bit-tech.net

Intel's 'Ultrabook' Strategy is Outdated

Posted on 8th Jun 2011 at 07:28 by Clive Webster with 70 comments

Clive Webster
While it’s good news for customers that Intel is aiming to make superportable laptops that rival the MacBook Air affordable for many, via its ‘ultrabook’ project, it shows a slightly outdated mode of thinking. When asked what would make superportable laptops successful, Intel’s executive vice-president Sean Maloney replied that a low price would do it. Low price = more sales = more profit, the conventional wisdom goes. Or does it?

The problem with the equation above is that low price = low margin, and you therefore rely on huge sales to make significant profits. And the drive to lower prices can lead to design compromises – plastic rather than aluminium shells, steel rather than magnesium alloy skeletons, cheap components that fail more quickly or are louder or slower. This is the PC industry for the last 30 years.

But it’s a flawed business model – just look at UK box-shifter Mesh, which ceased trading recently. Equally, look at Acer. For years it has been trimming its costs to be ultra-efficient while also climbing the league tables in terms of units sold. All this effort was in many ways the pinnacle of the low-price philosophy of making money from computers. And it failed: Apple is more profitable.

That’s the shift that we’re seeing: so far, we’ve made do with stuff that kind of works, does a job and doesn’t cost too much. Now we want technology that’s cool, that looks like it could be from the future and that we’re not embarrassed to leave out on the coffee table. Make something desirable and it will sell, even if you whack on a decent margin. And from that decent margin you can invest in customer support (how many negative stories have you heard about Apple customer support? How many positive ones?) and into the creation of new, even more desirable kit.

Of course, the Apple success story doesn’t end at merely charging extra for desirability, there’s the fact that it takes a 30 per cent skim of any software sold for that desirable item. However, the point that it’s desirability and not cheapness that really makes money these days doesn’t crumble in light of the App Store levy caveat. Hopefully superportable laptop makers won’t forget this fact, despite Intel’s out-of-date thinking about them; certainly if preview shots from Computex 2011 are anything to go by, Asus hasn’t with its UX21. Could we see desirably light laptops without a prohibitive price? Possibly, but I’m hoping that the latter doesn’t undermine the former.

70 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Nexxo 8th June 2011, 08:43 Quote
True though: price is the first thing customers bitch about. The second thing would be battery life. Battery life rules all. Your shiny portable toy may be ever so light and compact, but that mobility is made pointless by a need to tether yourself to the nearest socket every 3 hours.

Paul Thurrot predicted that tablet devices would upgrade to full PC functionality, while PCs would come down to meet them in user-friendliness, and that this as the philosophy behind Windows 8. Ultrabooks are an evolutionary step in that process.
barrkel 8th June 2011, 08:56 Quote
My Windows laptop is a Macbook Air 13" (second gen). The oddness of the keyboard layout is a minor inconvenience, but the weight isn't quite as good as my old Toshiba Portege; despite being 2 years newer, not having a DVD drive, it's only slightly faster and perhaps 50% more battery life. It does, however, have a much better graphics processor and supports more memory. I have mine with the SSD and 4GB options.

Point being, if I could have bought a plastic machine that weighed less, but still had the SSD, memory, faster CPU, and an ethernet port (wifi just doesn't cut it when you want to copy some movies before a trip), I would have been perfectly happy to give the Mac a miss.

(Of course, I also needed a Mac because it's new target OS for my company's software, so I needed it there for testing, but I could have made do with a Mac Mini on the end of a ssh connection.)
barrkel 8th June 2011, 09:01 Quote
PS: about Apple being profitable; iPhones are 60% of Apple's revenue. Apple is a consumer electronics company with a computer side-business. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple increasingly dumbs down most of their hardware lineup, so that they turn into hinged iPads with keyboards, and no root access. They'll need a line of machines for developers, but they'll probably be a high-priced exception.
tonyd223 8th June 2011, 09:34 Quote
Surely profitability is an indicator of producing fairly unique products that captures the imagination of the buying public? I'm not an Apple fan, but their approach seems to be make the product desirable and they will pay. Looking for new form factors should be based on the customers need/want, not on the company's desire for profit. I use android phones, but don't see the need to buy an android tablet - yet the iPad 2 makes sense because of its ecosystem - and the sales figures show that to be true - the new announcements add additional functionality and further increase the advantage over rivals.

Perhaps a tablet, with a slide out keyboard?
A tablet that acts as a wireless controller to a static PC (oh, Wii U)
A tablet where you can take out a small piece and it can be a phone...
Bindibadgi 8th June 2011, 09:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
True though: price is the first thing customers bitch about. The second thing would be battery life. Battery life rules all. Your shiny portable toy may be ever so light and compact, but that mobility is made pointless by a need to tether yourself to the nearest socket every 3 hours.

This.

Overwhelmingly the major consumer markets demand lightness and ever more cheapness. This means plastics and more money put into high power batteries. Mobile phones can get away with it because they are subsidised and the amount of material they use is minimal compared to a laptop. What you pay for is engineering cost for minaturisation, which is a fixed factor - not like a block of aluminium.

Apple's model also works because of the services and OS it has in place to back it up, not just the hardware. Would the iPod have been such as massive hit without iTunes? Would Mac's just be pretty PCs without OSX?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyd223
Perhaps a tablet, with a slide out keyboard?.

Done! It's out this month. It's called the Eee Pad Slider. ;)

Also love to Clive for his UX link <3<3
warejon9 8th June 2011, 10:40 Quote
I think one of the reason why Apple has done so well is that they have such a large following. Some people did a study scanning peoples brains and found that largely a lot of people that bought Apple stuff showed a similar brain pattern to people that were religious.

I would never by any Apple product as they're rediculously overpriced, and at the end of the day a mac is just a PC hardware with different software.
Guinevere 8th June 2011, 11:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9
I think one of the reason why Apple has done so well is that they have such a large following.

So they are popular because they're popular? Thanks for clearing that one up. Why do apple fan's love apple? Because they're bloody good that's why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9
I would never by any Apple product as they're ridiculously overpriced, and at the end of the day a mac is just a PC hardware with different software.

First up, they're not overpriced, they're just premium products, apple doesn't do budget gear. If you want a creaky piece of plastic subsidised by tons of bloatware then yes a PC with a similar CPU, GPU, RAM etc will cost less. Nothing wrong with going that route, but if you want premium gear then apple's a good option.

Also, say you want a top spec 10" tablet, the low cost option is actually an iPad 2.

You say they're PC Hardware with different software? By hardware I assume you mean CPU, GPU & RAM? Then yes they share technology, but it's the implementation with software that apple do well. And you mention software as if it's irrelevant. Apple software is cheaper than that from MS - from the free / dirt cheap development tools to the office apps.

You ever bought a new boxed PC? How long did it take to get it the way you wanted? Uninstall all their crap, re-install all the stuff you need. Update the drivers as they shipped out of date crap, found a decent anti-virus package etc. Maybe even do a clean install? People who know PCs do this all the time, but you don't need to do that on a Mac. Really you don't.

Don't get me wrong, I've still got my PC. If I want to play decent games at a decent spec then my i7 rig can still boot into Windows 7. But for everything else I've now switched over to Apple (You guessed that right!). Phone, Laptop, Tablet... The last thing to switch was the i7 rig changing to a hackintosh beast at default.

Only thing more annoying that apple fans like me is apple haters.
hexx 8th June 2011, 11:39 Quote
why apple is doing so well is simple. they develop hardware in line with their software, simply said, they know what they're doing on both hw and sw. that's why they're so good and offer better user experience. where microsoft is working on sw and then you have hundreds of manufacturers who are competing between themselves and trying to differentiate one from another meaning you have more hw variations. SW simply isn't tightly built to run on all hw.

that's huge difference. out of all mac os running computers apple sold, 75% are laptops therefore their sw engineers make sure that os runs flawlessly on laptop and that's how it is. you don't get any sort of slowness or anything like that on a laptop, even if it's 11" Air.

Yes, I'm a mac user but not a blind one, i've done fair deal of research and been running hackintosh for over 6 months before i decided to switch completely.

And i'm not looking back, can't, user experience of apple products/sw isn't matched.

first time i reinstalled system was when i upgraded to ssd - that was after almost 2 years - i've never ever before had that luxury to run win in stable state for as long and was reinstalling roughly every 3 months.

So it's that firm connection between hw and sw - that's what makes apple's excellent user experience.

it's not about tech specs - those are irrelevant, what is relevant is user experience and simply mac allows you to forget you're working on a piece of hw and using os - nope, you're completely focused on what you're doing, whether it's a game, development, reading, mixing music, anything. system and hw doesn't get in the way - and that's what user experience should be about, to get done what you need done as soon as you can without any hw/sw related problems.
StoneyMahoney 8th June 2011, 12:04 Quote
If you want to make a computer as popular as a Mac it needs the following things:

1) Keyboard and touchpad that are easy to use without mistakes or corrections (Mac touchpads have been especially good for a long time)
2) Matte screen (FFS!)
3) Good battery life and perfectly reliable sleep and hibernation modes (the latter two being the dodgy point on many PC laptops)
4) "Enough" power and storage space (Macbook Air = perfect example)
5) No driver issues or per-vendor customization issues. Ever.

Because Apple can integrate the hardware and operating system more closely than any Windows box maker ever could, they can make power management and driver integration something you just take for granted and don't notice anymore. True, their drivers don't have the best performance in the world most of the time, but switching back to an Acer laptop from a Powerbook G4 after a few years, that's when that indefinable Apple edge suddenly gets quantified in very specific ways as the rough edges around things that used to just work make their presence felt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Apple Cultist (those people scare the bejesus outta me) and Mac laptops aren't perfect (UK keyboard layout is lazy and what is it with those frickin' gloss screens!!!!! ARGH!) but I just can't see any Wintel box ever catching up to Apple in terms of usability, and that's why people buy Apple (and why many other people fail to understand why people buy Apple)
Claave 8th June 2011, 12:19 Quote
Can we please get away from Mac vs PC discussions and back onto the original point, which was:

desirability = profit (ie success) while cheapness doesn't; therefore why is Intel saying that the key aspect of its 'ultrabook' project is a low cost? Is Intel out of touch?
tonyd223 8th June 2011, 12:28 Quote
I understand your point @Claave - but Apple v PC is a great illustration. Cheaper pc's mean more pc's sold to users who would not normally want or feel they need a pc - non-techies, who just want to do a task, not have to fight an OS or the limitations of the compromised machine they bought. Maybe the Chrome OS model will deliver a better user experience. As for Intel - they make most of their money from chip sales so they don't actualy care if you granny buys a cheap machine that she can't use - just that they can sell shed-loads of chips.

Cheapest PC in the UK - it's a phone with a subsidised contract, and Intel are just waking up to that potential.
DbD 8th June 2011, 12:33 Quote
PC market does just fine making cheaper versions of mac products (which often are just cheaper - they can be just as well made). However the MacBook air was never that popular to start with - you don't hear about it at all these days. Equally there were PC variants of it, and they didn't sell that well either.

Intel isn't bringing anything new really - this product only exists because they can't make a cpu low powered enough to go in a tablet (the thing that is selling well). I doubt it'll go anywhere.
Flanananagan 8th June 2011, 12:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
First up, they're not overpriced, they're just premium products, apple doesn't do budget gear. If you want a creaky piece of plastic subsidised by tons of bloatware then yes a PC with a similar CPU, GPU, RAM etc will cost less. Nothing wrong with going that route, but if you want premium gear then apple's a good option.


So Apple DO charge more for the same hardware? That's what you've just said.
Paradigm Shifter 8th June 2011, 12:50 Quote
As I see it, a PC is a PC is a PC. Mesh struggled because, in the end, it's just another "beige box shifter". Acer struggle because, while some of their products are "desirable" they simply don't have the marketing department and power than Apple have built up. In my experience, their abysmal Customer Support doesn't help either.

Desirability is all down to marketing. You tell everyone that 'x' is the hottest new gadget they absolutely must have, you get adverts everywhere telling them, you get journalists telling them, you get the "trendies" looking down on people who don't have something... and everyone will go mad for it.

It's a label, essentially. Like designer jeans costing £80+ that are exactly the same as non-brand jobs that sell for a fiver but don't have that all important 'brand' label stitched on the back pocket. Convince everyone that label is desirable and those swayed by that sort of thing will sell their souls for it.

...

Saying cheapness doesn't equal profit doesn't necessarily work, either; on the PC 'cheapness' front I think the issue is that there are, literally, hundreds of companies building PCs to the lowest price possible. There's only one Apple, because they've locked down their territory and fight viciously to guard it. Imagine if IBM had done that back when everything was "IBM Compatible" - there would likely be two PC electronics firms in the world: IBM and Motorola.
tonyd223 8th June 2011, 12:55 Quote
Mesh failed because of the way the market is geared towards the big 5. I used to work for Maxdata - another also ran but who were in 11 countries across europe. They just weren't able to buy at the same price as the big 5, just had to sell their products cheaper to entice a business market that didn't really care. Mesh had to spend lots on marketing a brand - adverts in every magazine, etc, but just wasn't getting the return in volume sales.

I think - I didn't work for Mesh!
hexx 8th June 2011, 12:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
... However the MacBook air was never that popular to start with - you don't hear about it at all these days....

most of laptops they sell are Airs - the new ones
hexx 8th June 2011, 13:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanananagan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
First up, they're not overpriced, they're just premium products, apple doesn't do budget gear. If you want a creaky piece of plastic subsidised by tons of bloatware then yes a PC with a similar CPU, GPU, RAM etc will cost less. Nothing wrong with going that route, but if you want premium gear then apple's a good option.


So Apple DO charge more for the same hardware? That's what you've just said.

nope, they don't. just went through this yesterday with my friend - cheapest 27" iMac vs alternative based on same/similar components:

Apple price: £1399
Equivalent built from parts (Mini ITX): £1626

not talking about the mess with cables, need to build it yourself and so on...
Ergath 8th June 2011, 13:04 Quote
Mmmm. So, what does the future hold? Tablets to replace the cheap home laptop or desktop (with onlive for gaming) and "proper", premium computers just for professionals/enthusiasts?
hexx 8th June 2011, 13:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ergath
Mmmm. So, what does the future hold? Tablets to replace the cheap home laptop or desktop (with onlive for gaming) and "proper", premium computers just for professionals/enthusiasts?

the way i see it is more about what you want to do. i don't think we will have a pc a tablet or a phone with different os

what i believe we'll have is just one os which handles all devices and they'll be all up to date (like apple presented with their iCloud offering) and you will just use a device which suits your current needs and situation - more like a terminal or screen you use to get done what you need done.

i guess aim will be to make system as transparent as possible and focus on experience and productivity - no matter what device you use
hexx 8th June 2011, 13:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
Can we please get away from Mac vs PC discussions and back onto the original point, which was:

desirability = profit (ie success) while cheapness doesn't; therefore why is Intel saying that the key aspect of its 'ultrabook' project is a low cost? Is Intel out of touch?

that's not off topic, that's on topic since you can't look at this as a bunch of chips and tech specs and so on.

ppl pay for experience and experience is what drives their need to buy
tonyd223 8th June 2011, 13:30 Quote
+1 on the cloud - and then we pick and choose the device (or interface) we use to access
warejon9 8th June 2011, 13:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanananagan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
First up, they're not overpriced, they're just premium products, apple doesn't do budget gear. If you want a creaky piece of plastic subsidised by tons of bloatware then yes a PC with a similar CPU, GPU, RAM etc will cost less. Nothing wrong with going that route, but if you want premium gear then apple's a good option.


So Apple DO charge more for the same hardware? That's what you've just said.

nope, they don't. just went through this yesterday with my friend - cheapest 27" iMac vs alternative based on same/similar components:

Apple price: £1399
Equivalent built from parts (Mini ITX): £1626

not talking about the mess with cables, need to build it yourself and so on...

Erm, that quote for a computer is more than my PC by far. Ok yea the screen is a large cost (£918 for the mac build, however Hazro do a similar quality screen for £550) and building that exact spec on Scan is £615, and that ain't going for the cheapest of stuff either with a Lian Li case and modular PSU.

The best thing about the iMac 27 is the screen, which your getting at a slightly cheaper price.

I understand why people don't like Dell etc because of all the bloat you get with them, I've built all my computers myself, and haven't had any stability problems at all, and building a computer isn't that hard these days.

You can be fine with Dells and i agree to some extent you get what you pay for, but there is no way that you can buy a similar spec Mac to a PC and not pay more for it, unless you buy an "Alienware" which are just rip offs.

As far as the future goes, what you might get is have your tablet linked to your TV so you've got a larger screen to do stuff with/watch films etc.
fingerbob69 8th June 2011, 14:03 Quote
"(how many negative stories have you heard about Apple customer support? How many positive ones?)"

Would that be be the stories of Apple not responding to customer complaints or the ones about Apple denying that there is anything to complain about or even the ones about Apple telling their customer care reps to even acknowledge that there is a problem to deny ?
hexx 8th June 2011, 14:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9


Erm, that quote for a computer is more than my PC by far. Ok yea the screen is a large cost (£918 for the mac build, however Hazro do a similar quality screen for £550) and building that exact spec on Scan is £615, and that ain't going for the cheapest of stuff either with a Lian Li case and modular PSU.

here are components i used (from scan) and they try to match iMac as closely as possible, few problems though:

- had to opt for slightly more expensive case to save on itx psu and use normal one
- there's no IPS LED backlight 27" display on the market with that resolution so Dell 27" is used
- no fanless psu to keep price as low as possible
- no 512MB gfx can be found from hd6770 series on Scan
- slower cpu used, since can't find 2.7GHz 65W on scan

config:
gfx - 1GB sapphire HD6770
bluetooth mouse + keyboard - logitech cordless desktop
display - 27" Dell U2711
os - Win7 Ultimate Retail
mobo - Intel BOXDH67CFB3
cpu - Intel Core i5 2.5GHz 65W
FW800 - Lycom PE-107 FW800 card
wifi - Asus USB-N13 - 300Mb/s (like apple) wifi N
ram - 2x2GB Corsair DDR3 1333Mhz
hdd - 1TB HD Caviar Blue
bluetooth - Belkin F8T017NG bluetooth 2.1 + EDR (like apple, not v2)
slot-in dvd - samsung SN-T083C
case - Lian Li PC-Q11B
cpu fan - low profile Dynatron K2 Mini ITX
psu - 400W FSP Green - cheapest one
Stotherd-001 8th June 2011, 14:26 Quote
Personally, I took a mac that wouldn't turn on for three days (strangely turned on the day of the visit) to be told there was no issue. He then proceeded to tell me the screen was about to die, and it would cost £90 to fix along with some minor cosmetic damage. It wasn't. 3 months later I took it in again. Price had risen to £240 for no apparent reason, screen was still working fine.
If you're out of warranty and the apple product breaks you may as well buy a new device.
hexx 8th June 2011, 14:28 Quote
and forgot to add, there's no SD card reader and no ThunderBolt connections, iMac has 2

In other words, iMac is £250 less than equivalent built from available components.

It means you can either use it on applecare and iwork or external FW800/TB disk or upgrade to SSD or you can buy sw worth £250
warejon9 8th June 2011, 14:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9


Erm, that quote for a computer is more than my PC by far. Ok yea the screen is a large cost (£918 for the mac build, however Hazro do a similar quality screen for £550) and building that exact spec on Scan is £615, and that ain't going for the cheapest of stuff either with a Lian Li case and modular PSU.

here are components i used (from scan) and they try to match iMac as closely as possible, few problems though:

- had to opt for slightly more expensive case to save on itx psu and use normal one
- there's no IPS LED backlight 27" display on the market with that resolution so Dell 27" is used
- no fanless psu to keep price as low as possible
- no 512MB gfx can be found from hd6770 series on Scan
- slower cpu used, since can't find 2.7GHz 65W on scan

config:
gfx - 1GB sapphire HD6770
bluetooth mouse + keyboard - logitech cordless desktop
display - 27" Dell U2711
os - Win7 Ultimate Retail
mobo - Intel BOXDH67CFB3
cpu - Intel Core i5 2.5GHz 65W
FW800 - Lycom PE-107 FW800 card
wifi - Asus USB-N13 - 300Mb/s (like apple) wifi N
ram - 2x2GB Corsair DDR3 1333Mhz
hdd - 1TB HD Caviar Blue
bluetooth - Belkin F8T017NG bluetooth 2.1 + EDR (like apple, not v2)
slot-in dvd - samsung SN-T083C
case - Lian Li PC-Q11B
cpu fan - low profile Dynatron K2 Mini ITX
psu - 400W FSP Green - cheapest one

The hazro screen i mentioned here is Wled http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hazro_hz27wa.htm, it is very similar, and i think it has the same resolution. If you go for the zotac motherboard, then that includes wifi with it, i forgot the bluetooth, so however much that is. Also the reason why it only has 512mg of graphics ram is because it is a laptop card (hence why it has an M in the name)
I do'nt know which i5 your using, but this is clocked at 2.8 (http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-i5-760-s1156-lynnfield-quad-core-28-ghz-8mb-cache-core-ratio-21x-95w-retail)
Also you've added windows ultimate, when there is no need for it you probs wouldn't notice the difference, you could easily also just use an OEM saving you £100.
As far as the fanless PSU, a 120mm fan spinning slowly is pretty much inaudible, and the PSU will lost longer due to being cooler.
hexx 8th June 2011, 15:06 Quote
that hazro looks good, yep gfx is mobile, couldn't find on scan, would say it costs the same or about the same, mobo is chosen to fit the purpose, as small foot print as possible so mini-ITX is logical choice, i chose core i5 2.5GHz because it's 65W the same as the ones in iMac, they don't use 95W+ cpus. the reason for retail wub is because Mac OS comes with iMac and it's yours forever, you can't say the same about OEM Win. If you sell your PC your OEM license is gone. every mac comes with OS as part of the package. so no need to buy one every time. and you can install it on up to i think 10 computers providing they're using the same apple ID - you can't do it with OEM nor Retail Win.
hexx 8th June 2011, 15:07 Quote
fixing typo 'the reason for retail wub' should be 'the reason for retail Win'
warejon9 8th June 2011, 15:08 Quote
Sorry forgot to say, how many things do you know have thunderbolt? You can by a flash card reader for 2quid.

So the computer parts came to £710, and £400 for the screen (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-011-HO&groupid=17&catid=1120&subcat=)

Logitech Cordless Desktop S 520 Keyboard & Laser Mouse USB

Belkin F8T017NG Bluetooth v2.1 + EDR USB Key Class 1 - 100-150m

Lian Li PC-V351B, Black Aluminum Cube Mini ITX Case w/o PSU

1TB Samsung HD103SJ Spinpoint F3, SATA 3Gb/s, 7200rpm, 32MB Cache, 8.9ms, NCQ

550W Antec Basiq Plus, Modular PSU, EPS 12V, 120mm Fan, ATX 12V Version 2.2

Veho VSD-003 Micro-SD/SDHC USB Card Reader

Intel i5 760, S1156, Lynnfield Quad Core, 2.8 GHz, 8MB Cache, Core Ratio 21x, 95W, Retail

4GB Corsair XMS3, DDR3 PC3-10666 (1333), Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 9-9-9-24, 1.50V

1GB Sapphire HD 6770, PCI-E 2.1 (x16), 4800MHz GDDR5, GPU 850MHz, 800 Cores, DP/ HDMI/ DL DVI-I

Zotac H55ITX-A-E, Intel H55 Express, 1156, DDR3 1066/1333, SATA 3Gb/s, Mini ITX

Sony AD-7260S-0B 24x DVD±R, 12xDVD±DL, DVD+RW x8/-RWx6 ,12xRAM SATA, Black, OEM

Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit SP1, Operating System, Single, - OEM
warejon9 8th June 2011, 15:15 Quote
Well the license stays with the PC, so it doesn't matter, if you give them the disk and license. The difference between OEM and retail is the fancy box and you get some software support.

You can install Win on the same computer many times, they only get upset if you change the computer, and even then you can more than likely register it.

The reason why they use 65w cpu's is because they downclock them, also because it is built into the screen you don't want it to be pumping out heat. A mobile chip is not anywhere near as powerful as the desktop version, due to a laptop having a lot less power at its disposal so the 6770 will last a lot longer than the 6770m in terms of graphical grunt.

Also most of those parts come with a 2/3 year guarantee free.
hexx 8th June 2011, 15:16 Quote
Lian Li PC-V351B, Black Aluminum Cube Mini ITX Case w/o PSU - that's not mini-ITX but micro ATX - and is much bigger

CPU - should be sandy bridge, the same goes for motherboard
and as i said, you need retail version of os

you forgot wifi and firewire, wifi must be N 300Mb/s and FireWire must be 800

you can't use other components because you should stay as close as possible to iMac, that's the whole point of it, meaning as power efficient as possible (iMac is 300W btw), as small as possible, the same connectivity options and so on...
hexx 8th June 2011, 15:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9
Well the license stays with the PC, so it doesn't matter, if you give them the disk and license. The difference between OEM and retail is the fancy box and you get some software support.

You can install Win on the same computer many times, they only get upset if you change the computer, and even then you can more than likely register it.

that's not true at all. oem license can be obtained for system builders and can be bought together with hdd, cpu, mobo, it's not transferable between different machines. i learned this hard way when my legally purchased vista ultimate oem was f****d after changing mobo
warejon9 8th June 2011, 15:36 Quote
Well the mobo comes with wifi, firewire is another 30 quid. The prices for having lynfield compared to sb are the same. If you wanted it to be power efficient, then you can just undervolt the CPU.
The lian li case states it is mini ITX in the name.

As far as your copy for windows, if you ring them up then 99% of the time they will just give you the code, and technically a mobo does count as a new computer however if you explained to them why, they usually just give it to you anway, i've done it a few times.
Volund 8th June 2011, 15:40 Quote
hexx, all of your cost comparisons are useless anyway.

Apple is a multi-million dollar company who deals directly with hardware manufacturers, they buy in massive bulk, reducing their cost substantially. You are buying from Scan, who buy in smaller quantities, and who mark up the cost of items so that they make profit as well. The screen that you are buying is made by dell, who buy the panel from LG (I believe), and then sell it to scan, who sell it to you.

The fact that your build came out about 300 pounds more than apple is not surprising, especially when you have done your best to make it as small a build as possible. If you had used full sized components, you would have come out cheaper as well. Also, W7 ultimate is unnecessary.

Basically all you have proven is how much of a premium Apple charges for it's underpowered hardware.
Nexxo 8th June 2011, 15:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9
I think one of the reason why Apple has done so well is that they have such a large following. Some people did a study scanning peoples brains and found that largely a lot of people that bought Apple stuff showed a similar brain pattern to people that were religious.
No, they found that when you show Apple fans (not all Apple users) a logo of Apple, the same parts of the brain show heightened activity as happens when religious people are shown religious imagery.

As someone with a neuropsychology background I can safely predict that you would get the same result when you scan football fans while exposed to their team logo/colours, or when you scan patriots when exposed to their national flag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
desirability = profit (ie success) while cheapness doesn't; therefore why is Intel saying that the key aspect of its 'ultrabook' project is a low cost? Is Intel out of touch?

No, Intel is right. Desirability alone is not enough. I sincerely desire an Aston Martin. I cannot afford to buy one, so unfortunately my feelings towards Aston Martin are irrelevant to their bottom line. I quite desire an iPad or Asus Transformer, but again... it's too much money right now, so no sale.

Intel rightly considers price as significant a factor in making the sale as desirability.
hexx 8th June 2011, 15:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volund
hexx, all of your cost comparisons are useless anyway.

Apple is a multi-million dollar company who deals directly with hardware manufacturers, they buy in massive bulk, reducing their cost substantially. You are buying from Scan, who buy in smaller quantities, and who mark up the cost of items so that they make profit as well. The screen that you are buying is made by dell, who buy the panel from LG (I believe), and then sell it to scan, who sell it to you.

The fact that your build came out about 300 pounds more than apple is not surprising, especially when you have done your best to make it as small a build as possible. If you had used full sized components, you would have come out cheaper as well. Also, W7 ultimate is unnecessary.

Basically all you have proven is how much of a premium Apple charges for it's underpowered hardware.


nope that's the whole point. how much you pay for the same or as similar as possible computer at apple store and if you build it yourself.

if you don't get it then there's nothing i can do about it.

people always say that macs are expensive, so i've done research and try to build a copy of cheapest 27"imac and those are my findings.

if you want to compare imac to something, that something should be as similar as possible. otherwise there's nothing to compare, it's as simple as that.

i don't care about how big is margin at scan or overclockers, all I care about is how much it costs me.

sorry but having windows home is a joke and can't be compared to Mac OS X. apparently you're not a mac user and therefore can't see the difference. I've built myself many computers and was a win guy until the end of 2009 and am still using win at work, but at home and everywhere with me i use mac.
hexx 8th June 2011, 15:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, they found that when you show Apple fans (not all Apple users) a logo of Apple, the same parts of the brain show heightened activity as happens when religious people are shown religious imagery.

it was an example of ONE person not study done on many of them, if you're referring to that bit shown on BBC few days ago
Volund 8th June 2011, 16:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
people always say that macs are expensive, so i've done research and try to build a copy of cheapest 27"imac and those are my findings.

I'm just looking at it a different way than you are, they are expensive for what they are. They are using underpowered (underclocked and mobile parts), to make up for their all-in-one design decision. Also, the second you upgrade from apple, your cost comparisons go to hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx

if you want to compare imac to something, that something should be as similar as possible. otherwise there's nothing to compare, it's as simple as that.

The problem, again is that you are comparing consumer parts to something that is not made out of general consumer parts. the iMac is built based off of laptop components, which are not generally available to system builders. Seeing as you can't use even remotely similar parts, you might as well use the base model Mac Pro for comparison, as you will be able to get much more direct comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
sorry but having windows home is a joke and can't be compared to Mac OS X. apparently you're not a mac user and therefore can't see the difference. I've built myself many computers and was a win guy until the end of 2009 and am still using win at work, but at home and everywhere with me i use mac.

easily 60% of users will not use, need, or even realize that they are missing the features of W7 Pro or Ulitmate. that is the point of multiple versions of the OS.

Give me 5 reasons that using OSX will improve my life over my using Linux and Windows.....
Claave 8th June 2011, 16:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
desirability = profit (ie success) while cheapness doesn't; therefore why is Intel saying that the key aspect of its 'ultrabook' project is a low cost? Is Intel out of touch?

No, Intel is right. Desirability alone is not enough. I sincerely desire an Aston Martin. I cannot afford to buy one, so unfortunately my feelings towards Aston Martin are irrelevant to their bottom line. I quite desire an iPad or Asus Transformer, but again... it's too much money right now, so no sale.

Intel rightly considers price as significant a factor in making the sale as desirability.

Fair point, well made.

Super-thin laptops such as the Samsung Series 9 and the MacBook Air currently cost around £1,300 (or US$1,500) and rumours suggest the Asus UX21 will achieve a sub-$1,000 price (possibly £900?).

That's a fairly strong reason to favour the UX21 over the others, but is it compelling enough to make you opt for it over a £500 CULV or a mainstream laptop? That's where desirability needs to take over if Intel's project is to claim the 40 per cent market share that the company wants/predicts.

Desirability and only desirability doesn't lead to sales; there are practical considerations too. It's odd that it's these considerations that are Intel's primary focus though.
Xir 8th June 2011, 17:01 Quote
I also disagree, I think Intel's right.
For most buyers, the price is the price is the price.

Of course there's a top end market that caters for the must-have's at any price.
But in the end, it comes down to affordability.
According to your philosophy, a total of 0 netbooks should have been sold the last few years. ;)
Iphones may be a tad more slick than androids, but they're triple the price, what's selling better?

I bet at least 99 of 100 people really liking a porsche at a car show end up buying a golf. :D

Look at it this way: Intel, other than Apple, thinks VOLUME.
Sales based on Style aren't for the volume market.

I couldn't find the unit sales (I'm not sure either intel nor apple publish them) but just to show you the size of chipzilla:

Apple made a revenue of 65.23 billion in 2010
That's a lot.
Intel made a revenue of 43.623 billion in 2010... ahyupp, that's a digit more in there :D

Mind you, the american system of billions and dots and so on doesn't really make sense to me in my european way, i'm however guessing it's not supposed to be a comma
hexx 8th June 2011, 17:06 Quote
@volund, as a Linux user you should know those reasons already ;)

when i was younger i didn't mind tweaking my computers and spend time with building/upgrading and so on.

these days i want to get done what i need to do as quickly as possible without even thinking about hw/sw, that's why i switched

i'd be happy with ubuntu too but no photoshop for ubuntu and gimp doesn't support cmyk

the thing is that those components might seem underpowered on win but on mac os they are more than enough. i normally run about 15 apps on my macbook pro and no problem at all, couldn't do it on win

mac os x is built around their hw, they know what's inside therefore it's better optimised
Xir 8th June 2011, 17:11 Quote
Hmmm, from their respective 10K-forms, it seems that the dot I mentioned actually is a comma, and Apple is bigger than intel...

Oh well...shame I can't find the unit sales though
warejon9 8th June 2011, 17:17 Quote
So if they're underpowered, why not by a PC which is more powerful for the same price?

Also computers have come a long way in the last few years, and CPU's are a lot more powerful than they used to be, and its nearly impossible for me to make my computer cry and i'm folding 24/7 on skype, got monitoring software going as well as the usual av+firewall.

I think optimisation is important, of which Macs probably are, but you pay for it. I found it amusing when Nvidia released a new quadro part that was £150 quid yet spanked a 580 in CAD design.
warejon9 8th June 2011, 17:19 Quote
@ Xir Apple do have a lot higher profit due to them making the iPhone 4 for $180 and selling it for £700.
Nexxo 8th June 2011, 17:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
it was an example of ONE person not study done on many of them, if you're referring to that bit shown on BBC few days ago

Very important detail. Thanks for reminding us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9
@ Xir Apple do have a lot higher profit due to them making the iPhone 4 for $180 and selling it for £700.

Speaking of details...

The production price in components for a 16Gb model is $187.51. Add to that manufacture, software development, shipping, patent licensing, marketing/advertising, warranty cover, replacement of defective units and all the R&D that went into creating the thing in the first place, it all mounts up.

The sale price of a 16Gb model is $599,-- or £365,-- at current exchange rates.

Apple has an overall profit margin of 24.27%
warejon9 8th June 2011, 17:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

The sale price of a 16Gb model is $599,-- or £365,-- at current exchange rates.

Apple has an overall profit margin of 24.27%

If you go onto the Apple store its £510 for the 16gb version. Yea that don't take into account marketing and research, but that is still a heafty margin hence why they make such large profits.

A lot of people though buy stuff just because its Apple, almost like a fashion statement and ashumed quality.
hexx 8th June 2011, 18:25 Quote
apple nailed it with their stores, they didn't used to have them, i think it was after jobs returned to apple. makes sense, if you cut the middleman your margins are fatter.
Yslen 8th June 2011, 18:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanananagan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
First up, they're not overpriced, they're just premium products, apple doesn't do budget gear. If you want a creaky piece of plastic subsidised by tons of bloatware then yes a PC with a similar CPU, GPU, RAM etc will cost less. Nothing wrong with going that route, but if you want premium gear then apple's a good option.


So Apple DO charge more for the same hardware? That's what you've just said.

nope, they don't. just went through this yesterday with my friend - cheapest 27" iMac vs alternative based on same/similar components:

Apple price: £1399
Equivalent built from parts (Mini ITX): £1626

not talking about the mess with cables, need to build it yourself and so on...

This is the one case where apple is cheaper and it's only because of the screen. Try it with the smaller screen iMac and the PC wins.

Also, imagine two people bought both of the machines you priced up, then fast forward 3-4 years. Both users want to upgrade to a faster machine.

The PC user buys a new box for a few hundred quid, or if they know what they're about just upgrades the core components and spends even less.

The Mac user has to buy a whole new iMac. That's £1399 please! Ker-ching/Ouch (depending on your perspective).

EDIT: Also, premium product? Really? Last time I looked at a Mac it had a foxconn motherboard and low-end RAM, not to mention a glossy IPS screen that is completely trounced in terms of colour accuracy by any consumer level IPS screen you care to mention. They look shiny and have features that can be given names and numbers (usually embelished with words such as "magical"). The only thing positive I have to say about Apple is they have good customer support and they make a decent PC case/laptop shell.
Nexxo 8th June 2011, 18:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9
If you go onto the Apple store its £510 for the 16gb version. Yea that don't take into account marketing and research, but that is still a heafty margin hence why they make such large profits.
Don't blame Apple for the hefty import mark-up that the UK tends to suffer on all imported goods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9
A lot of people though buy stuff just because its Apple, almost like a fashion statement and ashumed quality.
Is that a sweeping generalisation or a statement based on sound analysis of the facts, just like your first one? :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
apple nailed it with their stores, they didn't used to have them, i think it was after jobs returned to apple. makes sense, if you cut the middleman your margins are fatter.
That was partly the reason. The main reason was that Jobs identified that Apple PCs were selling poorly because mainstream outlets did not market them very well. Apple PCs would be positioned next to cheaper IBM-type PCs but the salesmen would not be able to tell the customer how the Apple was different, and therefore justify the price difference.

Jobs decided that with the own Apple store he would have more control over how the product was presented and sold. Turns out he was right. Muggles are not like us geeks; we are happy to buy a list of complicated components on the web and put together our own machine. To a muggle that would be tantamount to building their own car from parts that they have to pick out themselves. It's their worst nightmare. They want to buy their PC, like their car, in a nice clean, brightly lit air-conditioned showroom, where they can test drive the thing, and get support, aftercare and servicing/repairs included. For that they will happily pay a premium.

What does this tell us? It tells us that ordinary people, i.e. the majority of PC users will pay a premium for something that is safe and easy to use. Not flexible, not versatile, not customisable, hackable or rootable; easy. Something that does the straightforward stuff muggles want to do transparently, not the esoteric stuff we want to do by applying our hardcore geek-voodoo.

Intel and Microsoft are catching on to that. The future isn't powerful; the future is safe and easy.
azazel1024 8th June 2011, 19:32 Quote
Yes, also keep in mind that that free or dirt cheap software is subsidized by charging a large permium on the components. I'll be the first to admit, other than the apple logo on them, Apple makes some sexy hardware. However, BOM wise, they are doing easily a double or more markup on a lot of their products (BOM for the Apple TV is supposedly around $30 and is sold at $99 as an example). Sure that is reduced on full fledged desktops and laptops, but there is still a significant markup for the permium product.

So of course the software can be cheap or free, you've already paid through the nose for the hardware. Most Apple products with the exception of the consumer electronics products where Apple shifts massive volumes (up to and including the iPad) they get such a low price on the components compared to their competitors that they can charge a larger premium and still not be much more expensive or cheaper.

Tablets and phones Apple is starting to be overtaken in price. Its hard for, say, Acer to get a low BOM on its components when it is only just sourcing maybe 500,000 screens, or 500,000 SOCs or whatnot when you are up against Apple who is already sourcing 25 million of each at the same time. The Transformer, Iconia and Galaxy tabs are also coming in at or below the price of the iPads now, its only a matter of time unless Apple drops its price that Apple is very much going to be the premium price dealer of tablets, just like they are with computers.

Apple developed a great product at the right time and has made money hand over fist...but just like the iPhone, who's market share is rapidly being overtaken by Android, Apple is failing in a lot of ways to innovate further and incorporate either hardware or software elements that a wide potential user base wants. Micro SD card slot of SD card slot? You're telling me they couldn't have fit one in to the iPad 2 and it almost no additional cost? But then it would "undercut" their higher capacity iPads and the massive premium charged on them (with current price of NAND flash, the 32GB iPad2 is likely only costing Apple around $20-30 extra to make, but they are charging a lot more than 3x the price premium). That is just one example of something that could be easily incorporated in, at little cost and little design compromise that probably 98% of users either want or would appreciate, but Apple says no.

The walled ecosystem is another issue. Speaking from someone who has an Ipad2, it annoys the hell out of me. I WANT access to my file system. I hate that files can't really be shared between applications. I'd love to wirelessly connect to a network share and transfer over some file and then interact with those files in whatever app I want. No chance in heck of that, at best I can wirelessly transfer in a file from a network share directly to the app copying it and then I can interact with it only in that app. Great usability there.

Oh, but it just works and I am protected. Forgot that selling point.

PS As a note, the iPad2 was a gift, and yes I am enjoying it, but there are parts of it that piss me off so much about Apple's walled ecosystem. Some perks, I'll grant that right off, but if it had been my money it would have been a Galaxy tab or an Iconia or a transformer that I would have spent my money on.
warejon9 8th June 2011, 19:52 Quote
@Nexxo, yea some of the stuff is ramble like the fashion thing. But the fact they're safe is bs considering in every hackathon the Mac is the first to fall. The only reason why they've lasted so long is because they're based on Linux.

I think one of the big reason why apple has done well was the iPod, as that got the brand name around a bit, everyone has one. Similar to the halo effect of GPU's then people started to buy more of their products, think of the first iPhone which the best part of it was the touchscreen, connectivity wise it was shocking.

The stores might be good, but i reckon if you setup a computer shop and allowed people to test drive the stuff you could tell them anything. PC World doesn't do well as they try and sell you loads of bundle crap (i went for an interview there and if they don't sell you the extra stuff they don't make any money)

It would be interesting to see what happens to Apple in the future, as i feel that there could be a trend that they will re-invent something and then people will slowly catchup in sales (thinking of the iPhone losing market share) So what will happen when they run out of ideas?
Volund 8th June 2011, 20:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by warejon9
@Nexxo, yea some of the stuff is ramble like the fashion thing. But the fact they're safe is bs considering in every hackathon the Mac is the first to fall. The only reason why they've lasted so long is because they're based on UNIX.

Fixed
grimerking 9th June 2011, 10:12 Quote
Surely the reason everybody has a PC now, is because they are cheap!

If the price of a laptop had stayed at £1500+, then only 'geeks' and businesses would buy them.

Apple might make nice consumer electronic devices, but they are outside the price range for the vast majority of people in the UK.

Most people just want a gateway to the web and a reasonable hard drive for their snaps/music/pr0n.
okenobi 9th June 2011, 10:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
....key aspect of its 'ultrabook' project is a low cost? Is Intel out of touch?

Intel IS out of touch with you and me, but not out of touch with Joe Schmo who thinks voting is important (primarily for X-Factor), has an addiction to football and beer will be buying his ultrabook on revolving credit.

The market determines what is developed, and the market is stupid. Like Nexxo is always saying (and I can't remember the exact percentage) but the vast majority of the population are incapable of critical thought of the level at which this debate exists.

Street price and lack of margin has been slowly killing retail in this country for at least a decade. I used to work in pro-audio and it's the same there. Some people will pay for top quality, but very few. So the only places in the market (and it's the same in tourism where I now work) are the best - or the cheapest. Anything else is death.
hexx 9th June 2011, 10:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
[What does this tell us? It tells us that ordinary people, i.e. the majority of PC users will pay a premium for something that is safe and easy to use. Not flexible, not versatile, not customisable, hackable or rootable; easy. Something that does the straightforward stuff muggles want to do transparently, not the esoteric stuff we want to do by applying our hardcore geek-voodoo.

Intel and Microsoft are catching on to that. The future isn't powerful; the future is safe and easy.

well said, fully agree
hexx 9th June 2011, 10:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yslen
EDIT: Also, premium product? Really? Last time I looked at a Mac it had a foxconn motherboard and low-end RAM, not to mention a glossy IPS screen that is completely trounced in terms of colour accuracy by any consumer level IPS screen you care to mention. They look shiny and have features that can be given names and numbers (usually embelished with words such as "magical"). The only thing positive I have to say about Apple is they have good customer support and they make a decent PC case/laptop shell.

don't forget that apple re-sell value is much higher than of that of regular win based desktops. i paid for my mbp 999 and still can sell it for 800 after 2 years. try it with regular laptop or a win based desktop. you can't, i know for how much i sold my quad based gaming machine after 2 years with new gfx and new psu.
Yslen 9th June 2011, 12:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
don't forget that apple re-sell value is much higher than of that of regular win based desktops. i paid for my mbp 999 and still can sell it for 800 after 2 years. try it with regular laptop or a win based desktop. you can't, i know for how much i sold my quad based gaming machine after 2 years with new gfx and new psu.

Definitely a good point! I've never sold a Windows PC, I either upgrade them in stages and sell off components (which can hold their value very well, depending on what they are) or keep them until they're so old that they're worthless.
Claave 9th June 2011, 12:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
[
Intel and Microsoft are catching on to that. The future isn't powerful; the future is safe and easy.

well said, fully agree

Hmm, except Intel isn't talking about safe and easy, it's talking about cheap. Obviously it's a microprocessor company and doesn't make UIs, so 'safe and easy' is outside their remit, but the curious thing is they're not really talking about end-user benefits (thin, light, quiet, fast, long battery life etc.) they're just talking about lowering the price. Surely that's off the mark these days?
Xir 9th June 2011, 13:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimerking
Surely the reason everybody has a PC now, is because they are cheap!
If the price of a laptop had stayed at £1500+, then only 'geeks' and businesses would buy them.
A very good point ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
...they're just talking about lowering the price. Surely that's off the mark these days?
Nope, see above.
I'f we'd have only had rolls-royce's and no beetles, would mass motorisation have occurred?
If Intel focusses on the top-of-the-line-products, and not on the quick-cheapies, will devices keep selling the way they do?
hexx 9th June 2011, 13:16 Quote
i must admit, what a joy to come back to bit-tech for some normal conversation not like those ****ing trolls over at either gizmodo or dailytech.
tonyd223 9th June 2011, 13:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
i must admit, what a joy to come back to bit-tech for some normal conversation not like those ****ing trolls over at either gizmodo or dailytech.

+1
Ergath 9th June 2011, 17:24 Quote
Don't forget Engadget - wall to wall fanbois there.

Funny to watch though - it's like a coliseum for deeply sad people.
hexx 10th June 2011, 11:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ergath
Don't forget Engadget - wall to wall fanbois there.

Funny to watch though - it's like a coliseum for deeply sad people.

that's very true. i like apple products but i can't deny the fact that i switched to mac after many many years and it's mostly down to the fact that i don't play as often as i used to and bought ps3 to cover these precious times and realized that for the rest of the stuff i do on pc i don't need powerful gaming machine and could do with macbook pro which handles everything i need to do on computer really nicely, especially after i installed vertex2 - what a change!!
hexx 10th June 2011, 11:50 Quote
and still if i get a chance to build a gaming rig for a friend or a colleague i go for it.
Yslen 10th June 2011, 14:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
that's very true. i like apple products but i can't deny the fact that i switched to mac after many many years and it's mostly down to the fact that i don't play as often as i used to and bought ps3 to cover these precious times and realized that for the rest of the stuff i do on pc i don't need powerful gaming machine and could do with macbook pro which handles everything i need to do on computer really nicely, especially after i installed vertex2 - what a change!!

I have a friend who did exactly this... you're not him are you?
Ergath 10th June 2011, 14:41 Quote
In fairness to Engadget they seem to be trying to damp down the bias in reviews and reporting, and crack down on the trolls & flame wars in the comment section. Both are meeting with only limited success however.
thehippoz 10th June 2011, 18:56 Quote
I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about questions apple makes good software.. it's the question of them tying it to a platform

like a pc you can upgrade and upgrade.. apple locks hardware to software- so a guy who buys an older macbook for example is stuck with a certain version of osx.. then there's the price
PCBuilderSven 12th June 2011, 11:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere

You ever bought a new boxed PC? How long did it take to get it the way you wanted? Uninstall all their crap, re-install all the stuff you need. Update the drivers as they shipped out of date crap, found a decent anti-virus package etc. Maybe even do a clean install? People who know PCs do this all the time, but you don't need to do that on a Mac. Really you don't.

How long has it taken me to remove all the bloatware? Quartet of an hour to install Linux (openSuse).

How long did it take me to find and install the drivers? 1 second! openSuse offeres to install drivers - then automatically connects to the internet and installs the latest drivers.

How long did it take me to install the softwre I wanted? About five minutes in YaST, and all of it was free.

How long to get antivirus? I didnt. OpenSuse has less viruses than Mac already and AppArmor (preinstalled) blocks them anyway.

And I end up with an incrediabbly secure and efficient system. On a system that uses an Athlon II and a HDD, with openSuse installed for around 2 years and used daily with no maintanence (such as defragmentation) it still only take 20 seconds from pressing the power button to have Firefox loaded.

For games I'll dual boot with Windows - but Mac users need to do this too, and grub does a great job off dual booting.

I've switched over to Linux - PC, Phone and soon Tablet too.

Unlike most people who complain about Apple - I have tried their products. I've used hackintosh and an iPod touch and don't like either.

Just give me an X Terminal and I'm happy.
Nexxo 12th June 2011, 11:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
Hmm, except Intel isn't talking about safe and easy, it's talking about cheap. Obviously it's a microprocessor company and doesn't make UIs, so 'safe and easy' is outside their remit, but the curious thing is they're not really talking about end-user benefits (thin, light, quiet, fast, long battery life etc.) they're just talking about lowering the price. Surely that's off the mark these days?
No, it's right on the money (:p). They are a hardware company, so they do not have to focus on safe and easy --that's Microsoft's job. They have already nailed thin and light --that's the whole 'ultrabook' moniker. Like everybody else but Apple, they don't mention battery life because nobody but Apple has actually managed to hack that problem yet. So let's dwell on the assets, not the drawbacks: thin, light, fast, cheap!

Anyone who feels annoyed by Apple's walled garden should experience my colleague's annoyance (and by extention, mine, because she then comes to me to sort it) when some botched install messes up her Windows7, she doesn't know why her PC keeps nagging her for file backup settings, and now her IMAP folders don't sync across her PC and Blackberry (they were just fine when I set them up)... Frankly she is a danger with Windows machines, but she'd be the ideal candidate for a CR-48 Google Chrome laptop or something running iOS. There simply is nothing on them she could click to screw things up, so she can focus on doing her work, safely and easily.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums
Corsair Gaming H1500 Review

Corsair Gaming H1500 Review

23rd October 2014

CM Storm Resonar Review

CM Storm Resonar Review

22nd October 2014

Asus Z97i-Plus Review

Asus Z97i-Plus Review

20th October 2014