|
|
|
Would you buy a Mac 'clone' (a generic PC that can run OS X)?
1/1: Would you buy a Mac 'clone' (a generic PC that can run OS X)?
Other polls | 2,176 votes | 32 comments
Clone
I have a legal copy of all OSX, and what computer i buy is my choice.
A couple of things to think about
1) When a computer manufacturer controls which hardware is paired to it's software, the outcome is generally a better unit overall. With windows, one of the reasons it has been considered "unstable" for so long is the ungodly amount of hardware support that has to be built into the system, there are hooks for every single keyboard, many video cards, mountains of sound cards... and so on. With mac, there are maybe 15 video cards and 2 or 3 keyboards that have to be supported, meaning the OS has a much simpler job of keeping everything running smoothly. If a clone manufacturer comes in and starts producing hardware that apple did not design, the OS may or may not prove to be as reliable as it currently does on Mac hardware.
Apple sells hardware, not the OS
Apple makes money as a hardware company, not as an OS supplier. This was the case 15 years ago, and it's still the case today.
Apple sells hardware, not the OS
Funny. I've managed to buy quite a few software items from the Apple store. You might want to check it out. It's pretty sweet, man. Right now, I'm using a browser called "Safari". Came with an OS called Tigger, which I installed over Pants-Hair, and that over Jah-McGuire or something. You can do email and all sorts. You should stop using your Apple things as doorstops and see what happens when you "plug" them "in".
Apple sells hardware, not the OS
What does your comment have to do with Apple making money off the OS? Yes, Apple provides a rich experience in OS X, but that is done to drive sales of Mac hardware, which is what makes them money. Many of their products use the same model. Look at the iPod and the iTunes Store- The iTS doesn't make them much profit. It's all done to help drive adoption of the iPod, which is lucrative for them.
Apple sells hardware, not the OS
Hey, take it over to Digg!
Consumer before Company
It's really sick how many people out there worry more about the corporate well-being over what's good for the consumer. There are a lot of people who dislike (or even take offense to) the idea of a Mac clone, but there are some things that seems to always be ignored:
You must be a communist.
I assume, then, that you are a communist.
I don't mean that as an insult (it's certainly not intended as one). But putting the person before the company is distinctly a communist idea. Companies need to make money to innovate, and Apple does that by making rock-solid hardware and software that work together. Allowing clones would put a knife in Apple's business strategy. And if you like Macs as they currently are, that's a very bad thing. Having solid integration between software and hardware is (basically) all that distinguishes a Mac. It's what enables neat features like Remote Disc in MBAs, plug-and-play-just-about-anything, and generally the ease-of-use and stability that a PC lacks. And if you can forgo such features, there already is a substitute. Windows. But the stability of a Mac is what sets it apart, and the sexiness of the hardware helps. You say you overpay for the Apple name, but the Apple brand sets it apart from the PCs that, presumably, you dislike. Allow clones, and the importance of the Apple name disappears--but so do all of the advantages. My point is this--you can't both have clones and expect the Apple experience. And if you remove the Apple experience, you might as well be using a PC. Product distinction. It makes good, capitalistic sense. And as always, the consumer wins.
Company before Consumer
Better corporate wellbeing » more money to invest » cheaper, better products » more customers » better corporate wellbeing » more money to invest » cheaper, better products » more customers » better corporate wellbeing » more money to invest » cheaper, better products » more customers » better corporate wellbeing...
I like the hardware...
I'd be disappointed with non-Apple hardware. If I needed to save money, I'd just buy a refurbished Mac.
I like the hardware...
Umm, no, then you'd be running Linux, not OS X. If you run OS X on your hacked PC, you're running OS X -- which is what many Mac users seem to prefer :).
I like the hardware...
I think what he is trying to say is that you would have more trouble with clone hardware. However, that is not really the case since I have been running generic PC hardware for years with windows and linux. In fact the latest version of ubuntu is so easy to use and install that it is almost as easy to maintain as my mac, which lately seems to be having more problems than my linux box that is a 7 year old tower with an old GeForce2 32mb video card that runs compiz (linux window compositing software) great. Wobbly windows and all the effects. I showed this to a couple of my friends and they have a hard time believing that it is an AMD duron 700 under the hood. :) But hey my macbook pro with 4gigs of ram is no slouch, and the performance that the mac interface has lacked for so long is not there anymore. It is now better than vista at most tasks. But what amazes me is that the opensource community has come up with a compositing solution that is so much more efficient than Quartz or Areo that we could have had vista or mac lick interfaces years ago.
I voted Probably not
... Because to me, the chances that a clone would be as well-designed as the apple machine is slim. And by design, I do not mean how it looks physically, but everything that that statement entails. There's more to a computer working than the OS on the disc, right? Firmware, BOOT parameters, etc etc. That's one reason that Windows has so many problems – so many different makers using different parts.
I voted Maybe
I've got a Power Computing clone rotting in the attic. When it was new it ran just like a Mac (being a legal clone), but always looked like a butt-ugly PC. When the innards started failing one-by-one, it was more like a butt-ugly PC through and through.
Other
I like Macs and I want a HD HTPC; the Mac mini would work for me if it had a better video option. Since it doesn't, I'll probably build a PC. Updates won't be a problem, once it's working I probably won't mess with it again.
One Vendor, One Solution, One Answer
I admin a 95%+ Mac Network, and somehow the Apple Systems just work, and the Windows Systems always need TLC (a hammer to the side of the case). My fear, is with the introduction of "branded clones", we will see a spike in poor driver development. Machines that are "to spec" but fail to meet performance standards or have higher the normal failure rate.
If it was legal...
If it was legal, I would probably build my own. I've always wanted to build my own PC, but now that I've switched to the Mac, it isn't possible. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable violating Apple's SLA to do it, but it is very tempting.
If it was legal...
If it was legal, I would probably build my own. I've always wanted to build my own PC, but now that I've switched to the Mac, it isn't possible. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable violating Apple's SLA to do it, but it is very tempting.
If it was legal...
No need.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.You get stickers. Label it yourself.
Apple's product line
One thing that is missing in Apple's product line is a mid range self upgradeable pc. All they really have is the iMac then the Mac Pro. They need something in between. I like my iMac but now the Super Drive is busted and I cannot replace it myself. I'm not willing to shell out the $3000 for a pro model.
Missing an entire range of products
Just among my group of friends I've seen Apple lose sale after sale to long-time Windows users because Apple does not make a model they want. They want a mid-range machine which can be upgraded properly like a normal tower. Or, they want a small yet powerful portable (they need a proper 3D chipset).
Apple's Choice
What seems to be getting lost in this debate is that it is Apple's choice to not make a mid-range machine. There are already too many players in that market that are having problems(Dell, HP, Lenovo/IBM). Why in the hell would Apple want to join them?
Also for all those people who want to swap the video card, etc, the primary reason Apple doesn't do this is on the non-pro end is simple. If something doesn't work the average consumer would blame Apple. Apple commands a premium price because of the whole package you get from owning a Mac. By controlling all the hardware and the OS the can ensure that things are going to work and work well. By having to support every piece of crap component that you can get at BestBuy they'd end up with Windows. If that's what you want go buy a Dell or build your own machine. Apple is doing very well, even in this more troubled economy. Why screw that up to cater to a market that really just wants Windows anyway? As for this clone business, it looks like a total sham anyway. The address has changed 4+ times on their website and the addresses listed either don't exist or have never hear of the company. This is a hoax or a scam.
Not right now . . .
OS X is made possible by R&D subsidized by hardware sales, so I don't mind supporting a company that brings me a really enjoyable experience.
Woz on Psystar OpenPro: "I like the price, so I may get one"
"You have a right to run Mac Software on any non-Apple computer, but you don't have the right to copy codes that are built into Apple's hardware, so you are stuck," he said.
Woz on Psystar OpenPro: "I like the price, so I may get one"
corporate info http://www.sunbiz.org/pdf/30654553.pdf
Voted 'maybe'
I voted for "Maybe, but I'd want to test it out first" primarily because I don't trust the idea of a clone being anywhere near as reliable as a genuine Apple built Mac. Id' be willing to at least give it a look though, so I voted in this category as opposed to the "No way" one.
Voted 'maybe'
Right on.
Probably not
Apple does have a huge gap to fill. That's the only reason I'm happy to hear about the return of the Clones. Clones are ugly, and probably will lead to more trouble for all of us in the form of bloated hardware support. That's the reason I'm happy to hear Psystar was a hoax.
I built one a while ago, but...
...what a pain to get working just right! I know the OSx86 folks have made major headway, but it's still a hack, and to keep the system running you need to rely on more hacks. I have tried this on more than one system, with the right chipsets, etc., and couldn't get everything working 100%. I am sure there have been some big improvements in the project over the past year or so, but I'm skeptical. Running desktop Linux, in my experience, was easier, and I gave up that quest when I bought my first iBook with Panther.
I want to make my own sub-notebook
The MacBook Air is a loverly machine, but after all the waiting I found that it is exactly the notebook I don't want. It would be great to build /configure my own sub-notebook, something along the line of Asus eeePC700/900.
Probably not
If I want a Mac, I want a Mac, which is hardware + software. If I want to go cheap, I'll slap Ubuntu on a cheap box. Yes, I am aware that Ubuntu != MacOS X.
yes
Although I really respect the hardware design of apple, after the initial aesthetic wears off, it is really just a nice wrapper for the OS. And the screen that I stare at all day is not an Apple. The mini just sits in a corner on my desk. |
SearchFrom our Sponsor...Latest Mountain Lion HintsWhat's New:HintsNo new hintsComments last 2 daysLinks last 2 weeksNo recent new linksWhat's New in the Forums?
Hints by TopicNews from Macworld
From Our Sponsors |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2014 IDG Consumer & SMB (Privacy Policy) Contact Us All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. |
Visit other IDG sites: |
|
|
|
Created this page in 0.05 seconds |
|