Looks Like Fun is Over at Psystar

Apple is suing Mac clone maker Psystar, according to web reports. This is from Computerworld:

"Apple Inc. has filed suit against Psystar Corp., the computer maker that in April started selling Intel-based systems with Mac OS X pre-installed. Apple is charging Doral, Fla.-based Psystar with copyright and software licensing violations, according to court records and a Florida attorney." Read Article

Prediction: OS X Available for PC in 2006

Robert X. Cringely, author of the PBC.com column, "I, Cringely," predicts Apple will succumb to market pressure and make Mac OS X available - though unsupported - on PC hardware. I agree, however I think it will happen within the next two years, not in 2006. Time will tell. Following is the prediction:

"But Apple WILL make some inroads against Microsoft. The new Intel Macs will run Windows XP unofficially, and Apple Support acknowledges that they are only days from running XP officially, too. So Apple finally has a solid argument why Windows-centric companies and homes should consider trying a Mac. The best case, though, says that Apple sells an additional million units, which aren't enough for Steve Jobs, so I see him going into a kind of stealth competition with Microsoft.

"Here's how I believe it will work. Apple won't offer versions of OS X for generic Intel hardware because the drivers and the support obligation would be too huge. But just as you can buy a shrink-wrapped copy of 10.4 for your iMac, they'll gladly sell you a shrink-wrapped Intel version intended for an Intel Mac, but of course YOU CAN PUT IT ON ANY MACHINE YOU LIKE. The key here is to offer no guarantees and only limited support, patterned on the kind you get for most Open Source packages -- a web site, forums, download section. and a wiki. Apple will help users help themselves. With two to three engineers and some outreach to hackers and hardware makers, Apple could put together an unofficial program that could easily attract two to three million Windows users per year to migrate their old machines to the new OS. Imagine the profit margins of three engineers effectively generating $300-plus million per year in sales."

OS X Continues to Impress

A few weeks ago I rescued our old clamshell "Black Tie" iBook that had found a home in my daughter's closet.

The iBook was stored after the CD/DVD door had stuck open. After a few days tinkering with it, I got the door to close and it was whole once again. Apparently, my daughter had accidentially pulled the door out too far.

Satisfied of my handyman abilities, I began using the machine and was impressed how strong its Airport reception and battery life was compared to my 12-inch G4 PowerBook. What I wasn't happy with was the 9.0.4 operating system it was running. I continued to use the iBook and began to experience daily system crashes and reboots. Then I read an article on O'Grady's PowerPage about his installation of OS X on a Blueberry iBook. Up until then I never thought about installing OS X on the iBook, figuring it would run way too slow.

Well, to make a long story a bit shorter, O'Grady installed Tiger on his aging iBook, breathing life into the once fanciful iBook. I decided to try it too.

After updating OS 9 to 9.2.2, I went for the gold, installing OS 10.2.8 (I don't own Tiger). The installation when extremely well, and despite the limited 800 x 600 screen real estate, I have enjoyed every minute of the iBook since. What I have especially enjoyed is that it hasn't crashed once since the installation.

While not a screamer, the machine handles OS X better than I ever expected. What's more, I get to use the same updated OS X apps that my other Macs use, such as Word.

Apple did a good thing when it finally updated its aging OS 9 system with OS X. With the move to Intel chips, I figure more of the world will discover this world class operating system really soon.

Apple Better Off with "Intel Inside"

Well, it's true. Apple is moving to Intel. Who would have ever imagined it? Actually, the move to Intel technology makes a lot of sense for Apple, which since the introduction of OS X has moved its core architecture to previously PC-only territory. It will be interesting to see how the "establishment PC" crowd will feel about Apple now.

Few argue that Apple has one of the most stable and robust operating systems out there today. Windows still rules the day, of course, but OS X with its rock-solid stability and immunity to many viruses has got it noticed outside creative and scientific circles in recent years.

What's still missing is OS X's robustness in the enterprise. Windows has such a head start, one wonders if Apple could ever catch up. But again, who would have foreseen the Mac GUI running on top of UNIX powered by Intel chips?

Moving to Intel means Apple will finally produce a world class laptop with world class power-saving features and extended battery life. My G4 Powerbook running OS X is a great machine, but it's no match for my office HP laptop with its P4M. Battery life on the PC extends easily to 4 or 5 hours, while the Powerbook stuggles to run 2 to 3 hours...especially when pushed by intense computing.

Scalability is another factor I'm certain Steve Jobs considered in deciding to switch. It is very possible you could see OS X running on your iPod, cell phone or PDA in the very near future.

Long gone are the days of Apple's legendary hardware/software integration. It just isn't as necessary today as it was in the early days of computing.

Will Apple's move to Intel mean we can buy any piece of hardware off the shelf to run OS X? I doubt that is Jobs' intention, but I figure if he tries to prohibit it someone will reverse engineer around it and make it possible.

I continue to be very optimistic about Apple's future. I figure the move to Intel will be the last straw for some of the Apple faithful, but those losses will be easily replaced by appealing to a new and larger market that never would have considered an Apple without "Intel Inside."

Tim Yarbrough
MacDoor Editor

Apple Moving to Intel: Say It Ain't So!

CNet's report yesterday that Apple is ready is switch to Intel chips is interesting, to say the least. What this move - if true - would mean to the loyal Apple fan base is unclear. After all, the Macintosh experience has always been about the user interface, not the chip that powers the screen. However, the anti-Big Brother mentality Steve Jobs has fostered at the company for years has meant Apple usually looked for non-PC alternatives which meant for years using Motorla chips and since the mid-1990s, chips powered by IBM technology.

Personally, I think it would give Apple a big advantage to use the chip set "the rest of the world uses," which potentially will result in lower computer hardware prices and increased compatibility.

Time will tell. I can't wait to see if the news is true.

Tim Yarbrough
MacDoor Editor