Prev: OT
Next: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
From: John Slade on 12 Mar 2010 13:36
John Higdon wrote:
> In article <hn8ok6$too$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Slade <hhitman86(a)pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Well some of those "fanbois" didn't like it too much. I
>> was telling some of them that Apple would dump the PowerPC and I
>> was told by many Apple folk that this would never happen. They
>> told me that Apple would never put an Intel CPU inside a Mac. To
>> them it was like a sacrilege to some of them. When Apple
>> announced the switch it was funny to see them eat crow.
>
> Who ARE these people you mention?
> I know dozens of Mac users (all quite
> computer literate, thank you), who all seem to have a pretty level
> attitude about computing in general (many are Unix geeks). I never hear
> any of that sort of stuff from them. On the contrary, we knew about the
> upcoming Intel shift over a year before it was announced. It was common
> knowledge that Apple was maintaining an x86 build of all versions of OSX
> since the beginning.
>

Many of the Mac users were not against the switch to
Intel by Apple. However some were what you call really fanatical
about Macs. They hated Windows and anything with an Intel CPU. I
was telling them that Macs would switch to some other CPU maker
about four years before they made the announcement. This was a
year or so after the P4 came out. It was clear that the PowerPC
was becoming stagnant and Apple was starting to put dual CPU
systems out to compete with single core P4s. This was even
before Apple started putting out the G4s with two CPUs back in
2003. It was clear to those of us in the industry that Apple
would switch at some point in the future. I was saying this in 2001.


> You hang out in some weird circles, since all the Mac users I know of
> (including myself) routinely operate with multiple platforms and have a
> pretty good handle on what's going on in the industry. Hell, I'm in the
> process of shutting down my last Mac server (and moving its services to
> a Ubuntu server).
>

The people who said Apple would never switch back in 2001
and 2002 when I told them they would are a pretty weird bunch.
They actually disliked Bill Gates, Microsoft and Windows. Even
today many of them refuse to accept that Macs are now PCs. They
think that Macs are still made from unique components. They have
no clue that Macs are basically clones like HP and Dell make
these days. Yes, truly weird people who refuse to accept this
when this fact is widely accepted by people in the computer
industry. People like electrical engineers who actually design
computer components usually accept this. But occasionally you
find a weird one who doesn't. I was talking to one the other day
who claimed to be an industry insider. However, I realized the
person didn't know much about the issue when he told me that
Windows 7 still needs MS-DOS to run and is only a GUI for MS-DOS.

> We use Macs because we like them for use to which they are put. I wonder
> if all this rabid "Steve Jobs worship" doesn't spring from your
> imagination.
>

No. It stems from the weird people who won't accept that
Macs are now PCs. Basically clones like HP and Dell make with a
few firmware and cosmetic differences. These differences are
about as huge as the difference between an HP or Dell desktop.
You should check this video out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6Wzmr_V0

There is also a book, "Cult of Mac" that explores this
issue. There are a lot of Mac users who act like cultists and
it's not from my imagination. Many people look at jobs and how
he dresses for these keynote addresses and how the crowd
responds towards him. I'm not saying that this is only a Mac
issue or that the majority of Mac users are cultists, but truly
some are. I put them in the same cult as those "rabid" Star Trek
fans.

John
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: OT
Next: FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid