of this, which Apple gets and MS does not, is the platform. The individual devices are just leaves on this tree. They will come and go. Some may be clever and reach far from the trunk, even operate stand alone, but new ones will come and go.

UNIX is the basis of networking. MS tried to subvert the network standards once they learned about the network in the 90s, twenty years after everyone else. Too late. Even MS could not do it then.

The fish is the last to learn about the water.

geoduck

John
I thought of the Apple Slate moniker a couple of weeks ago and I still like it the best

Bosco
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Persag discusses quality. It boils down to “Quality is What You Like”. For example, reliability is a common measure of ‘quality in cars, unless you’re building a dragster where reliability costs horsepower. “Quality” is personal.

So if “quality” to you is the cheapest box possible you can use to meet your customers needs then fine. More power to ya’. For me “quality” is something more. Better reliability, a stronger processor, faster speed, fewer crashes, longer service life, etc. If that costs me a bit more I don’t mind. Years ago I developed the theory that I never go with the cheapest solution. I always step up a level from the bottom because that last couple of bucks I may save always seems to cost me more in the long run.

But that’s just me. YMMV

Nemo

Mr. Martellaro’s three problems, upon further consideration, aren’t much of an impediment.  About cannibalization of sales of existing products, Steve Jobs has said that it is better for Apple to cannibalize its products as opposed to a competitor cannibalizing Apple’s products.  You can’t hold back the future.  To the extent that Mr. Martellaro propose a great product, if Apple doesn’t do it, someone else will.  So cannibalization is inevitable and is only a problem, when it’s a competitor that is doing the cannibalizing.

Developers are not much of a problems.  Developers will be using the same tools, Xcode and Cocoa, to develop for new devices.  The change that developers must make is for the features of the new devices, but that is true for any advance in technology.  And the upside for developers is tremendous.  They will have new markets for new applications, which means an opportunity for new and substitute streams of revenue that should easily exceed the revenues from existing applications.

The Mac OS of the iTablet will be a derivative of OS X, as it is for the iPhone OS, and OS X and its legal derivatives are all Unix.  The only question is whether Apple will gives users access to the command line as it does in Mac OS X.  I think that Apple will.  After all, the iTablet is a different device than an iPhone.  The iTablet will be full fledged multi-touch computer, not, as is true of the iPhone, a more limited and dedicated utility.

I think that the real problem for Apple with an iTablet will be that, as is true for all computers, it will be a general purpose devices, so the model for distributing applications will have to be open, as it is for Macs.  In other words, there is no way that App Store-like screening will work for the iTablet.  So, on the App Store, there will have to be a segregation of iTable apps from iPhone apps, because the iTable is a general purpose computer with a very different security model than the iPhone, which in part enforces security by controlling how apps run on the iPhone and how they are distributed in the App Store.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@geoduck… Again, I would love to use an Apple product for this. The AppleTV is more elegant with less frivolity than the Dell box. Please defend why Apple makes it exceedingly difficult to repurpose these. Dive into how the hack works to install Boxee or XBMC. Then explain it to me. If the explanation has anything to do with cannibalizing Mac sales, then it’s easy to see that we’ve gotten to a point where computer hardware is overspec’d for most users and most applications. Thus the growing market of nettops and netbooks—unaddressed by Apple because it’s a “fad” or because they can’t offer gold plated toilet paper at those price points. Microsoft manages to offer its new flagship OS (Windows 7 Home) on a $250 box. Yet the cheapest new box I can get with Snow Leopard is $600 ($500 refurb). And we’re all here discussing how some mythical giant flat phallus is going to make the general purpose PC obsolete. C’mon son!

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

And from John’s list of Microsoft problems:

3. Failure to fully deal with the convergence issue.
4. Lack of vision, other than WIndows as a cash cow instead of an enabler of new technologies.

Microsoft’s way of dealing with convergence is the way the whole PC market has dealt with convergence over 30 years. Make it faster. Make it smaller. Make it cheaper. Make it more flexible. Convergence has happened, continues to happen, and will happen in the future in software. Get the hardware right and let independent developers write apps that meet the needs of their customers. That is how you enable new, innovative products. Wrapping brushed aluminum around an overspec’s commodity PC (curiously lacking HDMI out) is certainly elegant and some will appreciate that in some contexts, but it doesn’t enable innovation when things that are more than good enough for many/most purposes are half the price.

spudgeek

The Solution: Consider a headless home server with a 4 TB drive that holds all the customer files and iTunes content. Consider such a device connected to an HDTV with HDMI.

Inspiring article.

Many homes have more than one TV and storage drives fail. We need failsafe storage and we need to support read/write with multiple interfaces (TVs, computers, mobile devices); not one connected to one TV. I say we need support for multi-access because I believe iTunes or iPhoto do not support multi-user access to the same libraries today.

This is where I’m coming from… I have one iMac, two aTVs, and a NETGEAR ReadyNAS storage server. iTunes runs on my multi-user (multi-account) iMac. I need to shutdown iTunes to maintain optimal performance to do my other work but this limits the available content on the aTVs to synced content only. The aTVs have all photos, music and limited video synced which means I have three copies of the same content in my home plus a backup of my iMac data. It seems pretty redundant to have so many copies of the same data! Don’t forget my and my wife’s iPhones which have a limited amount of the same data synced but do not have simple access to all of the data (four copies) in my home. I would like iTunes and iPhoto to be server-based right from (or connected to) my storage server so that multiple users/devices can view and update the content. With the so-called iTunes/iPhoto server(s) always on; our devices (aTVs, computers, tablets, iphones, iPods, etc.) would not require syncing to read/play our content). This goes for files, emails, and other content too. 

moving on…

One tablet device would not be sufficient in a multi-user home and based on the mobility requirements and battery longevity the device would need to be light with low performance requirements and little storage capacity… so it would need to be a “client” (clients tell servers what to do and the servers do the work). All content should be server-based with powerful wifi to support video streaming. A powerful broadband network would also be imperative for purchasing/renting/viewing online content. So the 4TB drive suggested should really be a multi-TB NAS (Networked attached Storage) device so all devices (computers, TVs, aTVs, tablets, etc.) can access, update, and manage the server data.

Home media servers are on a slow rise but requires some tech savvy (Mac, PC, or other). Looking into the future we shouldn’t need home media/computer servers it doesn’t make sense. It’s too much technology for Ma & Pa. So servers may eventually be in the cloud managed by companies like Apple, ISP’s, etc. Then we don’t have to worry about RAID and backups and losing our precious digital memorabilia if our house burns down.

Look ahead when home broadband is as commonplace as electricity and bandwidth is not an issue. Computers/tablets, mobile devices, TVs, would access our personal data: photos, music, video, documents, etc. from the cloud. We can own our content, subscribe or rent it, but we won’t have to store it and manage it ourselves; it seems a bit too technical and vulnerable to do so. Note, this is theoretical so let’s not get into security and privacy just yet / let’s take it as a given in our future world.

But we’re not there yet so there needs to be a path to take us from the today’s “desktop” configuration to the future cloud system and that would be a home server. Now Apple do provide OSX server and are promoting it with the new Mac mini, but does iTunes, iPhoto, etc. support multi-user/multi-device access if running on OSX server? I don’t know - maybe someone can write about their experience with OSX server. But Apple is a Hardware & Software provider and besides the Mac Pro, they do not provide a NAS with RAID solution. If they’re serious about the aTV and multi-device access to home/media content… and they obviously are… don’t they need to offer an affordable no-brainer home-server system too?

Bosco P Coltrane

Bosco, why hang out on a Apple board if your drinking “Windblows” Kool Aid? Apple has created a crapload of innovation over the years. Hell the new Dell brick is more a copy of the Apple Mini, and what it took Dell this long to come up with a copycat idea? I just purchased a Dell “Studio One” for my kids, and guess what the turd took a dump several times over the last week. I will take quality of rebooting my fricking computer every day because it won’t work right. Ironically one of the teaching hospitals where I work, bought iMacs and they run windows on it because they found the machines to be more reliable.

xmattingly

I just purchased a Dell ?Studio One? for my kids, and guess what the turd took a dump several times over the last week.

Tell me about it. I work in a small office - half using Macs, half using PC’s; and the PC guys got some brand spanking new Dell towers in the middle of the week. Top of the line 64 bit machines, w/ Windows 7 preinstalled. There was a crack made about those machines being half the price of Mac Pro’s (to which I responded “and four times the hassle). And sure as shit, by the end of the week, they still weren’t up and running, and ready for use.

The difference between a Mac and a PC is made more glaringly obvious by the song & dance a Windows user has to go through if he wants to take his 32 bit software and run it on a 64 bit flavor of Windows, and a 64 bit machine. Convergence? Innovation? Riiiiight…. more like a technological crash course.

I had none of those issues when I bought a new MacBook Pro this summer and ported my user account through Time Machine (neither did I have to install any software), OR when I upgraded to 10.6 a couple of months ago. Apple’s ability to shift from PowerPC processors to Intel, 32 bit software running on a 64 bit OS - major transitions - and make it all pretty well invisible to the end user is what makes the difference between them and everyone else.

Antonio Estbosca

Since all you seem to do on this site anymore is poo-poo on anything Apple-related, we should call you the Turd Burgler. But doesn?t the screen name ?Bosco? already allude to that?

Bosco
Italian: topographic name for someone living or working in a wood, from Late Latin boscus ?shrub?, ?undergrowth? (of Gallic or Germanic origin), or a habitational name from a place named with this word. De Felice suggests that in some cases it may have been an occupational name for a woodsman or forester and, by extension, a nickname for a surly or rough person

Where do you get the ‘turd’ connection? ‘“Surly and rough’ perhaps but a turd?

daemon

I had none of those issues when I bought a new MacBook Pro this summer and ported my user account through Time Machine (neither did I have to install any software),

You know how Apple did that? By not being 64-bit.

That’s right, Snow Leopard is not a 64-bit operating system, it’s a 32-bit with some hacked on bits to enable some programs to run in a pseudo 64-bit mode.

You remember windows 95 and all the critism it received for not being a 32-bit operating system? Same thing with Snow Leopard.

Dan L

The PC is a long way from becoming obsolete.  No gaming console or laptop can come close to the processing/ 3d graphics rendering capabilities of a pc.  To quote my neighbor who saw me playing Team Fortress 2 on my PC a few weeks ago… “holy crap thats like 5 times better than a playstation 3!  It looks like real life!”  (I’m running 2 radeon 4770’s in crossfire mode, together they cost me $220, less than the price of a playstation 3)

eugenio

Dan L said on December 19th, 2009 at 7:29 AM:
The PC is a long way from becoming obsolete.

Git a life Geek

xmattingly

Snow Leopard is not a 64-bit operating system, it?s a 32-bit with some hacked on bits

“Hacked on” is entirely your conjecture. Giving you the benefit of the doubt though, I did a little research on this and found that the kernel in 10.6 apparently loads as 32 bit, but everything else - save for a few Apple applications - runs as 64 bit on top of that. Apple has steadily been transitioning to 64 bit at least since 10.4; apparently they feel that they had enough in 10.6 to market it as a true 64 bit OS… what is your point?

My point was that the transition to 64 bit has had little to no impact on Mac users; since Apple has taken extra care to account for older Macs & 32 bit software, it’s justified.

Log-in to comment