'06 MacWorld Keynote

January 10, 2006 9:29 AM

Live coverage of the 2006 Apple Keynote is not available in video form. Since the stop of live broadcasts on the web, we now rely on folks actually there to give us up to date news, and here it is (in text form). It will be available later (as always, in QuickTime) from apple.com.
posted by gren (291 comments total)

At least post a not-shitty transcript link:

http://mwsf.macnn.com/
posted by Mikey-San at 9:35 AM on January 10, 2006

macrumorslive works better for me.
posted by devbrain at 9:35 AM on January 10, 2006

It's a no frills feed, but is more detailed and up to date than the two above. Thanks for the link.
posted by eisbaer at 9:40 AM on January 10, 2006

np eisbaer, its a friend of mine in Cupertino doing this (they broadcast to all the campus) and he is quite descriptive when it comes to these things. And as per Mikey-San's comment, =P.
posted by gren at 9:45 AM on January 10, 2006

Winston Marseilles? I thought it was just MacNN's transcript that got that wrong, but apparently not.
posted by emelenjr at 9:50 AM on January 10, 2006

oh, I did totally forget...the reason it looks the way it does (like an IRC transcript) is because well, it is.

#macworld-keynote on undernet is where this is all being posted, with one of his bots updating the page in real time for each of his comments.
posted by gren at 10:05 AM on January 10, 2006

what the hells is this?
posted by mrgrimm at 10:10 AM on January 10, 2006

10:10 < @dre^^> "intel is ready" sj: "apple is ready too"

10:10 < @dre^^> they thank each other

10:10 < @dre^^> french kissing ensues

10:11 < @dre^^> people throw their underwear on stage

10:11 < @dre^^> (ok ok, sorry)

Descriptive, indeed.
posted by howling fantods at 10:12 AM on January 10, 2006

I agree that Macrumors is the best of the bunch.
posted by alms at 10:16 AM on January 10, 2006

e.g.

10:14 am Intel Core Duo. an amazing chip.
10:14 am Intel Processor. 2-3x faster than the iMac G5.
10:14 am Same sizes. 17", 20". Same design. Same features (isight, front row, apple remote), Same price. What's different.
10:13 am No other desktop PC can match it.
10:12 am The iMac - built in isight camera. front row. incredible reception.
10:12 am First Mac with Intel processor today.
posted by alms at 10:16 AM on January 10, 2006

10:20 < @piston> I don't think dre realizes he's on metafilter and a buncha other shit
10:21 < @dre^^> yeah, I do... I'm watching the hit counter ;)
posted by the jam at 10:21 AM on January 10, 2006

The IRC Kid seems to be getting there first, but you have to wait for the (slower) MacRumors feed in order to find out what he's talking about a lot of the time. He's got a wild-eyed prophet thing going on.
posted by Grangousier at 10:22 AM on January 10, 2006

Though I don't want you to think I disrespect the IRC Kid. Oh, no.
posted by Grangousier at 10:27 AM on January 10, 2006

does universal mean we can run pc and mac apps on the same machine without virtual pc or anything like it ? (like running classic and X on the same machine?)
posted by amberglow at 10:28 AM on January 10, 2006

Three windows opening and waiting to read with each refresh.

Ahhh... the digital age....
posted by hal9k at 10:28 AM on January 10, 2006

APPLE 4 LYFE
posted by keswick at 10:28 AM on January 10, 2006

and shouldn't macs now be cheaper since the chips are the same as for pcs?
posted by amberglow at 10:29 AM on January 10, 2006

10:29 am "One More Thing..."
posted by Turtles all the way down at 10:29 AM on January 10, 2006

amber, in this context "universal" means it will run natively on the G5 Macintosh and on the Intel Macintosh. The issue of running PC apps has been the subject of much speculation by users but no statements from Apple.
posted by alms at 10:31 AM on January 10, 2006

Steve Jobs just mentioned powerbooks. Time to get the ol' wallet.
posted by furtive at 10:32 AM on January 10, 2006

Son of a bitch. I *just* bought a new iMac. This they'll let me trade? ;-)
posted by crawl at 10:33 AM on January 10, 2006

4-5x faster than the powerbook G4.
posted by alms at 10:33 AM on January 10, 2006

I don't want 15.4 inches, I want 13 inches. Anyone else loving this feed?
posted by furtive at 10:34 AM on January 10, 2006

Wow. This is probably the best keynote in years.
posted by Rothko at 10:36 AM on January 10, 2006

One more thing.

Goodness. MacBooks? Two processors in each one.
posted by tweak at 10:38 AM on January 10, 2006

*Pulls down pants, lubes up with applesauce.*
posted by ColdChef at 10:39 AM on January 10, 2006

I haven't owned an Apple Computer in about ten years, but I have to admit that these announcements are making switching sound awfully attractive. That is, until I look into my wallet and snap back to my senses.

People just don't get this whipped up over Dell, do they?
posted by MegoSteve at 10:44 AM on January 10, 2006

MacBook Pro!! THE INSANITY!
posted by xmutex at 10:47 AM on January 10, 2006

Damn. No cool low-end gadgets for us poor folks!
posted by sourwookie at 10:47 AM on January 10, 2006

$2499 - the insanity!
posted by junesix at 10:48 AM on January 10, 2006

MacBook Pro!! THE INSANITY!

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "Powerbook" does it?
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:49 AM on January 10, 2006

Damn. No cool low-end gadgets for us poor folks!

Agreed. "Best keynote in years" if you wanna spend 2500 on a laptop.

On the bright side most of the kinks should be worked out by the time intel trickles down to the lowly iBooks.
posted by justgary at 10:50 AM on January 10, 2006

Apple now has the pictures. Woot!@
posted by ColdChef at 10:50 AM on January 10, 2006

Aaaaaand...now it's dead. Drat.
posted by ColdChef at 10:52 AM on January 10, 2006

There's a $2k Macbook with half the RAM (512MB, still enough for most biz users) and a slower chip (1.67Ghz vs. 1.83Ghz).

Keep in mind, the Macbooks are for Pro/Business users, who are more than happy to shell out that kind of money as a business expense.
posted by mkultra at 10:52 AM on January 10, 2006

WHERE'S MY AIRTUNES READY IPOD?
posted by sourwookie at 10:52 AM on January 10, 2006

The MacBook Pro page is live, tho
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:52 AM on January 10, 2006

Like was said above, nothing for me to buy. I just wanted a mini replacement.
posted by smackfu at 10:54 AM on January 10, 2006

Keep in mind, the Macbooks are for Pro/Business users, who are more than happy to shell out that kind of money as a business expense.

Don't they already have powerbooks? I couldn't care less about market share, but this certainly doesn't help with the whole "macs are expensive" rhetoric when trying to convince friends to switch. So I'm guessing maybe apple doesn't care either.
posted by justgary at 10:55 AM on January 10, 2006

Ok, I'm not sure how macbook's powercords are new - these guys have been making their products with something similar for years.
posted by phyrewerx at 10:56 AM on January 10, 2006

Bah! No Mini, no iBook. That makes me sad. And considering the iMac was the last one updated, it seems kinda backwards. Oh well, heres hoping to April for the Minis and the iBooks.
posted by SirOmega at 10:57 AM on January 10, 2006

Don't they already have powerbooks?

Not if they have Dells.

Intel iMacs, btw, are the same price as the old ones.
posted by mkultra at 10:57 AM on January 10, 2006

My new iMac arrived two weeks ago. TWO WEEKS. I feel like a complete idiot.

Is the intel chip really two times faster?
posted by AgentRocket at 10:57 AM on January 10, 2006

and shouldn't macs now be cheaper since the chips are the same as for pcs?

Like diamonds, Macs are expensive because that makes people value them more.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:58 AM on January 10, 2006

Not if they have Dells.

If they still have dells over powerbooks I doubt anything changes today.
posted by justgary at 11:00 AM on January 10, 2006

Where's the flame war? Where's the haters? I'm disappointed in you people.
posted by fungible at 11:00 AM on January 10, 2006

PinkStainlessTail is a god to me.
posted by ColdChef at 11:00 AM on January 10, 2006

Or maybe cause Macs are just *gasp* better?
posted by Dantien at 11:00 AM on January 10, 2006

12:48 PM - "Hi, I'm Steve and welcome to my weekly podcast, Super-secret Apple Rumors." (huge laughs) "I have some pretty good sources inside Apple, and the next iPod is going to be HUGE, like 8 pounds ... See you next week."
Oh, you kidder. It failed to mention that Steve then promptly sued himself.
posted by boo_radley at 11:00 AM on January 10, 2006

Don't they already have powerbooks?

My sister has been waiting for about two years for a PowerBook fast enough for her to do some decent video editing on. The rumors were that the first Intel 'books would be consumer, not pro. She'll be very happy to shell out for one of these, at least once Final Cut Pro is available in March.
posted by alms at 11:00 AM on January 10, 2006

Yeah, it's not really a switching sales point, until you realize that Virtual PC (or just dual-booting, if it becomes easy for the consumer) will run PC stuff at full speed without the need for processor emulation.
posted by mikeh at 11:01 AM on January 10, 2006

phyrewerx: Sure, it's nothing new in the engineering world but it's the first time I've seen it on a laptop or any computer for that matter. Expect to see this "innovation" in other new laptops in the next 12 months.
posted by junesix at 11:01 AM on January 10, 2006

Like diamonds, Macs are expensive because that makes people value them more.

Or maybe Apple puts more into the machine than other vendors, like a webcam, backlit keyboard, PCI Express slots, better engineering, etc. etc. that adds to the value of the machine.
posted by Rothko at 11:01 AM on January 10, 2006

AgentRocket, think of it this way: we'll be smart and let them iron out the kinks before we go out and buy one. That's how I'm justifying it to myself.
posted by lackutrol at 11:02 AM on January 10, 2006

Not to derail, but anyone know of some accessory that will make an iPod airtunes enabled? Specifically a 60gig 5g.
posted by sourwookie at 11:03 AM on January 10, 2006

Where's my damn Apple Flying Car?! (with iPod integration, of course)
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 11:04 AM on January 10, 2006

Not to derail, but anyone know of some accessory that will make an iPod airtunes enabled?

A Mac ;)
posted by mkultra at 11:04 AM on January 10, 2006

The iWeb page is blank. That's... irony or something. If that happened to Microsoft it would be on Slashdot by now.

I'm about 60% converted to Macs at this point. I love my iBook. My next desktop will probably be a Mac and my journey to the dark side will be complete.

Still though, mac religious fanatics are enough to turn anyone off, the way unwashed hippie freaks scare people away from jam bands.
posted by bondcliff at 11:05 AM on January 10, 2006

My sister has been waiting for about two years for a PowerBook fast enough for her to do some decent video editing on.

Everyone I know working with video in any way already uses a mac. I'm not saying no one will switch, I'm saying the new macbook will appeal to a small market. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

until you realize that Virtual PC (or just dual-booting, if it becomes easy for the consumer) will run PC stuff at full speed without the need for processor emulation.

Now that I agree with.
posted by justgary at 11:05 AM on January 10, 2006

Is video of the keynote available?
posted by Sagres at 11:06 AM on January 10, 2006

backlit keyboard

Do they also put a spoiler on top of the monitor to make it go faster?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:06 AM on January 10, 2006

AgentRocket: I think a lot of people will be asking that very same question. I saw a ton of iMac G5s and almost no laptops being carted out of the Apple stores over the holidays because everyone was expecting only Intel laptops today. Returns/Refunds are allowed within 14 days - if you call right now you may still be able to return&buy or switch up.
posted by junesix at 11:07 AM on January 10, 2006

Not to derail, but why can't I find a decent fax utility that actually works reliably on my Mac....

I am SO happy my life is just about PC-free.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:07 AM on January 10, 2006

Do they also put a spoiler on top of the monitor to make it go faster?

Is that the best you can come up with, now that we're both running with the same engine underneath?
posted by Rothko at 11:08 AM on January 10, 2006

PinkStainlessTail,

If you dont like Macs, dont buy them. Or snark in a Mac thread.
posted by Dantien at 11:09 AM on January 10, 2006

Wow. Company that makes products has convention and announces something new. Truly the best of the web.
posted by pieoverdone at 11:10 AM on January 10, 2006

Wow. Company that makes products has convention and announces something new. Truly the best of the web.

Well, some companies are more relevant to web culture than others.
posted by sourwookie at 11:12 AM on January 10, 2006

Wow. Somebody who isn't interested in a subject posts a snarky comment about how he's not interested in said subject. Truly the best they can do.
posted by bondcliff at 11:12 AM on January 10, 2006

Wow. Company that makes products has convention and announces something new. Truly the best of the web.

Wow. Company that makes broken products has to have a small-time programmer hack together a patch for a major security vulnerability on its behalf. Truly the best of the web.
posted by Rothko at 11:13 AM on January 10, 2006

A video of the keynote should show up sometime here, but it's not there yet.
posted by designbot at 11:14 AM on January 10, 2006

Well, poo. I've been saving for a new iBook with plans to buy one at the end of March. I guess I'll see how much longer I can go on the current iBook and see if I can wait until Intel chips are in the iBooks, too.
posted by eilatan at 11:15 AM on January 10, 2006

Am I the only one disappointed that the Intel Macs don't have some flashy totally new design? Compare this to when they went to G3's, G4's, & G5's. I guess they've got the kinks worked out and they don't want to mess with a good thing.
posted by designbot at 11:16 AM on January 10, 2006

I guess I'll see how much longer I can go on the current iBook and see if I can wait until Intel chips are in the iBooks, too.

Same here.
posted by justgary at 11:17 AM on January 10, 2006

Buried under all that hype about MacBook Pro is the real gem. New Widgets. Woo-hoo! New Widgets! And wait, there's more. Blogs too!
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 11:18 AM on January 10, 2006

Oh man! I've been in desperate need to update my 1Ghz TiBook, but the last round(s) of g4 upgrades just haven't been compelling.

Finally, an Apple latop that can compete.
posted by C.Batt at 11:19 AM on January 10, 2006

justgary: ... this certainly doesn't help with the whole "macs are expensive" rhetoric when trying to convince friends to switch. So I'm guessing maybe apple doesn't care either.

They care very much. Being expensive is a crucial part of the Mac Mystique: It's part of the dues you pay to be a Mac User.
posted by lodurr at 11:19 AM on January 10, 2006

PinkStainlessTail:Do they also put a spoiler on top of the monitor to make it go faster?
You should see the frikken' detailing on the laptops! You know it's going faster with those pinstripes.
posted by boo_radley at 11:23 AM on January 10, 2006

They care very much. Being expensive is a crucial part of the Mac Mystique: It's part of the dues you pay to be a Mac User.

And the $499 Mac mini plays into this strategy how?
posted by designbot at 11:24 AM on January 10, 2006

Or snark in a Mac thread.

What, there's no snark allowed now? How very tedious. Not "mac user holding forth on elegance and design" tedious, but still.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:24 AM on January 10, 2006

I felt ripped off paying 1800 for a dell laptop, and love my 900 dollar iBook, so not sure what dues you're talking about.

With the mini and the iBook, apples trying to cover both markets. I'm just curious why they went with the upscale models first. I'm guessing for profit margin. Plus, it doesn't look good to have your top of the line products falling behind.
posted by justgary at 11:24 AM on January 10, 2006

And the $499 Mac mini plays into this strategy how?

Don't bother. These people won't be happy until Apple gives away computers for nothing. Even then they'll say something like they should be paid to use anything with an Apple logo on it. It's a losing proposition.
posted by Rothko at 11:26 AM on January 10, 2006

I was hoping for a new snazzy enclosure too, but then I'm a shallow person. Lots of good improvements, but the price point is indeed a bit daunting, still it's the uber pro line and that's to be expected. I'm gonna keep waiting till they introduce the 13" MacBook Pro (Awful, awful name change) or a 14" MacBook; just don't want to deal with the 15" form factor.
posted by Vaska at 11:27 AM on January 10, 2006

sourwookie: Well, some companies are more relevant to web culture than others.

Very true. For example, Microsoft is much more important to web culture* than Apple.

--
* ... and no, by "web culture" I do not mean "what the graphics alpha geeks think is cool." I mean what people actually do, and what they use to do it.
posted by lodurr at 11:28 AM on January 10, 2006

How very tedious. Not "mac user holding forth on elegance and design" tedious, but still.

How about "still waiting for Windows Update to finish patching my machine after reinstalling XP" tedious? Is that tedious enough?
posted by Rothko at 11:29 AM on January 10, 2006

I'm just curious why they went with the upscale models first.

Because if they'd upgraded the iBooks and minis first then they would have been more powerful than the PPC 'pro' machines.
posted by gi_wrighty at 11:30 AM on January 10, 2006

And the $499 Mac mini plays into this strategy how?

Even at $500, they're $100-200 higher than the low end Dells.
posted by MegoSteve at 11:30 AM on January 10, 2006

For people who were planning on buying the 15" PowerBook G4, it's great news. For the same $1999 price, they're getting a second processor, faster RAM (PC2-5300 vs. PC2-4200), SATA hard drive, and a PCI-E graphics card. This is a no-brainer and Apple might as well retire the 15" PB G4.

Notice that the 17" PowerBook G4 is the same price as the 1.83GHz MacBook Pro of $2499. Apple is essentially giving buyers the option of taking a larger screen or upgraded processor/RAM/HD/video.
posted by junesix at 11:31 AM on January 10, 2006

Plus, it doesn't look good to have your top of the line products falling behind.

Exactly. Why would anyone buy a Powerbook (Macbook Pro)if the iBook was twice as fast? It's either do the pro stuff first, or do everything at once. I assume they did the iMac before the PowerMacs (Mac Pros?) just because the pro desktop chips aren't ready.
posted by designbot at 11:32 AM on January 10, 2006

Even at $500, they're $100-200 higher than the low end Dells.

Dells which are four times the size, use 5-6 times more energy, make a ton of noise, and don't have the same hardware features. This comparison doesn't fly.
posted by Rothko at 11:33 AM on January 10, 2006

Rothko, I totally agree. Macs offer an enormous amount of quality with their higher cost, but most people still complain. Do people bitch and moan about the cost of Jaguars? LearJets? "LearJets cost so much because it's part of their mystique." "LearJets suck cause I can't afford them with my part-time Starbucks job."

Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, Apple can't afford to sell them for less since there is more put into the product than other systems. Occam's Razor and all that.
posted by Dantien at 11:34 AM on January 10, 2006

Because if they'd upgraded the iBooks and minis first then they would have been more powerful than the PPC 'pro' machines.
posted by gi_wrighty

Ahh, good point.
posted by justgary at 11:34 AM on January 10, 2006

How about "still waiting for Windows Update to finish patching my machine after reinstalling XP" tedious? Is that tedious enough?

I can do other things while update runs silently in the background. If I want to drown out blather about design I have to sing Crazy Horses at the top of my lungs. With gestures.

That takes a lot of energy.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:35 AM on January 10, 2006

Another rumor I heard--obviously not to be--was an extra cheap sub-notebook (smaller form-factor) with no moving parts (HDD, CDROM).

I like the idea of a sub-notebook running OSX.
posted by sourwookie at 11:35 AM on January 10, 2006

Dammit, my MacBook Pro isn't shipping until next month. Not bad, just over $3k with a faster hard drive and AppleCare.

Need braiiinss... and a new mac...
posted by I Love Tacos at 11:37 AM on January 10, 2006

Dells which are four times the size, use 5-6 times more energy, make a ton of noise, and don't have the same hardware features. This comparison doesn't fly.

Of course it does, within the context of someone putting forth the Mac mini as a bargain-priced computer.
posted by MegoSteve at 11:38 AM on January 10, 2006

I was hoping for something like this.

Maybe next year.
posted by sourwookie at 11:39 AM on January 10, 2006

I can do other things while update runs silently in the background.

Like getting your antispyware and antivirus software to do its jobs?
posted by Rothko at 11:40 AM on January 10, 2006

Dells which are four times the size, use 5-6 times more energy, make a ton of noise, and don't have the same hardware features. This comparison doesn't fly.

And no iLife. But I agree, it's a useless argument. If someone wants the cheapest computer they can find, and actually want a low end dell, more power to them.
posted by justgary at 11:41 AM on January 10, 2006

OK, so are all my current apps I have — including tons of free- and shareware — going to be unusable on a new iMac until they're recompiled for x86 (or whatever needs to be done)?
posted by DakotaPaul at 11:41 AM on January 10, 2006

They'll run fine.
posted by designbot at 11:42 AM on January 10, 2006

Rothko: And the $499 Mac mini plays into this strategy how?

Don't bother. These people won't be happy until Apple gives away computers for nothing. Even then they'll say something like they should be paid to use anything with an Apple logo on it. It's a losing proposition.

Got your religion up a little, did I, Rothko?

The Mini is an interesting case. It's quite a bit more expensive than it would be if it were made to run Windows or x86 *nix. Cringely reckoned that a computer with those specs could be sold for as much as $300 less before Apple started to lose money. (But then, it wouldn't have that cool wraparound aluminum shell and that nice thick rubber base....)

Speaking of Cringely, he made an interesting speculation about this time last year: He speculated that Jobs might go loss-leader on the market's ass, selling the Mini at $200 each to build mindshare. Would have made great business sense, but I kept thinking it just didn't make sense in terms of Apple culture and psychology. How many times has Apple stood poised on the brink of really making a difference in the market, only to pull out at the last minute and squeeze off the urge? Face it, folks: Apple exists right now to make Steve Jobs feel good about himself. If it got really big and successful, it would rapidly grow beyond his ability to control it, which in turn would mean that someone else would get the credit.

Have I nicked enough of your sacred cows yet, Rothko? Cuz if you keep me interested, I can go on like this all afternoon and into the night. My Mac Mini has a gig of RAM, so I can easily task-switch between Firefox and GIMP and Dreamweaver to trash talk about the Holy Fruit Merchant. I could start with the fact that in order to upgrade the hard drive on a PowerBook (and probably on a MacBook), you have to unscrew something in excess of 30 very small screws in about five different sizes and with two different head types (Allen and Phillips), and then, once you've done that, it's still all held together by friction clips. "Industrial design" my ass -- it's all about making an Opel look like a Rolls.

on preview: Hey, Rothko, tweak the wayback a little and riddle me this: In 1991, who had more viruses, Macs or PCs? And why?
posted by lodurr at 11:44 AM on January 10, 2006

Ah, thanks designbot. Now the hard part: convincing my wife that my G3 Desktop needs to be retired. :-)
posted by DakotaPaul at 11:44 AM on January 10, 2006

I really like the iMacs these days and what they can do for the price (and the built-in flat panel and dvd burning, and it's whisper-quiet, etc). But yeah, i bought my new iMac G5 about six weeks ago after researching and saving and trying to narrow down just the right time to buy, and it completely sucks that now there's one out for double the speed at the same price.
posted by troybob at 11:45 AM on January 10, 2006

My tip for how to afford Apple computers:


posted by I Love Tacos at 11:46 AM on January 10, 2006

DakotaPaul, I sense a hard drive meltdown in your immediate future.... just backup before you enclose it in saran wrap and alumunim foil. shiny side in.
posted by pmbuko at 11:50 AM on January 10, 2006

All the blather about the quality of Macs is usually supported by nothing. They look great: there are few other laptops that have nice sleek aluminum or monochromatic polycarbonate cases. And the fact that Apple builds their own hardware means that their laptops work with the OS really well.

But as for functional design, please; Finder is no better than WinXP in terms of usability, and worse in many ways, and in my experience (in the past I've been responsible for maintaining lots and lots of Macs) Apple hardware is no more reliable than that of a reliable PC manufacturer.

Why do I use a Mac? Because I dislike and distrust Microsoft, and don't want to enable them; because don't have the time to screw aroudn trying to make things work in Linux. If I'd known a year ago how much time I'd waste trying to get things to work on a Mac that work fine and easily on Windows PCs, I probably wouldn't have switched. But I'm over here now, and I have to admit, I do like the way my PowerBook looks. When it's working.
posted by lodurr at 11:51 AM on January 10, 2006

aluminum.
posted by pmbuko at 11:51 AM on January 10, 2006

I'm right there with you troybob, my iMac is about 2 months old.
posted by mathowie at 11:52 AM on January 10, 2006

Like getting your antispyware and antivirus software to do its jobs?

Hmmm: AVG updates automatically in about 30, Spybot S&D teatimer runs in the background and doesn't use much in the way of CPU, regular automatic scans for both were easy to schedule, and neither program cost me a dime.

When you have a nice house that people desire to get into, you take five seconds to turn the deadbolt and put on the chain.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:54 AM on January 10, 2006

30 seconds
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:54 AM on January 10, 2006

Rothko: Dells which ... don't have the same hardware features. This comparison doesn't fly.

Hmm.... thinking about this, and wondering what hardware features you're talking about, and this is what I can come up with: Integrated wifi (which can be replaced for about $30), Firewire 400 (which is unecessary if you have USB 2.0), DVI output (which you wouldn't care about if you didn't use Macs), and integrated Bluetooth (see WiFi, and add that it's a feature of dubious usefulness).

So, really, a bunch of stuff that Apple has convinced us we ought to want. A bunch of prestige shit.

For the majority of their users, Apples are about conspicuous consumption. Feature comparisons are only userful in the rationalization process.
posted by lodurr at 11:56 AM on January 10, 2006

Actually, the base Mac Mini doesn't include BlueTooth or 802.11. Costs extra :)
posted by fet at 11:58 AM on January 10, 2006

Return & Refund Policy
posted by alms at 11:59 AM on January 10, 2006

Configure-to-order, personalized or other customized product may not be returned for refund or exchange under any circumstances unless DOA.

That's the important part. If you add ram or do anything even minor it personalizes your mac and you can't return it.
posted by justgary at 12:02 PM on January 10, 2006

Look for the next big round of system upgrade announcements on 4/1/06 - the 30th anniversary of Apple Computer, Inc. Personally I'd hold off on any laptop purchases until then.

Intel chips in the iBooks and the other PowerBook sizes. My early prediction is the 1.66GHz single core in the iBooks, 1.5GHz dual core in the PB 12", and 2.0GHz dual core in the PB 17". PowerMacs will take some significant re-engineering with the cooling systems and all to maximize performance - probable upgrades in Q3 to blow the doors off the audience. All G4 systems retired by end of year.

Refresh in the iPod line with bigger memory through the models. Some hoopla about integration of the photocasts with the video iPods since Apple is going 'casting-crazy and all. Apple seems to be using remotes to go down the FM radio route so I doubt they'll be any integration into the iPods, especially with radio being bread & butter for so many 3rd party vendors. The iPod line is well represented from the $99-$399 range with the shuffle being the "oldest" iPod now so maybe an upgrade on that product - a 1-line display or something. Still no integrated wifi/bluetooth/wireless - maybe a wireless addon since that seems to be the way to go these days.

No 10.5. There would have been leaks about that by now but instead the chatter was just about fixes & minor updates to 10.4 Instead I'm sure all the software focus is on the Universal Binary switch - Office, Pro apps (a reminder note since Pro apps supposed to be UB by March), Adobe apps.

//Stops pulling ideas out of the air.
posted by junesix at 12:04 PM on January 10, 2006

DVI output (which you wouldn't care about if you didn't use Macs)

I'll disagree with you there: I was pretty pissed back when I bought an ATI AIW 9600 card and it only had VGA and S-Video outputs. Remedied this in the new PC (which has PCI express slots, just like a Mac!)
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:05 PM on January 10, 2006

Can anyone find information about how long the MacBook's battery lasts? The product page seems to be avoiding the question.
posted by aparrish at 12:11 PM on January 10, 2006

Finder is no better than WinXP in terms of usability, and worse in many ways,

Finder clearly trumps WinXP by the ever-important No-Fucking-Puppy-Cartoon metric.
posted by stet at 12:12 PM on January 10, 2006

FireWire 400 is not unnecessary just because there's USB 2. For a couple of little files here and there, the difference is hard to tell. For DV? Give me (isosynchronous) FireWire instead of USB 2. Also, FireWire provides more power than USB 2.0, which is quite nice for certain devices.

There's room in the world for both interfaces, as well as purpose for both.
posted by Mikey-San at 12:13 PM on January 10, 2006

My one and only reply to all the fine people who keep railing on other people buying things.

The productivity increase I've experienced while using OS X-based Macs is such that the difference in up-front cost is completely irrelevant.

For some of you, this benefit does not exist, and the equation balances differently. Apple makes a very reasonable computer that does a very good job for some of us. Microsoft/Dell might work well for others.

The notion that one is definitively better than the other is deeply flawed, no matter which side you are taking. It's unfortunate that every Microsoft/Apple related post is doomed to devolve into "clever" snipes and pointless retorts.

Grow up.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:13 PM on January 10, 2006

If I want to drown out blather about design I have to sing Crazy Horses at the top of my lungs. With gestures.

Or, you know, skip the thread. I'm not a Mac user, but I still like to see what's going on in Mac-land. Am I the only person who likes both PCs and Macs?

Or maybe Apple puts more into the machine than other vendors, like a webcam, backlit keyboard, PCI Express slots, better engineering, etc. etc. that adds to the value of the machine.

No, I think that Apple products are more expensive than their counterparts because it makes sense for Apple to price them higher than the competition. Apple doesn't want to be Dell. Apple is very good at being in the "cool" niche, and overpricing is a big part of that. Design just doesn't cost that much, per unit, to justify that kind of pricing. Sony is pretty similar in that respect - they sell lots of devices that are overpriced, but very sleek and sexy.

I just bought an Acer Travelmate C204Ti, which is a convertible Tablet PC, with a 2 GHz Pentium M, 1 GB RAM, 100 GB HDD, slot-loading DVD+/-R/RW, integrated 802.11g and Bluetooth, slots for SD/MMC and Memory Stick, integrated fingerprint reader (!), an innovative screen hinge design that lets you use the damn thing when flying coach, and a bunch of other crap that I can't remember offhand. And I paid less for it than for the introductory MacBook Pro, which is around $2k with generally lower specs (aside from the dual-core processor.)

Like getting your antispyware and antivirus software to do its jobs?

You know, it's not so difficult to run a Windows machine safely. I don't use antivirus or antispyware software on my personal machines, and I've never had a problem with either viruses or spyware. I simply take a few precautions - I don't run the Windows shell as an administrator, I don't install things I don't need, and I block unneeded inbound and outbound traffic.

Integrated wifi ... and integrated Bluetooth

I love my integrated Bluetooth. Many, many PC laptops come with both of these now anyway.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:15 PM on January 10, 2006

Lodurr: We're all just thrilled to betsy to hear how much you hate your Mac and how you've divined that Apple products are 'conspicuous consumption' (I always thought they were just a brand). Really. But so far all of your arguments have been baseless and slanted, so you'll pardon us blinded zealots if we stick to our Macs because we think they crash less and are easier to use.
posted by Vaska at 12:15 PM on January 10, 2006

Stet: Not only was that comment really fucking funny, but that may be one of the best reasons I've heard so far.
posted by Vaska at 12:17 PM on January 10, 2006

The type of people who buy a computer for it's looks are the same type of people who think "User Interface" and "Operating System" are synonymous.

I'd rather have stable device drivers and an almost limitless supply of compatable parts than transparent windows and colorful iconography.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:20 PM on January 10, 2006

"No, I think that Apple products are more expensive than their counterparts because it makes sense for Apple to price them higher than the competition. Apple doesn't want to be Dell. Apple is very good at being in the "cool" niche, and overpricing is a big part of that. Design just doesn't cost that much, per unit, to justify that kind of pricing. Sony is pretty similar in that respect - they sell lots of devices that are overpriced, but very sleek and sexy."


I will be kind, and describe you as simply blind.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:20 PM on January 10, 2006

Is a BMW just a Chevrolet with cache? Come on!
posted by ParisParamus at 12:22 PM on January 10, 2006

Rothko writes: Dells which are four times the size, use 5-6 times more energy, make a ton of noise, and don't have the same hardware features. This comparison doesn't fly.

I love mac's, but Dell's desktop boxes are equally as quiet (or quieter) and energy efficient as competing boxes from apple. Check their nominal input wattage and DB (sound) ratings. Dell makes excellent++ desktop and server hardware - far better (IMO) than apple. (their laptops are another issue however)
posted by jba at 12:26 PM on January 10, 2006

Apple: The one thing ParisParamus and Rothko can agree on.
posted by drezdn at 12:26 PM on January 10, 2006

Hmmm: AVG updates automatically in about 30, Spybot S&D teatimer runs in the background and doesn't use much in the way of CPU, regular automatic scans for both were easy to schedule, and neither program cost me a dime.

I'm not talking about updating your software. I'm talking about getting it to actually do its job. Maybe if you and your fellow Windows users spent less time singing Crazy Horses and more time protecting your machines, we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions all the time.
posted by Rothko at 12:27 PM on January 10, 2006

aparrish, i noticed that too. Odd.
posted by jba at 12:27 PM on January 10, 2006

Is a BMW just a Chevrolet with cache?

I'd venture to guess that most of the anti-Apple people are against anything with an above average price tag, no matter what the benefits.

They fail to evaluate each situation reasonably, same as the "mac is always best" crowd.

It's a strange thread when ParisParamus is one of the most reasonable posters.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:29 PM on January 10, 2006

what would the apple people say the benefits are to the above average price tag?
posted by xospecialk at 12:30 PM on January 10, 2006

Am I the only person who likes both PCs and Macs?


Nope, you aren't alone. I like them both too. I happen to agree with much of what lodurr says, not to say that I think Macs are worse than PC's, just that they aren't better. Macs are better for something and PC for others. I agree with many of the "mac haters" in that Mac people tend to hold their macs on high and simply invent or embelish advantages. But plenty of mac people rightly understand that Macs are more "different" than they are "better" and they just prefer them. Powerbooks are great, and OSX has some great technology, but it still bogs down after a few years begging for a wipe and reinstall like windows. It still has issues with being slow and clunky in certain aspects. It still suffers from some issues of "presentation over function" which Apple is a big fan of, as in expose'.

I personally prefer windows, but both are valid OS's. And of course people who trumpet Macs for their lack of viruses and spyware are missing the point. Macs do have better security, but they aren't uncrackable. The main reason why there are fewer viruses is because there are fewer users. Why would a virus writer want to take the same amount of time to infect 5% as many users. If Macs became as common as windows, you can bet there'd be viruses for it too.
posted by Farengast at 12:32 PM on January 10, 2006

we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions all the time.

The WMF vulnerability didn't affect me personally, my business, or the businesses of the people I work with one whit. Whole lotta blather and smoke.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:32 PM on January 10, 2006

I'm not talking about updating your software. I'm talking about getting it to actually do its job. Maybe if you and your fellow Windows users spent less time singing Crazy Horses and more time protecting your machines, we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions all the time.

I guess software engineering gets complex when you're supporting 90% of the world's computers, huh.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:33 PM on January 10, 2006

I agree. I think it's a strange thread when someone says, "The notion that one [platform] is definitively better than the other is deeply flawed," then lauds ParisParamus, who believes that very thing, as being reasonable.
posted by MegoSteve at 12:34 PM on January 10, 2006

ParisParamus: Is a BMW just a Chevrolet with cache? Come on!

OK, GOB, don't spill your coffee on your $3000 suit [g/]. Anyway, BMW since the 2002 have been nothing all that special or interesting. Unless you like leather and enjoy identifying with your inner Teuton.
posted by lodurr at 12:35 PM on January 10, 2006

Vaska: Lodurr: We're all just thrilled to betsy to hear how much you hate your Mac ...

Your inference -- not what I said. (Why are Mac users so quick to take umbrage, I woner?)
posted by lodurr at 12:37 PM on January 10, 2006

The main reason why there are fewer viruses is because there are fewer users. Why would a virus writer want to take the same amount of time to infect 5% as many users. If Macs became as common as windows, you can bet there'd be viruses for it too.

No, you're missing the point.

Every mac/windows thread has the same progression. Macs are more secure followed by the "less users" rhetoric ,which while true, isn't the whole story). But regardless, why does it matter the reason?

If the reason my mac is more secure is because there are less users, then great. It doesn't change the benefit. It doesn't change the fact that yes, my mac is more secure. If it makes you feel better to point out why, go for it. The result is the same.
posted by justgary at 12:39 PM on January 10, 2006

posted by keswick at 12:39 PM on January 10, 2006

... and anyway, my Macs have each crashed more in the last year than my Win2K box did in 3 years. Alas, Win2K is essentially an orphan, and the power supply on my Shuttle XP (another fine aluminum-case computer) finally went bye-bye, so...
posted by lodurr at 12:40 PM on January 10, 2006

and anyway, my Macs have each crashed more in the last year than my Win2K box did in 3 years.

And my iBook hasn't crashed ever (I bought it a year ago). I guess we cancel each other out.
posted by justgary at 12:43 PM on January 10, 2006

Lodduer: Your inference -- not what I said. (Why are Mac users so quick to take umbrage, I woner?)

The irony in this statement is just delicious. Meanwhile, Keswick, what the heck was that for? Are you trying to get the img tag nuked or something?
posted by Vaska at 12:48 PM on January 10, 2006

posted by wakko at 12:55 PM on January 10, 2006

i have no loyalty one way or the other between mac and windows...i started out on mac, but i gave it up ten or so years ago because it was just to expensive to stay on the upgrade paths (we had gotten a power mac clone, which was a promising direction until apple pulled the rug out from under the clone makers, and the support and compatabilities starting drying up)...i have been fine with windows and keep a clean machine so i have few problems with it, other than an occasional loose spybot...we bought an imac because we started playing more with multimedia, and the cost seemed reasonable for getting something (1) with flat panel included, (2) with decent software to start playing with right away, (3) with DVD-burner, (4) with reputation for handling video and sound well, and (5) with everything pre-integrated so as to reduce compatability problems...the extra cost, if any, over putting together a windows machine with the same qualities seemed worth it considering the time and headaches involved in putting together such windows machine...

and i was rather encouraged that the first weekend we had it, i did a multimedia project on the iMac that took much less time and was much more intuitive than anything i was using on the windows system...
posted by troybob at 12:57 PM on January 10, 2006

I guess software engineering gets complex when you're supporting 90% of the world's computers, huh.

Is that the excuse this week?
posted by Rothko at 1:00 PM on January 10, 2006

AMIGA 4L!!!1

<img src="http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:cXeKcuLCsZoJ:www.sinz.org/Michael.Sinz/Art/Checkmark.gif"?
posted by wakko at 1:02 PM on January 10, 2006

posted by wakko at 1:02 PM on January 10, 2006

Is that the excuse this week?

I dunno, what's your nitpick of the week?
posted by SweetJesus at 1:05 PM on January 10, 2006

I dunno, what's your nitpick of the week?

What's your snark of the minute? Oh wait.
posted by Rothko at 1:07 PM on January 10, 2006

Vaska: The irony in this statement is just delicious....

I'm glad I was able to please your palate. I should warn you, though, that flavor -- it's not what you think it is...
posted by lodurr at 1:07 PM on January 10, 2006

I dunno, what's your nitpick of the week?

How about this latest gaping security hole? If that's not worth discussing we could always ruminate on next week's gaping security hole.
posted by wakko at 1:08 PM on January 10, 2006

Oh god, it's made of people! Wait, that's creamed corn actually. Least it looks like it...
posted by Vaska at 1:09 PM on January 10, 2006

ven at $500, they're $100-200 higher than the low end Dells.

Try comparing like with like. The PC equivalent of the Mac Mini is the Aopen Mini, which costs quite a bit more for the same package.
posted by salmacis at 1:10 PM on January 10, 2006

The WMF vulnerability didn't affect me personally, my business, or the businesses of the people I work with one whit. Whole lotta blather and smoke.

Is it really that upsetting to use a Mac at your workplace?
posted by Rothko at 1:12 PM on January 10, 2006

lodurr, what are you doing with your Mac that caused it to crash? Not one of my 3 Macs have crashed since I upgraded them to OSX in 2002. Sure, applications have crashed, but the OS has not crashed in over 3 years.
posted by evoo at 1:12 PM on January 10, 2006

I will be kind, and describe you as simply blind. ... Is a BMW just a Chevrolet with cache? Come on!

I've already acknowledged that Macs are attractively designed. In a comparison of functionality alone, though, I think they're overpriced. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I like them, although I wouldn't use one for my primary computer. I like iPods - I've bought several - even though they don't do anything that a bunch of other MP3 players do. Just like with any other purchase, you have to decide how important aesthetics are to you. For a lot of people, the Chevrolet is perfectly suitable, and they have lots of money left over for other things that might be more important than how their ride looks.

The main reason why there are fewer viruses is because there are fewer users. Why would a virus writer want to take the same amount of time to infect 5% as many users. If Macs became as common as windows, you can bet there'd be viruses for it too.

This is just not true. There are several reasons why Windows is more vulnerable to viruses and other malware. The number of users on the platform is one minor reason. A bigger reason is that most people (outside the corporate environment) run Windows as an administrator. This is just dumb, dumb, dumb, and it's almost entirely Microsoft's fault. When you install Windows, it creates an account for you in the Administrators group. The larger reason behind this is that Windows predates the existence of large networks, and was initially designed as a single-user OS. OS X, on the other hand, is quite new, and is much better designed in this respect.

That said, it is certainly possible to run Windows safely, as it is in most corporate environments I've seen.

Maybe if you and your fellow Windows users spent less time singing Crazy Horses and more time protecting your machines, we wouldn't have to have these kinds of discussions all the time.

Since you pissed all over that thread, your complaint that Mac-bashers are pissing all over this thread doesn't really carry much water.

If the reason my mac is more secure is because there are less users, then great. It doesn't change the benefit. It doesn't change the fact that yes, my mac is more secure. If it makes you feel better to point out why, go for it. The result is the same.

Well, actually, the result might not be the same. You would be less likely to be the subject of random attacks (viruses, worms, etc) but no less likely to be the subject of an intentional, direct attack. Note that I don't think that's the reason OS X is more secure, though.

And my iBook hasn't crashed ever (I bought it a year ago). I guess we cancel each other out.

Since modern OSs crash so infrequently, who cares one way or the other? I don't know anyone using either XP or OS X who's complaining of frequent crashes.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:16 PM on January 10, 2006

Is there going to be Classic support on the intel Macs? (have they already dropped it on newer macs?)

(and when you guys trade up to the new laptops--email me--i'll buy your old ibook/powerbook--i don't need intel til work switches, and they've invested a ton in this year's g5s, so that's not going to happen soon.)
posted by amberglow at 1:16 PM on January 10, 2006

PinkStainlessTail,

If you dont like Macs, dont buy them. Or snark in a Mac thread.
posted by Dantien at 2:09 PM EST on January 10 [!]

It's inevitable, as is the reverse. Witness the MS security flaw thread, we had people proclaiming their joy they weren't stupid Windows users and offering horrible advice.

This thread has been much better however, though of course Rothko once again shows he lacks any sense of humour.

It's nice to finally see Macs that peform well, reportedly. Still to expensive for my taste, but such things are of course relative. A couple of my mates will be very thrilled. Good for them.

I remember one guy telling me that the G5 was "4 to 10 times" faster than the fastest Pentium. I disputed the claim and was told I was a troll. He's gone quite quiet recently.

Ahh the Amiga. That was when I actually cared a lot about the computer I used. Now it's just a tool like any other. Youth had its advantages.
posted by juiceCake at 1:18 PM on January 10, 2006

What's your snark of the minute?

Oh, probably something about clue-free Apple Zealots who trade compatability for off-white plastic and beveled interfaces...
posted by SweetJesus at 1:23 PM on January 10, 2006

I'm at T-42 hours to my new 12" iBook and am compulsively reloading the FedEx tracking page—even if I do rue not being able to hold out until [at least] April for the Intel iBook. This happens every time I have purchased from Apple (to be fair, this is a rare occurance).

As for the discussion at hand: I run Linux at home and XP at work. I really don't care so much for the price-point or the spiffy design of Apple products, but I really, truely, absolutely love OSX. My *nix knowledge maps quite well plus I get a GUI that stomps the bejesus out of Gnome and/or KDE. I am excited to not have to pour over config files to make things work too. I do think XP is a nice progression from Win2K but the underlying DLL-based architecture with all of its rotting DOS dependencies icks me to no end. IMO the Apple vs. Microsoft vs. Linux culture war is pretty off-putting so the issue is a wash. Still, I'm buying a computing environment, not an identity.

Ultimately, each hardware/OS combination serves its purpose. IMO, a 12" iBook with its smaller form-factor and ability to integrate reasonably well with my WinTel work and Gentoo home environments is the ideal portable computing environment.

As for the discussion more topical to the FPP, I admit I enjoy the Apple version of these events much more than the Microsoft side. The way in which they are negotiating the architecture switch is interesting and seems to be smoother than the jump from OS9 to OSX at this point. To this end, I appreciate the links in the FPP.
posted by Fezboy! at 1:27 PM on January 10, 2006

Being expensive is a crucial part of the Mac Mystique: It's part of the dues you pay to be a Mac User.

Indeed, and shelling out those bucks practically guarantees you'll cream your jeans if the thing does nothing more exciting than work properly. If you're not absolutely intoxicated by your Apple, you have to admit you paid too much. It's that gaga-googoo that people pay for, and it's the paying for it that practically ensures it. Circular. Weird.
posted by scarabic at 1:33 PM on January 10, 2006

Is it really that upsetting to use a Mac at your workplace?

Okay, that one made me laugh. THE DAY IS YOURS, NOBLE ENEMY MINE.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:37 PM on January 10, 2006

OK, enough of this silliness comparing Mac OS to Windows. What we should really be discussing is whether Gates or Jobs gives a better keynote.
posted by alms at 1:40 PM on January 10, 2006

The PC equivalent of the Mac Mini is the Aopen Mini, which costs quite a bit more for the same package.

Yes, there is only one PC on the entire planet with specs comparable to the Mac Mini, and it's only made by one company. Oh, and it's more expensive.

This is why I love "PC Wars" threads.
posted by wakko at 1:45 PM on January 10, 2006

"Windows is a bitch to use. I don't use things that are too complicated... The OS may run like a wet dream, but I wouldn't know, 'cause I won't use the complicated motherfucker"
posted by boo_radley at 1:48 PM on January 10, 2006

I didn't buy my iBook because it was cool or beautifully designed; I bought it because it was cheaper than the other alternative I was considering, an IBM ThinkPad (and because I was sick of dual-booting Linux.) Comparing Macs to Dells doesn't really make sense. Whem I ordered a new power cord for my old Dell, they shipped it to the wrong address and didn't ship one to the correct address for three months. When the keyboard on my iBook had a space bar that didn't work on one side, I called Apple at 4 pm and woke up to find a new one the next morning.
posted by transona5 at 1:48 PM on January 10, 2006

What we should really be discussing is whether Gates or Jobs gives a better keynote.

That would be a very short discussion.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:49 PM on January 10, 2006

scarabic, that's strange. I'm neither absolutely intoxicated by my Apple, nor do I feel that I paid too much. Perhaps the sting of the cost was ameliorated by knowing that I don't have to futz with visual studio as a programming environment (which I personally dislike, but (OMG!) YMMV) or deal with installing and configuring a linux on the laptop.

I would still choose a mac laptop over a pc laptop, because I feel that the premium in price is a good balance to the time I'd have to spend configuring a linux distribution.

At the same time, I can't say that I'm "absolutely intoxicated" with system. It would be like being intoxicated with a pair of pliers. Like Fezboy! said above, it's a computing environment, not a lifestyle.
posted by agent at 1:51 PM on January 10, 2006

The keynote is up!
posted by mathowie at 1:56 PM on January 10, 2006

It's pretty, but where's the 3rd party hardware and internal accessability? I've been running the same PC for 5 years now and it still does everything I need it to do, incredibly well, since I've been upgrading certain components as necessary. Apple doesn't want to make it easy for you to upgrade, they just want you to buy a new one as soon as you think the old one isn't cutting edge enough. And all the iTools buy right into it.
posted by baphomet at 2:10 PM on January 10, 2006

Has anyone ordered one of the iMacs? The web site says ships in 1 - 3 days. Is that accurate? Someone above said the email re: the Powerbook said a month.
posted by Manhasset at 2:10 PM on January 10, 2006

In other news, AAPL closed at a NERDILY IRONIC STOCK PRICE. :-( for the fact i found it funny.
posted by jba at 2:14 PM on January 10, 2006

Shipping: If the Mini is any predictor, shipping will be a little bit slower than predicted, but they'll bump up the priority to speed delivery, so it will probably be close to a wash.

Baphomet, compatability isn't quite as bad as you might think. Many USB devices will work fine; don't buy a webcam without an explicit promise of mac compatability, though.

Apple's pretty much ditched all the really proprietary stuff (the old Mac keyboards didn't even use the same kind of scan codes), and only a masochist uses the Apple-branded mouse and keyboard. The real problem is that many of the input devices that are designed to be used with Macs (e.g., that have a splat key in the right place) have really crappy ergonomics. The keyboards are the worst: Stiff and uncertain action, noisy, clumsy feel. That's getting a little better as scissor-switch keyboards become common, but there seems to be a rule that says that mac users like crappy keyboards. Don't know what it is. (Apple's keyboards have always applied oral suction to the masculine genitalia of swamp-dwelling deer, and probably always will, and I'll never understand their bizarre fascination iwth the one-button mouse. At least they're finally getting past that last problem.)
posted by lodurr at 2:20 PM on January 10, 2006

The WMF vulnerability didn't affect me personally, my business, or the businesses of the people I work with one whit. Whole lotta blather and smoke.

Last time I crossed the freeway blindfolded I survived. Whole lotta blather and smoke.

PinkStainlessTail, at this point I mostly feel sorry for anybody who counts on you to make important decisions. It's clear that you are unable to recognize where your expert opinion stops and where your bullshit begins.
posted by I Love Tacos at 2:21 PM on January 10, 2006

That's not ironic! That's just coincidental.
posted by boo_radley at 2:21 PM on January 10, 2006

baphomet: My previous Mac (first of the G3 Series Powerbook) was purchased in 1998 and has served admirably for the last 7+ years. Does this make my iDick 2+ years bigger than yours? It managed several hardware upgrades quite nicely. Apple may not make upgrading particularly obvious, but to say it can't be done or that peripherals are unavailable is incorrect. Admittedly, for the past few years it's been running YellowDog Linux instead of OSX for performance reasons but to baldly assert that one is an iTool for purchasing a mac is, well, silly.

Of course, my continued participation in this side of the discussion is also a bit silly.
posted by Fezboy! at 2:27 PM on January 10, 2006

Megosteve: Nice snark, but read Paris's posts. Maybe he believes that PCs are universally inferior, maybe not. He hasn't made any statements on the matter in this thread.
posted by I Love Tacos at 2:29 PM on January 10, 2006

That new remote for the iPod would be nice if they hadn't already cut loose everyone with an iPod Photo. For the company that ran the 1984 ad, they sure do like to throw all their old products down the memory hole as fast as they can!

If they introduce a 12"-ish widescreen MacBook that can dual-boot to Windows then I know what my next computer will be. I love my Latitude X1, but I really have to wonder what's wrong with PC notebook designers when Apple consistently hits the mark with better features, better design, and a thinner form factor than any other manufacturer.
posted by stopgap at 2:45 PM on January 10, 2006

A friend assured me once that his some of his (Nebraska) relatives had "literally come to blows" over the "issue" of Ford vs. Chevy. It seemed impossible for me to believe -- but now I understand that there are so many layered of invented or imagined personal qualities to such a trivial decision. Jesus. What is wrong with people.

And it's no good saying that the other side has put those emotional qualities there (e.g., Apple users think they have something great when they don't), because that's bread-and-butter stuff in these phenomena. Witness the number of people who get all enraged in favor of their generic big-college football team because the other guys "think they're so much better than everyone else." Funny how every football team's fans gets hit with these charges, isn't it?

How about attempting to lose the (rather pitiful) emotions behind all the snarks, even at the risk of allowing your "enemy" to think highly of themselves for an instant?
posted by argybarg at 2:48 PM on January 10, 2006

Indeed, and shelling out those bucks practically guarantees you'll cream your jeans if the thing does nothing more exciting than work properly. If you're not absolutely intoxicated by your Apple, you have to admit you paid too much. It's that gaga-googoo that people pay for, and it's the paying for it that practically ensures it. Circular. Weird.

Weird? Simply looking at cost without context is what's weird.

I use Macs and PCs (in fact I built the home PC we have) so I don't consider myself quite the Apple zealot others may be, but I need to point out that I still use my first generation PowerBook G4 for production work when I'm out of the office. It's no speedster compared to a new machine, but it's been rock-solid reliable for going on 5 years now. The only thing I did was add more RAM and replace a bad battery last year.

I was still using a PowerMac 7600 (with a processor and memory upgrades, running OSX) purchased in 1996 until about two years ago.

Paid too much? You tell me. I've spent about $5500 to cover my personal computing needs for the last 10 years.
posted by jalexei at 2:49 PM on January 10, 2006

I loath PCs, and I don't think it's just the fact that I associate them with attorneys (my colleagues).

"I like them, although I wouldn't use one for my primary computer. I like iPods - I've bought several - even though they don't do anything that a bunch of other MP3 players do."

Me and My Monkey, you miss the point almost entirely. Macs are better for several reasons, including what you mention here, which is at least as important as any other reason.

I find using a PC traumatic and stressful when compared with a Mac. Aesthetics matter. Ease of use matters. Reliability matters.

The best analogy I can think of, even better than the Chevrolet v. performance car analogy is traveling at 60mph: with a Mac, you are on a paved road, with Windows, you're riding on gravel. Either road may get you there, but I try to avoid the latter surface.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:59 PM on January 10, 2006

i, of course, am an OpenBSD/Alpha user.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 3:05 PM on January 10, 2006

relatives had "literally come to blows" over the "issue" of Ford vs. Chevy.

This is really more of a Honda vs. Chevy issue.
posted by doctor_negative at 3:23 PM on January 10, 2006

**punches doctor negative in the face**
posted by argybarg at 3:24 PM on January 10, 2006

I find using a PC traumatic and stressful when compared with a Mac. Aesthetics matter. Ease of use matters. Reliability matters.

I find my PC to be as easy to use as a Mac, if not easier, for most things I do. It does some things that the Mac is simply incapable of doing. Where's the Apple version of this? Or this? I think it's pretty aesthetically pleasing, actually - the nice thing about having lots of PC vendors is that not everything has to be a beige box. I find my PC to be very easy to use. I find it extremely reliable. My last two machines have failed, oh, zero times. How much more reliable can they get?
posted by me & my monkey at 3:32 PM on January 10, 2006

PinkStainlessTail, at this point I mostly feel sorry for anybody who counts on you to make important decisions. It's clear that you are unable to recognize where your expert opinion stops and where your bullshit begins.

I claimed absolutely zero expertise. It is a simple statement of fact that the WMF vulnerability did not affect me in the slightest. Nor did it effect anybody I work with, and I work at a place where multiple people over multiple days infected and reinfected the system with the I Love You virus a few years ago.

Were you of Mac born, that you take my comment so personally?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:51 PM on January 10, 2006

Well, I went back home for Xmas to fix my Dad's screwed up iMac again -- mainly iPhoto, and the general assumption that Apple knows better when managing the system -- which is all cool appart from consitently showing that it fails in this area.

And what's up with the assumption that OSX can't manage data unless it owns its format/organization?

I've seen Windows sucking to no end, OSX is no better -- Linux is my best option so far. And of course, it adheres my computing mantras:

- If it's not free, it doesn't exist
- This solution sucks more, but it's more expensive.
posted by NewBornHippy at 3:55 PM on January 10, 2006

Well, I went back home for Xmas to fix my Dad's screwed up iMac again -- mainly iPhoto, and the general assumption that Apple knows better when managing the system -- which is all cool appart from consitently showing that it fails in this area.

Huh?

And what's up with the assumption that OSX can't manage data unless it owns its format/organization?

What??

I've seen Windows sucking to no end, OSX is no better -- Linux is my best option so far. And of course, it adheres my computing mantras:

- If it's not free, it doesn't exist
- This solution sucks more, but it's more expensive.

/head asplodes
posted by designbot at 4:14 PM on January 10, 2006

This is really more of a Honda vs. Chevy issue.

"But my Chevy's cheaper, even though the wheels fall off going down the highway! Wah! Wah!"
posted by Rothko at 4:14 PM on January 10, 2006

Can someone explain this Rosetta thing?

If I buy one of these new iMacs now, will all my current software work or do the third-party developers have to do something to it in order for it to run thru Rosetta? Or does Rosetta itself do that thing while it's running?
posted by Manhasset at 4:17 PM on January 10, 2006

Can someone explain this Rosetta thing?

If I buy one of these new iMacs now, will all my current software work or do the third-party developers have to do something to it in order for it to run thru Rosetta? Or does Rosetta itself do that thing while it's running?

Rosetta basically emulates a PowerPC chip. Your current versions of your software should run right now in this emulation mode, with no updates. When third-party developers do update their applications to universal binaries, they will presumably run even faster.
posted by designbot at 4:22 PM on January 10, 2006

That's nice, Monkey. I'm glad you're happy with your computer of choice.

I love my ibook. I don't really care what you guys think about that. I love my ibook. It makes me happy. I bring it everywhere with me. I like working on it. I get stuff done on it. I love how it looks. I love how my work looks on it. I don't feel that I paid too much for it. (In fact, I had budgeted another $500 for it, but it was cheaper than I thought it was going to be.)

I'm sure macs would suck if apple had too much more market share. I'm glad it's a niche product, because it's my niche and I love it.

I have a Dell laptop at work that cost more than my ibook. It's not bad, but I don't love it like i love my ibook. I don't really know why. That's just how it is.
posted by Hildegarde at 4:23 PM on January 10, 2006

I knew when I saw an almost 200 post thread on the new Apple products that great conversation would be inside.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:39 PM on January 10, 2006

I"m a Mac user, I'm just that cool.
I'm a damn good fit with this particular tool.
The machine works for me, with upkeep I can afford,
and the problems are usually found between chair and keyboard.

:) For more stanzas, you need email and a Paypal account; I'm working towards a G6.
posted by reflecked at 4:48 PM on January 10, 2006

And just to prove that I'm not MacBrainwashed, I don't really like Safari; Firefox, is clearly superior. Also, I could't get through the whole Software part of the presentatation, and fast-forwarded...
posted by ParisParamus at 4:50 PM on January 10, 2006

This is really more of a Honda vs. Chevy issue.

This is really more of a Rothko's a moron issue.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:54 PM on January 10, 2006

This new mac book is a total dud. The design is a good pointer that they've just whammed it out the door, as is the fact that the entire range wasn't updated. (BTW designbot, this is just like the first G3 PowerBooks which were crammed into a PB3400 case, and were shit.)

On top of that, they've cut a ton of corners. There's a comparison that spells it out, but no FW800, no S- or comp video, no PCMCIA and no modem (on a laptop!) is rubbish.

What's more, those promised speed boosts are likely to be lies as well -- the spec tests are for dual-processor setups. Running them on a single-proc G4 was bawz. That the iMac is now only twice as fast shows that, er, it's probably exactly the same speed. Well done apple. (source)

Finally they're not saying what the battery life is! They always say. Since they're not, and since the power adaptor is 15W stronger, this mac is going to last 10 minutes on a lap, isn't it?

Even when it is running, you have to look at the stupid name. PowerBook is a great name and brand: books with power future-of-information all those great connotations. Mac Book Pro ounds like Disabling Extensions for Dummies or some shit.

So: Fewer features. No classic apps. Not wildly faster. Same old case (but heavier). Crap name. Shit battery. Why would I want one?
at least it has wireless and more space than a Nomad.
posted by bonaldi at 5:13 PM on January 10, 2006