There is no "support" for Atom in OS X

Post #319,022 by pwhysall 12/23/09 2:45:07 AM Reply	There is no "support" for Atom in OS X Apple don't have a single product that uses the Atom CPU. It went away because it's an unsupported CPU, and they don't have to check that it works. It came back by happy accident, because they don't have to check that it doesn't work, either. Nothing to see here, these aren't the droids you're looking for, move along, move along.
Post #319,024 by Ashton 12/23/09 6:02:15 AM Reply	Well, if it's laissez-faire as you suggest that indicates a certain confidence on management's part that -- they also needn't specifically target the sucker via some simple Billy-like (Win 3.11) ID-trap, either. (Nice turn-of-phrase, btw.) That 'inaction' alone demonstrates a certain amount of Class ... within this execrable, oft-sleazy industry, I wot. Oh and.. my experience to date is: nary a whiff of that urine smell associated with underground railway stations and that Other OS. I see your point re. supporting the hardware and re the consequences were the pairing of the OS/hdwre broken via aggressive lawyerly shenanigans. (I too would feel some guilt running a legal copy against the Rules, elsewhere.) But as no business would be transacted, in what I'd deem "use as a toy" -- probably I could rationalize away my indiscretion, and if They came to repossess the offending gadget: surrender same with an Oh Well.
Post #319,026 by folkert 12/23/09 7:09:07 AM Reply	yeah yeah... I think... That since Apple has shutdown the companies that were making money off this (and other moving pieces), "reported support for Atom" and removed it from SL, at least temporarily to make a point that they (Apple) not any one else controls the future of and the supported hardware for OSX. Ok, point taken. Thanks to Apple for being gracious enough to allow it back into the hands of the hobbyists to take OSX where they don't have something yet, but they are allowing it to go there so they don't have to fill the void that is there. I believe with good reason and with plenty of evidence that Apple is going to fill that void some time in the future and just need to build enough of a following for it to justify making a product to fill that niche. You do have to admit that Apple does fill voids its sees with the exact product needed in the holes it has. Of course there is plenty of evidence for that, in regards to the iPod phenomenon, the iPhone blockbuster, the MacBook Pro, the iMac, the MacMini (and now MacMini Server which was borne from a custom mod that just made sense) and the Airport (series). I think Apple sees this hole and is kind of waiting around to see just what comes around and out of the whole shebang, while keeping the coffers guarded in the process, just so shenanigans don't get out of control. I still have hope that Apple will make a "small screen" form factor, fully featured device that will make people happy to fork over $600-700 without a problem, perhaps as much as $850 (the upper limit IMO) for a complete package for the size. They already are in the market sorta of with the Mini already... not much of a leap. My only complaint about my Dell Mini9 with OSX Leopard on it, is the thickness of it, but its not a killer issue, by far its not. The important part is that it fits in the saddle bags of my motorcycles with ease, which it does that fitfully. As soon as Apple produces a product with the full features of OSX (not an iPhone style OSX) and this form factor, I'll buy it. Face it, it'll take less "compact engineering" to produce this product and Apple has more leeway to make a product superior to any "netbook" out there and sew it up without much effort. I'm not asking Apple to SUPPORT the Dell Mini9 (and its ilk), just don't bite the nose off just to spite the face, in this regard. Let the product develop itself into a niche that Apple can swoop in and make it happen legitimately and fitfully and in style.
Post #319,071 by pwhysall 12/24/09 4:14:53 AM Reply	I don't think there's a market for an OS X netbook. Simply put, OS X needs more shove (both in terms of CPU and GPU) than an Atom-based netbook can provide to deliver the OS X user experience. Further, I can't see Apple entering the netbook space for a couple of reasons. The first is the iPhone and iPod touch platform; these are dinky sofasurfers already. The second is margin. Netbooks, by their very nature, are low-margin, because you have to maintain some price separation between them and a proper laptop. Apple don't do low-margin. I don't think netbooks work at much more than about $300-$400; the whole point of the massively compromised (I periodically have to work on an Eee, and I can't type on it normally for love nor money) platform is that it's small, and mostly that it's cheap. People who want portable-at-all-costs are already buying the Air, and people who don't will struggle to see the value-add for a slow, small-screened OS X laptop at (say) $600 when they can get an all-singing, all-dancing full-sized one off eBay for the same money.
Post #319,088 by drook 12/24/09 10:16:39 AM Reply	And netbooks have destroyed the ultra-low-end laptop market Two Christmases ago, when I got my current laptop -- yes, the dead one -- it was one of a couple right around the $300 price point. All had 14-inch screens. (Well, 14.1 in this case, but I suspect that had more to do with marketing than reality. Call me a cynic.) Mine even had a built-in combo DVD player/CD burner. I had hoped that by this year I could find the same thing, but with two years of declining prices, maybe a built-in camera and DVD burner. Instead, there are plenty of $300, 10-inch netbooks with relatively tiny hard drives, not much RAM (some not even expandable) and mostly no optical drives. But some do have the camera. Cheapest thing with a 14-inch screen and full-size keyboard? $450, unless you're talking limited-supply doorbuster specials. -- Drew
Post #319,097 by Another Scott 12/24/09 11:44:50 AM Reply	Maybe the suit against Intel will fix that. I think it's Intel's marketing requirements that have destroyed the low-end laptop market. I'm using a Lenovo S12 to type this. I got it for about ~$325 (a refurb, direct from Lenovo - http://outlet.lenovo.com They don't seem to have any more.). It's sort of a hybrid - an Atom box, 2 GB max, no optical drive, but a quasi-full-size keyboard and a 1280x800 screen. (They keyboard and screen and price were my main requirements.) It's got ~ 4+ hours real-world battery life. At the moment, Lenovo has a 15" 1280x800 and optical drive notebook for $429 (dunno how expandable the RAM is), but they are short on machines for less than $500 unless you can tolerate a 1024x600 screen. I've got an old, similarly-sized (slightly smaller) Fujitsu 7120p with a optical drive, but I never use it. I don't think optical drives are very useful anymore, myself. Thumb drives have killed them, mostly. And if you have to have it, you can get a USB optical drive for very little money. J still uses her Hackintosh (Dell Mini 9). It works pretty well - we haven't noticed any major speed issues, but she mainly uses it for web stuff and the occasional PPT presentation. If it weren't for Intel's marketing requirements, I think you'd see a lot more variety in the netbook/laptop space. I think that Intel's not going to be able to hold back the tide too much longer, with the ARMs coming, the FTC after them, and so forth. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,100 by drook 12/24/09 12:36:47 PM Reply	I haven't been following that Do you have a sense for when things might be changing? If it's a typical big-corp lawsuit, I know it could be another year or more before anything changes. But if it's already into the later stages, or if availability of other chips is mooting the point, then maybe there's light on the horizon. -- Drew
Post #319,118 by Another Scott 12/24/09 4:20:40 PM Reply	The lawsuit will probably be on the trailing edge... I don't have any special insight on this - just stuff I pick up on Fudzilla and the like. I think the FTC probably has an open-and-shut case against Intel, but I assume it'll probably be settled. Unfortunately, it's in its very early stages. http://www.fudzilla....nt/view/16926/35/ http://www.nytimes.c.../17chip.html?_r=1 Of course, there are rumors that Intel may buy nVidia, so who knows. It seems obvious to me that the netbook/laptop market would evolve very quickly if Intel and MS weren't putting restrictions on what could be used. Every netbook shouldn't have a 160GB max hard drive, or a max 2GB RAM or be without an optical drive or ... There's clearly a restraint of trade issue going on. It shouldn't be legal - whether it is, I guess a court will have to decide. Whether the FTC or Apple or ARM-based boxes or smartphones or Ubuntu or whatever causes Intel and MS to reduce the restrictions first, I can't say. But I think them trying to "protect" the $1000+ laptop market is ultimately a losing strategy. Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,120 by pwhysall 12/24/09 4:28:40 PM Reply	They could, of course... ...always try not making $1000+ laptops be "not shit". My work laptop is a Latitude D630; C2D 2.5GHz, 4GB RAM, full wireless doodads. With Vista Business and docking station, it will have run well into $1500, not counting the software that's on it. And the admittedly solid magnesium chassis aside, it's a bit cack, to be honest. The screen has a frankly pathetic viewing angle, it's only got one speaker, the ports are distributed around the machine seemingly at random, it's got a bizarre wireless on-off switch that kindasorta controls the Bluetooth and the Wifi, the keyboard feels like it's made from the cheapest plastic ever, and so on and so on. Sure, it's plenty quick, and the graphics (Nvidia Quadro summat-or-other) give Aero a decent amount of pep, but as a package? Less pleasant to have on your lap and actually use than my wife's aging MacBook (1.83GHz C2D, 1.5GB RAM, El Crappio Grafico), and with much worse battery life to boot. I can reel of a list of similar but different gripes about the fancy-pants shiny gold Vaio my sister bought a while back. Superficially nice, not-at-all-superficially expensive, but the build quality just isn't there. So, yeah. Make expensive laptops look and feel expensive, would be a good start.
Post #319,098 by folkert 12/24/09 12:20:30 PM Reply	Its not about couch surfing... iPod Touch and iPhone cover that gracelessly enough for me. (its not a poke at those products, its just my feeling about them) The air is big on its footprint. It will not fit in my wife's purse or my motorcycle bags without problems of being at an angle or in a weird position or sticking out of it horrible awkwardly. I want something small, yet full OSX on it. I want a keyboard, just not something full size. I want a full 16:10 (or there about) screen format larger than the Touch/iPhone can or will do. I want to be able to use and do everything I do from my "full size laptop", please do not limit my choice. The Air is nice and light... that is not the demographic I fit into. I fit into the about the size of a half sheet of paper in footprint demographic. I want something very portable and small, but full featured. At this point the Dell Mini9 with OSX on it works and fits this demographic. It looks good, performs all the OSX stuff (purty eye candy) well without any glitches and I use it a lot. I'm sorry you feel that Apple doesn't need to enter the market... but did you see the price point I said? $600-700 for a netbook sized machine is NOT the cheap point. I know you said that netbookers are looking for cheap and only cheap... yet why do those "same couch surfers" buy then iPhone and iPod Touch? (I know why, it was a rhetorical question Peter) I honestly think the $600-700 range is the next perfect high profit center for a small laptop to be and Apple could very easily make and sell a product in the 10"-11" compact market right now and they would sew it up without even trying. If they can do a 12" for under $1K, then this is easily do able for them.
Post #319,101 by pwhysall 12/24/09 12:39:02 PM Reply	Re: Its not about couch surfing... Apple know a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff, but the thing they know most about is making an absolute boatload of money. If there was money in the OS X netbook market, they'd be there. Seriously. How many people want a tiny computer that isn't also a phone? The folks who want what you want are buying Nokia N900s - for about $600-$700.
Post #319,115 by folkert 12/24/09 3:22:48 PM Reply	A phone is a phone. A smart phone is still a phone. I want a full keyboard, not a thumb board. Stop telling me what I want. Next you'll be telling me I want a phone with VMS on it. If Apple made the footprint I have with the Dell Mini9, nut slightly slimmer in height, I'd probably buy two right off. I don't want a phone that is also a "computer". I want a computer that is small, full featured and perhaps has a cellular modem in it, otherwise I have a usb dongle for it. The Dell Mini9 makes the grade there.
Post #319,117 by pwhysall 12/24/09 4:13:50 PM Reply	Don't tell me, then. Tell Steve.
Post #319,127 by folkert 12/24/09 5:04:47 PM Reply	I have. Multiple times. I've purchased a plethora of Apple products, iMac, MBP, 3 iPods (3 different generations), 2 iPod nano, 1 iPod shuffle, Apple Software for my MACs. Plus I've got a Hackintosh. I've sent feedback at every opportunity.

Welcome to IWETHEY!