Apple offers sleek cachet for clunkers
Imagine consumers en masse dumping their old PC clunkers for a svelte MacBook Air running the sleek, new Snow Leopard operating system. An implausible Orwellian vision but probably not that far removed from Apple's marketing aspirations.
In short, walk into any Apple Store in any tony neighborhood and the message is: relieve yourself of those old bulky PCs and flip phones and we'll give you smaller, more stylish computing with the Apple cachet.
Ford Fusion: Ford is emphasizing smaller, more efficient designs, like Apple.
(Credit: Ford)The analogy may be a bit strained, but imagine trading in a 14 mpg Hummer H2 for a 45 mpg hybrid Ford Fusion. The point: smaller is better. And it's not just Apple hardware. Apple's new Snow Leopard operating system is smaller too. About 7GB smaller than the version it replaces.
As this New York Times review graphically (and some claim fawningly) shows, making software smaller violates a basic tenet of operating system upgrades: more is better. Historically, Windows has been the most egregious example of this immutable law of software marketing. This trend culminated in the fiasco that was Windows Vista--at least the dysfunctional version of Vista that appeared in early 2007.
At General Motors, this trend culminated in the H2, a car too big even by Detroit's standards. (GM subsequently struck a deal to sell Hummer to China-based Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company and is trying to make the electric Chevrolet Volt into its marquee model for the Chevrolet nameplate.)
Are those days over? No, but it's safe to say that at an even more profound level, personal computing is moving to smaller gadgets which, by necessity, use efficient operating environments running on efficient silicon. The iPhone comes to mind. Tiny Netbooks are another good example. In short, despite the obvious compromises that small size imposes, many consumers are realizing that they can do what they need to do with less.
Even Microsoft has figured this out, albeit slowly. Microsoft's Windows 7, based on preliminary reviews, is leaner and faster than Vista. (Yes, there's Windows Mobile 6.5 but I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that this isn't the future of smartphone operating systems.) Intel has got religion too. Its Atom and ultra- low-voltage (ULV) processors both offer significant power savings over standard Intel chip designs.
Apple wants to go a lot further than "Wintel" has gone, however, just as Ford wants to out-mpg GM in the fuel-efficiency race. The argument can be made that Cupertino is offering a sleeker operating system in preparation for devices to come. Maybe a tablet. Maybe something that has yet to be reported. What is clear is that Apple is focusing a lot of its in-house development on small, efficient technology. Both silicon and software.
The same thing can be roughly said about Ford. Its highest profile cars these days are the Fusion, Focus, and Escape--all relatively small, fuel-efficient cars (two are sold optionally as hybrids). All the polar opposite of the most popular cars in its gas-guzzler heyday: the Explorer, Expedition, and Excursion.
No Orwellian vision here, just smaller, more efficient computing devices (and cars) that make a clean break from an obsolete past.
Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. Follow Brooke on Twitter @mbrookec. 
ad click sales figures by putting apple in the title of speculative crap.
no journalism.
Personally, I found the article interesting. Maybe we are seeing a return to sanity in our computing devices. One thing Apple seems to be very good at is separating the features that geeks want from those the average user wants. The result is a device that does not try to be all things to all people, rather one that does what most people want. I will be glad to see the "everything and the kitchen sink" mentality that has existed for the last few years go away. Even in Windows there are things that are still best done from a command line and the best tools are those that do specific things and do it better than anybody else. A good case in point is Spinrite.
2. Much of the savings is simply on disk. There is no reason to believe that Snow Leopard's total kernel space, for example, is less than Leopard's.
3. Maybe that 7GB worth of crap in Leopard shouldn't have been there in the first place? E.g., Apple could have stripped universal binaries post-install so only the required architecture remains on disk.
The problem with CNet blogs is there's often very little analysis done, so we get lots of shallow, fanboyish Apple articles like this one. (I'll point out the article about GCD the other day as another example of poor analysis from CNet bloggers when it comes to Apple).
...followed immediately by...
"There is no reason to believe that Snow Leopard's total kernel space, for example, is less than Leopard's."
Even by your own first statement, the SL kernel would use less resource space (since there are no longer any PPC modules or registers to load, and according to you, that's "much" of the savings, eh?) QED and all that.
"Maybe that 7GB worth of crap in Leopard shouldn't have been there in the first place? E.g., Apple could have stripped universal binaries post-install so only the required architecture remains on disk."
There are some rather detailed reasons why a lot of it disappeared, if you would be bothered to look. Long story short, much of it has to do with the transition to full 64-bit computing (OSX 10.0 had a little, 10.1 had more, etc... but compatibility still had to be maintained with everything out there for OSX the whole while). The Universal Binary compatibility was required to remain in place for third-party dual PPC/x86 apps, after all... and for compatibility reasons, I don't quite see it disappearing just yet. The only concession I can see is the fact that there's no 64-bit Carbon library set, but I don't recall seeing that in any previous version either (IIRC, Carbon was always 32-bit, and it is present in SL for compatibility).
Now if you meant the stuff that came with the install, I'd like to see how the basic app suite you get with OSX would total up to 7GB of diff between UB and non-UB.
Your statements are bold, but you present us with more sizzle than steak yourself, if only by mere assertion.
Hypocrite.
Uh, no, what kind of logic is that? PPC modules should NEVER get physically loaded into the kernel's memory on an Intel machine, even on Leopard. With universal binaries, while multiple architecture binaries are stored together ON DISK, only the relevant binary for the architecture should get physically loaded into memory. Or are you saying OS X is so dumb it wires all architectures into RAM?
So the question remains... is the total Snow Leopard kernel Intel physical footprint actually smaller than Leopard's?
BROOKE & APPLE FANBOYS ANSWER THIS:
If Snow Leopard is so much "smaller" than Leopard, how come the Snow Leopard requires TWICE the amount of RAM than Leopard?
I.e., Leopard only required 512MB of RAM, but Snow Leopard now requires 1GB of RAM minimum. I thought the whole "point" was that "smaller is better"?
Not better, just more fashionable. Let them sell Macs as a fashion accessory, not as a serious computer. For the entire product run, 25 years, they have never received more than 5% of the OS market. Real people buy Windows machines.
In any case, Apple has a computer recycling offer for years - buy a new - or refurbished Mac and you can download the labels to ship your old machine off to Apple to be disposed of - for free.
That's handy when some places are charging $5 and up to accept old electronics...
Cnet has done a good job of getting people to click on the article though.
Cachet? Not me - My Hackintosh has a rather ugly case, and I'm viewing the thing through a bulky old NEC 25" CRT monitor. Call it a combination of hobbyist and a desire for a bad-assed OS that out-performs, while at the same time still being able to tinker with all my favorite CG/3D toys.
Funny thing is, I don't see where the author brought Linux into the picture. After all, the Linux community has always had portions that are downright obsessed with putting big bang into a small package (see also "Damn Small Linux", a fully functional distro which literally fits on a floppy disk...) This passion is why Linux absolutely dominates the embedded OS market right now (no, don't look at just smartphones, but all embedded devices in total).
Overall, I'm liking that we're beginning to drive towards faster and lighter, without having to sacrifice features.
If we were to bring Linux into the mix, it would be the VW conversion kits to change your Beetle to look like something else entirely. You know... home brew and unsupported by anyone other than geeks.
On most properly done Linux appliances, you neither know, nor care, that Linux is what is running the device. Properly done, the OS doesn't advertise itself. It disappears into the product. Do you have a router at home? Chances are, it is running Linux. Do you care? No. Does it look like an unsupported VW conversion? No. How about the GPS in your car? Many of the top sellers run on top of (gasp!) Linux. I know mine does. But I didn't buy it on the basis of the OS it runs, I bought it based on the reviews on its features and trip routing performance. There is no mention of Linux on the physical product.
Random_Walk clearly mentioned (and I quote) "This passion is why Linux absolutely dominates the embedded OS market right now (no, don't look at just smartphones, but all embedded devices in total)."
Yet you felt the need to divert attention back to a market that he did not even entertain.
He was right, in his concise statement. You twisted it into something that resembles a lie.
They do?
Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with efficiency.
Application incompatibilities? Some old ones don't work, some do, if that is deal breaker for some then they should stick with Leopard, Tiger, Panther, OS9 and so on.
One reason I might have better results on my computers than the small minority who have had problems is I backed up all my data, then unregistered all my software. When I booted off of the Snow Leopard DVD I had it format my boot drive before install. I have never been a fan of upgrading an OS.
Microsoft publicly announced the removal of many applications from Windows 7 a long time ago and stated those apps will only be available as Windows Live downloads.. 7 does not include them and has been available to thousands in beta for quite some time. The RTM version has been out for the whole world to download and install long enough for everyone to relize it's head and shoulders above Vista demonstrating excellent new usablity features, a smaller and more stable/secure environment, and runs faster and smoother on current systems than people ever expected. I continue to see rave reviews from writters and businesses alike.
Apple did reduce the size of it's OS and they should be congratulated for it. However, they rushed to release it just to beat Microsoft out the door and there forums are flush with entries of people having problems with it. Also, speculating on a tablet that hasn't even been confirmed in any way, shape, or form as a shining example of what Apple might be doing to substantiate your article is premature at best.
In my opinion it's Intel and Microsoft that should be held up as the prime example of movers and shakers of a new industry direction that people are just now realizing can be a good thing for many, but not neccessaryly all. While Apple has obviously been working on this for a long time, it's just now publicly showing it's face which definately puts them behind Intel and Microsoft.
You misspelled "flooded the market..." up there. ;)
Also, the XP netbook install actually bloated the disk footprint, so I doubt that Microsoft could be credited with pioneering much of anything.
I find the "rush to release" meme pretty funny, since Apple has publicly published their roadmap for years in advance, long before Microsoft realized their goof with Vista and hurriedly began to hammer Windows 7 into place.
"The (Windows 7) RTM version has been out for the whole world to download and install "
No, only EA/SA license holders and OEMs are allowed to do that at this time. Anyone else is pirating it. Maybe you meant the RC (Release Candidate) version, and not the RTM (Release to Manufacturing)?
If so, then the Windows 7 RC was a lot like the Vista RC - stripped of the DRM and bloat burdens that made Vista a paraiah in the OS community. Having just installed the RTM version of Windows 7 on a work laptop (we hold an EA license), I can tell you that there is a huge diff between the RTM Enterprise (read: reduced-DRM) version and the Pro (read: DRM-heavy) version. Enterprise runs a lot like the RC... surprisingly fast and light. The Professional version runs a little too much (performance-wise) like Vista, with only a very slight improvement in performance metrics.
The public is about to be in for a rude shock, and only an incremental relief from Vista... which won't do much for the XP die-hards. Well, at least Microsoft took care of their most important customers (no, not you - but the corporate world).
Actually you've got to feel sorry for Microsoft on this occasion, nobody expected the NetBook, and Microsoft were starting to gear up for a multicore future with massive computing power. While many people see this as a huge failing that Vista wasn't able to run well on low power chips, it is often overlooked that Apple don't have a NetBook offering, it is hard to look bad at something if you don't play. I'm not at all convinced Mac OS X would be any better fit than Vista.
If Windows 7 can run well on NetBooks then Microsoft are to be congratulated, while I've run Windows 7 and it was fast, on the class of system I've run it on, it should be fast, I don't know what it'll be like on a netBook.
As for Apple's amazing weight loss - well if you support two CPUs (which is a neat trick) then it's not hard to lose some size when you drop support for one! I know there is more going on in Snow Leopard than that, but never the less, there are fewer "Universal Binaries" (basically application bundles with both PowerPC and Intel code in them) interestingly a lot of Snow Leopard's application's are still "Universal Binaries".
The MacBook Air is a laptop with a special repackaged "skinny" Core 2 Duo, not an Atom - so it's unsurprising that (a) It costs quite a bit (b) Mac OS X runs so well on it, Vista runs well too! The MacBook Air cannot be considered as anything like a NetBook.
And before someone ask what I'm doing here, reading this, I'm here because many times, despite the title, the article has actually nothing to do with Apple (like this one) and is some interesting news (unlike this one).
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/3
Apple has been, and always will be, an EXCELLENT hardware manufacturer. They make great systems out of high quality materials, they last for EVER, and they are zippy and don't wear down till the day they croak. But this was the case of old IBM machines too. The Thinkpad line, before production was outsourced. Or the Sony Q-Series. Or machines by Saeger. But this only serves to obscure the real problem. It is possible to make one hundred different computers one hundred different ways for one hundred different purposes. What will make a computer pass or fail is the software you run on it.
What you fail, sir, to adequately represent in your articles is that the open source software movement, on the hardware of manufacturers such as Apple, IBM, and Saeger, constantly outperforms corporate software in terms of both ability and speed. Linux works faster, runs better, is more reliable, and more business friendly (IE standards compliant). Open source solutions to typical and a-typical software needs have always been superior in terms of features and performance to corporate solutions because of the vast array of talented software developers available for any given project. I suggest that you would paint a more adequate picture of the computing field if you illustrated the fact that companies such as Apple and Microsoft are being forced to adapt to the rapidly advancing community, not to each other. Their movement is dictated more by the public and less by each other than you paint in your writing.
Don't forget, for every programmer that works at Microsoft 1000 Developers work on open source.
Lots of good tools, but the apps themselves generally stink. Open Office? Common! I am an old (old old) Unix (version 7!) guy. Okay? I used to document in nroff/troff using MM. Anyone else here ever heard of 'pic'? How about 'xcip' on BLIT? But then the modern age hit with neat things like Word Perfect and Word. Then really cool things like FrameMaker. Okay, FrameMaker may not be cool, but it had power. It felt like a programmers documentation tool, yet it had WYSIWYG. That was ages ago. The open source community has had decades to replicate that ancient history, and the best they could do was Open Office? It is a pig! I use it. It is still a pig. A free pig. With cagey fonts. The API is a mess. The only thing reasonably cool to come out of Open Office was the XML document spec. I also use the GIMP, but that is another whole topic that can cause huge flame wars. If I had the money to afford a full-blown Photoshop install, I'd take a nice vacation, and keep using the GIMP, but it isn't pretty.
BTW, my personal experience with Snow Leopard was smooth on a my Mac Pro and MacBook Pro. I actually think that they had most of this Cocoa code in the bag for awhile. Anyone else notice that it never went public beta? It really should have been released with Leopard, but I think it was too early for them to drop support of PPC. Consequently, this is why it cost only $29.00 and had little UI improvements--although it really should have been free. Leopard was the eye candy of the release and the Snow Leopard the coding guts.
You neglected to mention that a good portion of that is because Apple changed the way OS X calculates disk space.
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2419
They now calculate disk space in base 10 instead of base 2. "This means that, for example, if you upgrade from an earlier version of Mac OS X, your drive may show more capacity than in the earlier Mac OS X version."(from the support article)
You've already posted great news, but it's getting worse and worse. Every day the Apple fanboyism is growing, making HORRIBLE articles just to say "hey, I have a Mac and I'm cooler than all those old PCs".
Why don't you change the name to iCnet?
I might come back if it stops, but for now, I'm going to other sites.
I know it's just one editor who wrote this, not everybody in Cnet. But most editors are doing the same thing. I'm tired of Apple and Cnet.
You give yourself away with the statement "hey, I have a Mac and I'm cooler than all those old PCs". If this didn't bother you...why would you mention it?
I have always run Macs - and I harbor no illusions about being Cooler Than Thou. I like them, they work fantastically for me, and it's MY money. So...***? After all.. it's just a computer. Not a lifestyle, as many of you Windows defenders may see it. You're happy with what you have? GREAT. Now go stomp your little feet and pout that not everyone agrees...
I know it's just a computer, but you should tell this to Cnet editors, we should see news here, not stuff like that.
Figure out what you need to do. Then figure out what software and hardware will do that best. In my experience, this has lead me to use Macs most of my life when it was my choice to make. I also have spent a lot of time using Windows in various work environments (and supporting clients who use Windows). I have also used Unix variants a good amount and have a unix based machine at home along with a couple Macs.
What you DON'T want to do, is just pick your software and hardware based on what the majority do... or some company does (especially the big companies... many use Lotus Notes for heaven's sake). I also wouldn't pick a computer because it is cool or trendy. However, I think regarding Apple, many confuse cool and trendy with ergonomic and well-made. Ergonomic and well-made really are worth spending some extra money on.
I thought it was going to talk about some rebate on a new mac if you turn in an old PC. nope. just some BS talking about nothing
"
As a Mac user who lived through the "horrible 90's" when there was no Mac software, no usable third-party hardware except those things that were usable by both PC and Mac, and who felt that even though the Mac popularized the GUI, Windows was getting all the love in the press, I feel for you. To a point.
Every dog has his day, and today it's the Mac's turn. Get over it. We had to listen to endless reviews of why Bill Gate's baby OS was "superior" to the Mac for years. We got tired of it too. My new Mac Mini with Snow Leopard will run rings around some HP piece of junk with Vista or Win7, and that's a good thing.
Go get a flashlight, crawl in your closet and re-read those old 90's copies of "PC World" you have stashed there. Have fun.
With so many Apple devices working together it makes sense for Apple to simplify their various operating systems - it makes it easier to keep track of how they work together.
- by z386 September 7, 2009 2:51 PM PDT
- Apple has great taste! Maybe they just want what is in the box to be as clean and stylish as the box. I certainly like the direction they have taken.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (80 Comments)Apple is trying to get alot of devices to work together. It makes sense for them to simplify their operating systems to avoid conflicts and to facilitate debugging .