Why don't more people buy Macs?

[mrspeedmaster]

When I am in the market for a computer - be it desktop or laptop - I look at the hardware that is being sold not how shiny the damn box is.
And if you think I am a hater - I am not I just fail to see what is so special about the Unix system which cannot be done on Linux which is free and it supports a much wider range of systems. Oh and yea I do not see why I have to pay thousands of dollars more for crappier hardware which has a shiny box and a half eaten apple logo on the front of it.

Don't be ignorantly misinformed.
There are some things that Linux has that OSX doesnt.
There are some things that OSX does that Linux doesn't.
Blanket statements like that show how misinform you are.

For example:

2 weeks ago Dell had a killer deal on a 15" i7 quad laptop for $850 with the same spec as last spring Macbook for $850 (the same mac is now $1500).
After 2 hours of research on Linux capabilities, I held of purchasing it.
It seems to have the same problem as my old $3000 Thinkpad - hybrid graphics.

On my Macbook Pro, I can connect up to 6 or more monitors. I usually have about 4 going at any time while I am at work.
Linux can't even match this basic requirement.

The Nividia hybrid graphics on all the high-end $3000 and UP PC laptops (Thinkpad W520, HP, Dell M6600) has problems with Linux period.
You can boot and hit the F2 to switch the graphcis card in Bios.
You can download a hack called bumblebee which enables Virtual GL and re-direction so you can switch between discrete (Nividia) and onboard (Intel HD3000).
With bumbleebee hack, you have to flag it in a command line - "optirun firefox (whatever app you want to be accelerated).
Want to plug in a 30" monitor? Good luck with that. Bumblee doesn't support it running simultaneously w/ LCD and displayport.
Reboot. F2. Switch card in Bios. Boot. Ooops. Nividia doesn't support on-board LCD while using the displayport to power a 30" 2560x1600 monitor.

Running Windows and virtualizing linux is not the helpful answer either.

So that $850 dell running Linux is useless to me as I normally run 4-6 monitors at a time.
Right now, I am working on a web app.
1st monitor: web browser/email;
2nd monitor: apache console, firebug, XHR console, cpu load.
3rd monitor: mysql query/ admin. Another shell for node.js
4th monitor: IDE, BBB Edit with 4-5 windows, File Manager to detect changes, Quicktime to see if my videos are being processed.
On top of that, I use multiple spaces so I can run my other apps (16 virtual desktops)

I'm looking forward to the new Macbook refresh so I can dump all my monitors and go with 3 27" 2500x1600 Thunderbolt monitors.

Right now, I use displaylink USB adapters to power my extra monitors besides my 30".They work because the other monitors are console/palette monitors. With thunderbolt, I will have accelerated graphics and higher than 1080p (1920x1080). Good luck with displaylink on 64-bit linux w/ a closed gfx driver like Nvidia at the same time.


Some reading material on Linux's optimus support

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bumblebee#Start_Bumblebee
nvidia optimus - External displays with Bumblebee - Ask Ubuntu - Stack Exchange
Sign In to Your Dell My Account

This guy came very close but not close enough:

Tech Notes: Tri-head display on linux Thinkpad W520 (Graphics Adventures)

 

[alextop30]

I agree with your point that the graphics especially the driver issues that exist in Linux especially with NVIDIA are a huge nightmare - I cannot remember the last time I found a driver that worked just straight out of either the repository or the annoying packages that you can download from Nvidia. The X server settings ohhh don't even get me started.

My point was much more geared toward the everyday non-programmer individual that just likes how shiny the mac book looks.

If you use the Unix command line and are any kind of developer/programmer than Mac could be useful (or very useful).

Most people that use their computer just for internet, youtube videos, online shopping, looking at stupid stuff on the net and so on do not need the overpriced Mac Book. It simply does not make sense. Lets face it also programmers and developers are not the main driving force of what is being bought. It is the regular everyday user that generally does not know how the computer works.

Anyway I still like your point and I agree with it - I am running Ubuntu on 3 monitors and yes at time - there are graphical issues where I just wanna grab a knife and stab one of my monitors

 

[Slug]

Hi there!

Whenever I see the word "ignorant" or a derivative in a thread it gets my attention.

Let's keep the discussion grounded in reality and free from invective and hyperbole, please.

 

[IOWA]

Don't be ignorantly misinformed.
There are some things that Linux has that OSX doesnt.
There are some things that OSX does that Linux doesn't.
Blanket statements like that show how misinform you are.

For example:

2 weeks ago Dell had a killer deal on a 15" i7 quad laptop for $850 with the same spec as last spring Macbook for $850 (the same mac is now $1500).
After 2 hours of research on Linux capabilities, I held of purchasing it.
It seems to have the same problem as my old $3000 Thinkpad - hybrid graphics.

On my Macbook Pro, I can connect up to 6 or more monitors. I usually have about 4 going at any time while I am at work.
Linux can't even match this basic requirement.

The Nividia hybrid graphics on all the high-end $3000 and UP PC laptops (Thinkpad W520, HP, Dell M6600) has problems with Linux period.
You can boot and hit the F2 to switch the graphcis card in Bios.
You can download a hack called bumblebee which enables Virtual GL and re-direction so you can switch between discrete (Nividia) and onboard (Intel HD3000).
With bumbleebee hack, you have to flag it in a command line - "optirun firefox (whatever app you want to be accelerated).
Want to plug in a 30" monitor? Good luck with that. Bumblee doesn't support it running simultaneously w/ LCD and displayport.
Reboot. F2. Switch card in Bios. Boot. Ooops. Nividia doesn't support on-board LCD while using the displayport to power a 30" 2560x1600 monitor.

Running Windows and virtualizing linux is not the helpful answer either.

So that $850 dell running Linux is useless to me as I normally run 4-6 monitors at a time.
Right now, I am working on a web app.
1st monitor: web browser/email;
2nd monitor: apache console, firebug, XHR console, cpu load.
3rd monitor: mysql query/ admin. Another shell for node.js
4th monitor: IDE, BBB Edit with 4-5 windows, File Manager to detect changes, Quicktime to see if my videos are being processed.
On top of that, I use multiple spaces so I can run my other apps (16 virtual desktops)

I'm looking forward to the new Macbook refresh so I can dump all my monitors and go with 3 27" 2500x1600 Thunderbolt monitors.

Right now, I use displaylink USB adapters to power my extra monitors besides my 30".They work because the other monitors are console/palette monitors. With thunderbolt, I will have accelerated graphics and higher than 1080p (1920x1080). Good luck with displaylink on 64-bit linux w/ a closed gfx driver like Nvidia at the same time.


Some reading material on Linux's optimus support

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bumblebee#Start_Bumblebee
nvidia optimus - External displays with Bumblebee - Ask Ubuntu - Stack Exchange
Sign In to Your Dell My Account

This guy came very close but not close enough:

Tech Notes: Tri-head display on linux Thinkpad W520 (Graphics Adventures)

Here's an odd question, but if you're going to tether yourself to SIX monitors, why are you using a Macbook instead of a real desktop??

I'm just confused.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

Here's an odd question, but if you're going to tether yourself to SIX monitors, why are you using a Macbook instead of a real desktop??

I'm just confused.

Portability. I take my work home where I tether to two monitors.
I travel.
I go onsite to clients. etc..
I make presentations and sales pitches,etc,etc.

I also do have a real workstation desktop in my cubicle.

 

[IOWA]

Portability. I take my work home where I tether to two monitors.
I travel.
I go onsite to clients. etc..
I make presentations and sales pitches,etc,etc.

I also do have a real workstation desktop in my cubicle.

Ah, so I take it VPN/Sync'd storage is out of the question then with your nature of work?

 

[androidfonefan]

I have to say Macs, Ipads, Iphones can go burn in hell. This trendy thing is because many people are not very smart the way they use technology and conform to the "shiny" look. When I am in the market for a computer - be it desktop or laptop - I look at the hardware that is being sold not how shiny the damn box is. If hardware is good and the price is good usually a good candidate for me except when it comes down to Chrome books which are absolutely stupid. No Internet no work no cloud of course.

And if you think I am a hater - I am not I just fail to see what is so special about the Unix system which cannot be done on Linux which is free and it supports a much wider range of systems. Oh and yea I do not see why I have to pay thousands of dollars more for crappier hardware which has a shiny box and a half eaten apple logo on the front of it.

Technically Apple products are not Unix based, they are BSD based, Windows as well.
Both Windows and Apple took BSD and arranged it to suit their needs, it the case of Microsoft it was to strip out all security protocols and turn it in to a swiss cheese catch all for every virus under the sun. This started with Windows NT on the business side, and the common mans Windows caught up to it at Windows XP. At Windows XP DOS was no longer at the heart of the OS.
Apple switched over to using BSD a long time back, of course it is not pure BSD just as Windows is not pure BSD.
It is possible for Unix/BSD (BSD is the Open Source version of Unix) based programs to run in Linux with some tweaking. I would dare say that with enough time and money all Apple Programs and apps could be made to run on Linux and Android since BSD and Linux are so close.
Linux OS is derived from Minix MINIX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , see here. While this is wikipedia and it should be taken with a grain of salt for accuracy, this is accurate.
Minix being a micro unix kernel and the fact that Linux is based around Minix means they have much in common but they are not the same OS.
As for I OS being crappy, go back and consider its origins. I OS is actually a very solid OS. As you pointed out it is very hi priced. These days the hardware is either better or worse depending on ones opinions, some still prefer the old Power PC architecture and some like the new Standard PC platform.
BSD runs on a much larger range of hardware than I OS but not as large as Linux because of its development community. The primary reason I OS does not run on much is because Apple controls the hardware and there by the available drivers for it.

Were it not for the mile hi prices on Apple PCs I would have never found Linux and would have stayed with Apple (first ever new PC was the wifes Apple, which she got in the divorce), because I would have dropped Windows (and have) and switched back to Apple decades ago.
Fortunately for me and many others Apple is way overpriced and many people find the Linux alternative, and are very happy with it. I can not count all the people I have converted to Linux as their primary OS.
Sadly these are all dual boot or multiple PC homes because everyone runs in to circumstances where they have to have Windows for something. But 99.99% of all their day to day computer needs run out of Linux and or Android.

Agreed on the Chrome Book. Tablets are limited compared to PC but I think they are more a computer than the chrome book is. Personally not a fan of cloud computing at all. All your banking, photos, and other personal information on someones server.
Bad enough that most all your personal info is floating around out there as it is, but voluntarily moving ALL your stuff to the cloud is just asking for a catastrophe in my book.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

Technically Apple products are not Unix based, they are BSD based, Windows as well.
Both Windows and Apple took BSD and arranged it to suit their needs, it the case of Microsoft it was to strip out all security protocols and turn it in to a swiss cheese catch all for every virus under the sun. This started with Windows NT on the business side, and the common mans Windows caught up to it at Windows XP. At Windows XP DOS was no longer at the heart of the OS.
Apple switched over to using BSD a long time back, of course it is not pure BSD just as Windows is not pure BSD.
It is possible for Unix/BSD (BSD is the Open Source version of Unix) based programs to run in Linux with some tweaking. I would dare say that with enough time and money all Apple Programs and apps could be made to run on Linux and Android since BSD and Linux are so close.
Linux OS is derived from Minix MINIX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , see here. While this is wikipedia and it should be taken with a grain of salt for accuracy, this is accurate.
Minix being a micro unix kernel and the fact that Linux is based around Minix means they have much in common but they are not the same OS.
As for I OS being crappy, go back and consider its origins. I OS is actually a very solid OS. As you pointed out it is very hi priced. These days the hardware is either better or worse depending on ones opinions, some still prefer the old Power PC architecture and some like the new Standard PC

Windows NT is not based on BSD. It is basedin VMS and started when David Cutler joined Microsoft.

Windows NT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NT has no POSIX layer. Or userland tools associated with a *nix based os.
Yes, OSX is based off BSD but it is true UNIX bdcause it meets all the sys V requirements.

It was cerified 100% true UNIX IN 2007 with Leopard. It met all the requirements to be officially called UNIXand not *Nix based. Big diffrence.
See:

Single UNIX Specification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Register of Open Branded Products

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification.ars

 

[androidfonefan]

Windows NT is not based on BSD. It is basedin VMS and started when David Cutler joined Microsoft.

Windows NT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NT has no POSIX layer. Or userland tools associated with a *nix based os.
Yes, OSX is based off BSD but it is true UNIX bdcause it meets all the sys V requirements.

It was cerified 100% true UNIX IN 2007 with Leopard. It met all the requirements to be officially called UNIXand not *Nix based. Big diffrence.
See:

Single UNIX Specification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Register of Open Branded Products

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification.ars

If my information on Windows is incorrect I stand corrected, however I got that information from the guy that runs a very reputable shop and tends to know what he is talking about.
As for BSD, it only has the GPLed portions of the Unix OS. What is there is from Unix but there is a great deal more to Unix that is not freely licenced under the GPL which makes BSD incomplete as the whole Unix OS.

Unix is the GPLed and all Propriaterry material/IP, BSD is strictly the GPLed portion. BSD is a complete OS but without the proprieterry portion it is not Unix.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

If my information on Windows is incorrect I stand corrected, however I got that information from the guy that runs a very reputable shop and tends to know what he is talking about.
As for BSD, it only has the GPLed portions of the Unix OS. What is there is from Unix but there is a great deal more to Unix that is not freely licenced under the GPL which makes BSD incomplete as the whole Unix OS.

Unix is the GPLed and all Propriaterry material/IP, BSD is strictly the GPLed portion. BSD is a complete OS but without the proprieterry portion it is not Unix.

Your friend was confused. The only thing Window is remotely related to BSD is the TCP/IP stack. It has a good IPV4 stack that all modern OSes uses - OSX including Windows NT. That is the portion Microsoft used. Not the kernel. The permissive BSD license (unlink the Linux GNU) allows people to take source code and re0use without contributing back. Before NT 4, the tcp stack in Windows suck.

BSD is Unix. You are confusing FreeBSD/OpenBSD which is the open source derivative. Well, most people who refer to BSD meant to refer to the descendants (FreeBSD) in contemporary discussions.
However, not all BSD derivatives are UNIX.

FreeBSD/OpenBSD are "descendants" of the originnal BSD. The "original" BSD is a fork of the AT&T UNIX. The difference is the licensing.

Like the Kindle OS is a fork of Android. FreeBSD/OpenBSD have open source licenses.
The "original" BSD forked from AT&T UNIX to be the 1st to include a TCP/Internet stack vs AT&T's stream stack. There was some other controversies that I cant recollect but there was a big UNIX war on "fragmentation" back then as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars )

BSD is used by the basis of other UNIX os like SunOS, DEC Ultra.

Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD, sometimes called Berkeley Unix) is a Unix operating system derivative developed and distributed by the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) of the University of California, Berkeley, from 1977 to 1995. Today the term "BSD" is often used non-specifically to refer to any of the BSD descendants which together form a branch of the family of Unix-like operating systems. Operating systems derived from the original BSD code remain actively developed and widely used.

More can be read at

source: Berkeley Software Distribution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are also confused about the "BSD" license. It is not the same as GPL.
Like I said earlier, BSD license means you can use the source code without contributng back. You can fork BSD and not give anything back.

 

[androidfonefan]

form a branch of the family of Unix-like operating systems

This says to me that it is not in fact Unix but a unix like OS much like Linux.

Operating system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The UNIX-like family is a diverse group of operating systems, with several major sub-categories including System V, BSD, and GNU/Linux. The name "UNIX" is a trademark of The Open Group which licenses it for use with any operating system that has been shown to conform to their definitions. "UNIX-like" is commonly used to refer to the large set of operating systems which resemble the original UNIX.

Unix like resembles but is not Unix.
Unix-like - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Unix-like (sometimes referred to as UN*X or *nix) operating system is one that behaves in a manner similar to a Unix system, while not necessarily conforming to or being certified to any version of the Single UNIX Specification.
There is no standard for defining the term, and some difference of opinion is possible as to the degree to which a given OS is "Unix-like".
The term can include free and open source operating systems inspired by Bell Labs' Unix or designed to emulate its features, commercial and proprietary work-alikes, and even versions based on the licensed UNIX source code (which may be sufficiently "Unix-like" to pass certification and bear the "UNIX" trademark).

So any OS that sufficiently behaves like Unix can be labeled Unix-like but technically is still not Unix.
BSD, Linux, Minix etc all behave much like Unix and are there for labeled Unix-like but are not Unix.


Back to Windows, you may well be correct on this one, I am still looking for the answer, but I have not found anything to support my friends statement and that lack of documentation would lean toward your being correct.

You are also confused about the "BSD" license. It is not the same as GPL.
Like I said earlier, BSD license means you can use the source code without contributng back. You can fork BSD and not give anything back

Ok you got me here, I did have them confused. I was under the impression that since they were both (BSD and Linux) OpenSource they both were GPLed, but as you said, BSD is not GPLed but has it's own license.
The only thing I have been able to find on BSD in windows is that some BSD code was used in the TCP/IP stack, but may or may not still be there.
So it sounds like something was used but that the Windows kernel is not based on BSD. So you are correct again.
However, from what I have read, BSD is not Unix, but is included in a list of Unix-like OSes.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

This says to me that it is not in fact Unix but a unix like OS much like Linux.

So any OS that sufficiently behaves like Unix can be labeled Unix-like but technically is still not Unix.
BSD, Linux, Minix etc all behave much like Unix and are there for labeled Unix-like but are not Unix.

Correct. However, "original" BSD is UNIX. But in your context, you are referring the modern/current versions of BSD that people confused w/ the original "BSD"
Linux is "unix like"
OSX is certified as "UNIX"

Back to BSD. There are 2 BSD. Original BSD and modern day BSD. Like the different versions of Green Lantern.
Original BSD is UNIX.

Currently, there is no UNIX that derives from the original UNIX from the 1970s.
UNIX branched out to different forks: System V, BSD, Open System.

Now, Open System "owns" the trademark to UNIX. They govern the definition of UNIX and certify systems that meets its criteria to be called UNIX.
FreeBSD (because it is open sourced) could be officially certified UNIX but it doesn't have the $$ to pay for the certifications and testing to be certified.

"original" BSD was originally based of ATT's version but because of licensing and cost, it was re-written.
Because of its popularity, this is where all the "children" of BSD came into play. When people say BSD today, I am certain 80% of them are referring to FreeBSD.

This is the best article to summarize it:

http://www.livinginternet.com/i/iw_unix_war.htm



and back to your link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX-like

This statement may clear things up. Note, they are referring to the "modern day" BSD or the "variants"

The various BSD variants are notable in that they are in fact descendants of UNIX, developed by the University of California at Berkeley with UNIX source code from Bell Labs. However, the BSD code base has evolved since then, replacing all of the AT&T code.
Since the BSD variants are not certified as compliant with the Single UNIX Specification (except for Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard and Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard), they are referred to as "UNIX-like".

Another good tidbit. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars

During BSD's period of legal turmoil, the nearly-complete GNU operating system was made operational by the inclusion of the Linux kernel,
and countless operating systems, lumped together under the label "GNU/Linux", emerged that were based on this combination.
Linux derivatives are not compatible enough to qualify for the Unix trademark. On the other hand, BSD systems can at least claim direct ancestry to Version 7 Unix.
Or, according to Open Source advocate Eric Raymond, BSD systems can be considered "genetic Unix", if not "trademark Unix".[1] Mac OS X v10.5 is the first operating system with open source BSD code to be certified as fully Unix compliant.[2]

Apple and Steve Jobs have the right to say that OSX is the largest install based of UNIX machines.
There was some big controversy over that statement in the open-source groups but it is factually true.

 

[sleedeane]

Careful, you all.
Lest you be forced to talk like this for all eternity.

 

[Petrah]

Why don't more people buy Macs?

For me personally; I'm too much of a tightwad to come up off that kind of cash for a prebuilt computer. I built a really nice custom gaming rig/work pc for under 1k, and I paid nothing for my legal version of Win 7 Ultimate OEM that I got from Amazon.