cwa107's Profile

Nice write-up. I think a lot of times us geeks forget that the vast majority of the gadget-buying population could care less about the specs, they just want the thing to work and understand how to use it to its fullest. Interestingly enough, I think a lot of magazines miss that important point. Gone are the tutorials and projects that used to occupy the majority of the space in magazines like MacWorld, and more often the majority of pages are devoted to regurgitation of industry news and reviews of equipment. That's great and all, it's just that the Web is chock full of this kind of information - it smacks you in the face at every turn. And speaking of MacWorld, does anyone else notice that the bigger and more successful Apple is, the less pages it seems to contain. Seems like it exists merely to stuff the rare tidbit of useful information between ads.

Oops, meant to say 2009 in that example, not 2019 :D

Doubtful. Will the mouse change? Almost certainly, but human interface devices, similar to the mouse will remain for a very long time - at least for workstations. No one wants to sit at a workstation and drag a greasy finger across their work. Nor do they want to reach across their keyboard to a vertical surface to constantly manipulate their machine. The paradigm just doesn't work on a vertical surface from a seated position. Sure, it makes sense for slate-type devices, smart phones, etc, but not for workstations. Your "movie editor" scenario is a prime example. Someone editing film is not going to want a smudged up display (even if it is oleophobic, it will still leave marks) to view their work. Nor will they want to edit standing in front of a wall, ala Minority Report. For those purposes, the desktop (or even laptop) remains supreme. And until Human beings morph develop telekinesis, we're going to need something like a mouse to manipulate the GUI paradigm.

I think Chrome OS and so-called Cloud-based computing scares the hell out of a lot of computing enthusiasts needlessly. These technologies are not designed to replace the PC as we know it today, as much as they are to supplement it and make every day computing tasks simpler and more reliable. Let me qualify that statement by giving you just a bit of history as I see it. Before - say - about 1994, the vast majority of the populace of our little planet did not own computers. For most people, computers were a business tool or a game machine and by and large, did not appeal to the masses. Sure, lots of middle class kids cut their teeth on Commodore 64s, Apple IIs and the like, but these future computing enthusiasts were the geeks and nerds of their time. Then came the World Wide Web and mass adoption by the non-savvy public. It wasn't Windows 95 that popularized personal computers in the home as much as Microsoft would like you to think, it was the appeal of the graphic-intensive Internet that could be run on a new generation of affordable computers, with mostly inexpensive dial-up service. Over time, computers became entrenched within mainstream society. Grandparents and technophobes alike were learning how to type and taking advantage of this new medium. And when the general public started getting "online", along with it came today's scammers who sought to pillage the ignorance of this populace. This lead to massive amounts of malware, a steady stream of broken and unstable Windows installs, and a general perception that computers were very unreliable. Fast forward to 2009 and take a look around. Microsoft has done a less than stellar job of improving the security and reliability issues that became prominent in the earlier part of the decade, but they have certainly improved. Apple has one again made the Mac relevant as it currently holds the thrown for reliability and a mostly malware-free computing experience. But still, I'd wager that the vast majority of computer owners use only a tenth of the power of today's machines. Think about how many of your non-savvy computer owning-friends use their machines - I'd wager that by far the largest use is surfing the web, followed closely by email, IM and maybe the occasional office document or casual game (think Solitaire, not Call of Duty). Do these people really need a MacBook Pro? Or a Dell XPS? Or any of the other "state of the art" machines that go for big bucks? Of course not - and that's why Netbooks have become popular. A Netbook's primary mission in life is to be a cheap, relatively disposable gateway to those simple tasks that the masses need a computer for. They don't appeal to me and you, the enthusiasts who bleed silicon, but they do appeal to an awful lot of the computer buying public. The trouble is that they are still unreliable - and if they're lost or stolen, along with them goes the user's data. Enter Chrome OS. An OS that is entirely capable of running the applications and services these people actually use - and it does so in an efficient and reliable way, without having to learn a whole new operating system. It's based on a web browser, for heaven's sake - everyone knows the basics of browser use. Another thing it has going for it is that no manual is needed. Much like a refrigerator, this OS intended to work as an appliance - one doesn't need to study up on confusing manuals or purchase any additional software to make it do what it's supposed to do - you simply walk up and open the lid and go - instantly. Need to store data? No problem - if it's not sensitive, you can trust it to Google. If it is, plug in a flash drive and have at it. Either way, there's no worries about needing to maintain this machine in any way, including backups. In short, I can see the appeal of this device - but I don't think it's in any way in direct competition with OS X or with desktop Windows for that matter. Marketed properly, this will become the "WebTV" of the 2010s. I could even see it sold on larger notebooks for free or at a nominal cost at your local Verizon or AT&T;store as an all-in-one Internet solution, broadband access included. But to compare this to OS X is apples and oranges (excuse the pun), two very different products to appeal to two very different kinds of customers. Now, if that long-rumored Apple tablet ever does appear, that may be an apt comparison. Until then, it should be fun to watch where Google goes with this thing.

Has HP ever actually led in any consumer space it has ever entered?

And how right he was (OK, not on his choice of dress, but certainly the latter comment).

The fact is, Windows 7 is merely a spit shine on Vista. The tired, old NT kernel that has underpinned every Windows OS since 2000 remains relatively unchanged, and continues to underpin Windows 7. This is a significant problem, because truth be told, Windows has never handled multi-processing very well. As the x86 world continues to steer down the path of massive parallelism, this becomes increasingly important. Unfortunately, aside from the addition of GPU-based computing in DirectX, Microsoft has failed to address this inadequacy. Apple, on the other hand, took a step back with Snow Leopard and concentrated less on flashy new features and more on architecture. In particular, Grand Central and OpenCL will be a boon to developers, who until now, have basically had to address the challenges of multiprocessing within their applications. Now, for what it's worth, I agree - Windows 7 is a solid release from Microsoft. It's at least as good as XP was when it was first released, and it's definitely leaner and more polished than Vista. But how do you market a product like that after the travesty that was/is Vista? "Hey everybody, we FINALLY fixed Vista, and if you want to see what it should have been like in the first place, purchase a $200+ copy of Windows 7!!". Needless to say, it should be interesting to watch - but I don't think Apple is in any danger of losing the high ground - not by a long shot.

Most of your discussion assumes that a "budget Mac" must be a desktop. With notebooks now handily outselling desktops, and with the recent surge in popularity of netbooks, I would think that any analysis of a budget Mac should be focused on a portable of some sort. I know the Mac Netbook topic has been beaten to death, about as much as a mid-range Mac tower, but I just can't see Apple undercutting the Mac Mini. The Mac Mini *is* the budget Mac desktop, but Apple currently isn't competing in the sub-$1000(US) notebook market. I believe they could do that and still maintain very healthy margins. Perhaps it's time for a slash to the prices of the entire MacBook line, bringing the white MacBook down to $799.