Apple Dumps the Cube 351
bac_mit writes: "I guess we all saw this coming with the dismal sales, but Apple has finally decided to stop
making the cube. There's an article about it here. It's always sad to see a beautifully designed product die." A year ago, the Cube was being hyped like crazy. What happened?
Bad placement (Score:3)
Yes, and what will become of the imag girl? (Score:3)
Re:Hastings's Law (Score:2)
--
Hmm (Score:3)
Gaudy Design! (Score:2)
But I don't have an iMac residence. Like most people I have a hodge-podge of items that I have aquired over some time, and I'm not spendthrift or wasteful enough to replace everything with Good Design. I want items that are simple, inobtrusive, and sure, reasonably attractive. I must admit, beige is an ugly color -- I'd like black more. But I like a computer that is a very boxy box, because that's all it is -- it ain't art. My shelves aren't colorful or pretty either, nor my tables, and there's stuff everywhere. I don't live in a commercial. An iMac wouldn't make my residence/work any more beautiful.
More plants and better lighting. That's the kind of design that never goes out of style.
Re:Sad but predictable (Score:2)
Re:Sad but predictable (Score:3)
Re:Nice decoration. (Score:3)
Re:Sad but predictable (Score:2)
>at university.
I don't know about him, but Raskin's Master's thesis was on the subject. Also check out
http://home.san.rr.com/deans/lisagui.html
--including mockups of the Lisa's GUI from *before* the visit . . .
hawk
Re:Hastings's Law (Score:2)
gigabit ethernet has been standard on all desktop macs for over a year now.
Just to qualify that a little: it's standard on all PowerMac G4 models, and it was an option for the G4 cube. It has never been available on the iMac
http://store.apple.com/ [apple.com]
Cube owner here... (Score:5)
The machine is a delight, to be honest. Utterly, completely silent and, when combined with a flat-screen display, a very calming experience to use. No low-level buzzing droning in the background. Just a quiet box on the corner of her desk.
Expandability? She had an external CDR from an earlier machine, and a USB scanner works just fine. Because of the internal 802.11b card, she doesn't have to worry about network wiring. She currently has half a gig of RAM in it. And with OS 9.1, it's been rock-solid. It's a great machine.
So what happened? As others have said, the price kept a lot of people away. If the Cube had been a sub-$1K system, Apple would have cannibalized their (more profitable) iMac sales, but they wouldn't have been able to keep the Cubes on the shelves.
Apple has one very simple problem (Score:2)
If they're content with selling to the ever-dwindling Mac-loving $80k income crowd, that's fine; they should then abandon all hope of reaching the rest of us who want the best computing for the lowest cost. I have been using PC's since 1984, and although I have often thought, "That's a cool looking case!", that thought never once even influenced my decision on what to buy.
Most people don't care about cute when it comes to computers. A computer is a tool that you ignore when you're not using it. About the only useful innovation Apple had they didn't execute well enough on: the fanless case.
Cheap, reliable, compatible: AMD chips, ABIT motherboards, brand X RAM, WD IDE hard drives. A computer more powerful than the Cube for less than half the cost. No-brainer.
They really should give up on hardware. Apple's true strength lies in software and user interfaces, but I don't expect the market for end-user software to be fruitful for very long, so in the end it looks like they'll be SOL anyway.
Re:Apple's toaster (Score:2)
insert ice cube joke here
When I saw this story on the register I thought about submitting it to Slashdot(considering the Cube's physical appearance) with the headline "Cube is toast". :-)
Re:The other problem is (Score:2)
Re:Oh well (Score:2)
Re:Oh well (Score:2)
Maybe that's what kept Alexander Calder from building a "mobile" computer. :-)
Re:Oh well (Score:2)
How about a dodecahedral computer, floating in the air, and rotating with a floppy or DVD drive at the front? You'd have to make sure your disk was rotating at the same rate as the computer as you slide it in.
Re:Hastings's Law (Score:2)
Steven E. Ehrbar
Good idea, poorly positioned (Score:2)
No, what did the Cube in was its narrow audience. It was too expensive to end up in many homes, given that the 30% slower iMac cost many hundreds less. And it was slightly more expensive than the low-end G4 tower.
Expandability wasn't much of an issue except for the minority of users who want to drive multiple video devices. Intel PC users seldom realize how little PCI slots get used in Macs. Nowadays, practically all the Mac peripherals that get purchased are 1394 and USB, even extra hard drives (including RAID arrays!). Save for old-timers bringing over a chain of SCSI devices from their old Macs, about the only use PCI slots get lately is those extra video cards.
Ultimately, despite making anyone who used one drool, it was too expensive (and high-end) for the home and reception-desk market, and lacked a quantifiable advantage over the modestly cheaper towers in the business market.
Re:Not only that, but... (Score:2)
Actually, I have both a TV and a radio. You see, one's good for some things, and one's good for other things. Having both gives me a choice. Up until OS/X came out, using a Macintosh would have meant I didn't have a choice -- I'd have to use a GUI even if it made the job more difficult.
Of course, OS/X came out several years too late to matter. There are free Unixes all over the damn place, running on cheap and even obsolete hardware.
But your point is valid. Why don't TV's have built-in radio tuners?
--
Not only that, but... (Score:5)
If it wasn't for the Macintosh, I'd never have discovered Linux. It worked like this:
- Apple abandons the Apple II line in favor of the Macintosh.
- I abandon Apple and go to the IBM-PC, which still has a useful CLI interface in the form of Microsoft DOS.
- In the drive to compete with Apple, Microsoft abandons DOS in favor of Windows. At first (v3.x), this is just annoying, but later (Win95 and after), it really gets shoved down your throat.
- I abandon Microsoft as soon as a friend introduces me to an early version of RedHat Linux, which still has a useful CLI.
- Six years later, I wonder how the hell I ever got along without bash. I occasionally hear that Apple and Microsoft are still in business, but it's no longer relevant.
So thank you, Steve Jobs! If not for your insistence on twiddleware, I'd probably still be buying Apple products.--
Re:Software for Mac - 3 Button Mice - Design (Score:2)
>will only need one button, and if you want more options,
>you have to hold down the cntrl, option, or apple key, or
>any combination of them while you click.
Agreed, the number of mouse buttons is a non-issue. A scroll wheel wouldn't hurt but it is not necessary. And actually, most home PC users I've met don't even know what the second mouse button is for.
Some saw it coming... (Score:2)
Wrong Market? (Score:4)
(I still want one for LAN Parties and Linux..
What happened?... (Score:5)
Well #1, and I think this goes for all of Apple's line, the lack of the new exciting OS to go with the new exciting hardware caused people to hold back from buying new computers. The fact was that Apple had a very bad release despite releasing great equipment. They took a loss for that quarter.
#2. Typical of Apple, they had problems getting the machines into the hands of the users. Alot of folks I knew ordered them and discovered they were not coming when they expected. Then there were issues with the powerbuttons and expectation of upgrades and a struggle with the atypical monitor cables and such.
#3 In the end, business users did not need the quiet elegant but limited expanssion machine. It was closer to the old Mac Classic design then the Mac II and in comparison to the Powermac G4's this just wasn't a business machine. Probably they should have worked to get it into college dorms and such. But the price is just too high compared to the iMac and the pc compatibles.
In the end it is a shame. I also wanted a Cube. Hopefully they will find a way of dropping the price (iCube?) on a similar technology.
d
What happened (Score:2)
What happened is that they were overpriced. Without the built-in monitor, it had less value than an iMac (which itself is pretty spartan) but it cost more(?!?!?!). I never heard of anyone I know, buying one of the cubes.
It had so little market. If you need a beefy Mac that might need future expansion, get one of the mini-towers. If you need cheepness and very moderate expansion (either via USB, or more likely, via other computers on your LAN) get an iMac. If you need _____, get the cube. Nobody knows what the _____ is.
---
Lack of real of innovations was the real problem. (Score:4)
Anyway... So the main issues as I see them:
1. The cube idea is not new. (nextcube, cobalt servers, etc.)
2. The ONLY innovation on the machine, the ultra-cool touch power button, but unfortunately is susceptible to RF glitching. that sucks!
3. The main appeal of the machine, it's 'look', was marred by poor manufacturing quality (many of the cubes had visible, highly refractive seams)
4. To have a complete system, you had to have a huge mass of cabling going into a very small opening at the bottom and then steeply angling into the machines ports... just bad design.
One way they could have really improved the cube is to include a vid card that has s-video out and pitch the machine as an entertainment device with full DVD/CD/3D-Sound/Gaming capabilities and:
-Put the power supply back in the cube, with a fan!
-And get rid of those stupid orb shaped speakers... they look cool, but aren't practical.
Happy Birthday USA!
-t
Re:Another Article (Score:2)
I would love to see some real world test that actually compared a fast production PPC chip with the current in production PPC chips with Altivec.
It's simple, really (Score:2)
______________________________
Architecture isn't everything. (Score:2)
But the cube is not expandable, and, I'm sorry, but... too expensive for being not expandable. The lack of incremental upgradability means it'll be outdated on my desk that much sooner.
Or maybe its' just the thought of paying so much money for something so small.
Re:Totally.. (Score:2)
It looks silvery and shiny, like most every other metal.. perhaps not quite as shiny, not ulike Al.
Where did you see charcoal black Ti?
Re:Totally.. (Score:2)
In it's pure form, Titanium is only slightly lighter than Iron, and quite a bit heavier than Aluminum. I believe a Ti alloy is used in most cases.
Totally.. (Score:3)
Is anyone else sick of the 'titanium' buzzword that everyone is in love with?
I saw this guy on TV, selling titanium kitchen knives. He talked about how strong it was, because it was developed for the space program, etc....
Titanium is very strong for it's weight... but that's it. Steel is still stronger (or at least, not as brittle). Also, from a knife point of view, titanium may never rust, but it's very porous, and although it may hold an edge for a logn time, it will not be a very sharp one. You cannot approach the razor-sharpness of good steel with titanium.
I have a space-age titanium backing on the LCD portion of my vaio z505le. Didn't take much jostling in the backpack to put a huge shiny gouge in it...
Re:So get a G4 farm (Score:2)
The slot-loading iMacs don't have fans, either.
Hrm. I'm less happy about this whole convection cooling idea than I was to begin with.
My Powerbook G3 (Bronze keyboard) almost caught fire once. Smoke came out through the keyboard. It was pretty hot while I was using it (my fingers were hot from the keyboard venting), but not once did the fan switch on.
It got sent back to Apple (three days before the end of the guarantee), and came back with a new logic board. Unfortunately, it hasn't been quite right since. I think the near-fire stressed out the other components.
Mac OS X freezes after 1 to 5 minutes. Yellow Dog Linux kernel-panics after a similar period. Mac OS 9 takes a few hours to freeze (just very casual use... not usual MOS9 crashing). (These are all clean OS installs, by the way.. no third-party stuff installed)
So, something's wrong.
Anyway, I was running MSN Messenger through Virtual PC for a while on my slot-loading iMac. I popped out for a little while to pick up a pizza. I came back, and there was a 'warm' smell coming from my iMac. It then shut down and refused to start for about six hours. On closer inspection, I noticed that a lot of the clear plastic is now browny yellow.
Both of these units were used in ventilated areas, with free space surrounding them. The Powerbook episode happened in a modern air-conditioned office, on a clean, flat desk. This is in England, by the way -- not the hottest country on Earth!
Anyway, I'm all for this fanless operation concept, but only if there is a fan, and it's threshold is set reasonably pessimistically.
The Cube just filled me with dread after my experiences. Last thing I would do is buy one of those unless I'd upped my insurance and bought a good halon system =)
The Cube: A failure of market differentiation (Score:3)
So the first thing I do, like any good mail order weenie, is go looking around on Pricewatch, various Mac-specific web sites etc looking for what the prices are for various kinds of hardware. Well, it turns out that just about every new Mac is priced within about $5 of the online Apple Store. That seems strange, especially considering that most of the big online retailers have their own "we'll throw in 256M/a printer/a scanner/a bunch of media" incentives. The simplest explanation for this seems to be that Apple prohibits its authorized dealers from advertising or competing on lower price, but still allows bundles for differentiation. Well, at least this makes price comparison shopping for new hardware very easy....
Now it's time to go looking for used machines and hit the auction sites. Well, in order to do that, I gotta understand what the specs of the various boxes are. So after a few evenings of trying to understand how the prices and specs work out, here's what I conclude:
So where does this put the Cube? Well, that's the problem. What I really wanted was a headless iMac. The Cube seemed pretty close because of its small size, no fan, and limited expandability. But it has a G4 and allows decent video resolutions, so Apple priced it like a "pro" system.
I think there would be a huge market for a headless iMac. But an important part of the iMac is low cost. And people who want a non-tiny monitor are just the people that Apple wants to squeeze for as many dollars per unit as they can get. As long as Apple has control over all the hardware that can run OS 9/OS X software, they'll probably continue to segment their market, sometimes with artificial limitations, to maximize profit from customers who are less price sensitive.
In general, PC hardware manufacturers can't do this. I can plop a GeForce 2 MX in Ye Olde Celeron 450 if I want video resolution. I can put a Maxtor 1394 card in any old PC. And if nVidia or Maxtor decides to artificially cripple their low-end cards to try to make more high-end sales, their competitors will eat their lunch. In fact, the only big player who has much luck with this kind of market segmentation is Intel (Celeron/P3/P4/Xeon), and AMD is...eating their lunch.
All this could change at MWNY, but I bet there will still be significant limitations designed into whatever new iMac is announced.
So get a G4 farm (Score:2)
Granted, the G4 towers are a lot bulkier than the Cubes, but OTOH they are also amazingly quiet. I've been pleased with my dual 450 G4 in that regard -- it's the quietest computer I have, even quieter than my Powerbook (which, while it has a fan, only rarely turns on the fan).
For that matter, the iMacs are also very quiet. My family-in-law has an iMac DV, and it's also very decent (though it does crash a lot... ;-P ).
My Duron 800, though, is just *loud*...
Ethelred [macnews.de]
Apple didn't follow their own strategy (Score:4)
It's pretty odd that Apple did the Cube at all, really. Anyone remember the original four-box strategy that they implemented to prevent themselves from going overboard on models, like they used to?
In the old days, Apple had Quadras, Performas, Centrises and Classics, and no one could tell from the name or even case design which Mac was which. Futhermore, within each line (Centris/Performa/Quadra) there were myriad variations that made little sense, and often there was overlap. This confused both customer and sales team, and caused a lot of trouble.
Enter the four-box strategy:
Consumer portable: iBook
Consumer desktop: iMac
Pro portable: PowerBook
Pro desktop: G3/G4
This strategy worked just fine, and then Jobs got a wild hair and decided to add the Cube, which was neither cheap enough to be a Consumer box (like an iMac) nor powerful and expandable enough to be a Pro box. Sure, it looked great, but it was just a bad decision (unless they had cut the price dramatically, but then they would have run into problems with the Cube cannibalizing iMac sales).
They should stick to a simple product line, like they started to do, much in the same way that carmakers recycle chassis designs and parts to keep things simple and costs down.
For all the coolness of the Cube, it was simply a blunder IMO.
Ethelred [macnews.de]
Re:Hastings's Law (Score:3)
Isn't this more a theory than a law? Anyway...
Regardless of how many units are sold, "adequate and cheaper" cannot sustain an industry long term. To me it seems "better and expensive" is what actually drives most progress. But volume is what drives costs down.
I'm also not convinced the problem with the Cube was one merely of price, though that was clearly a major issue. It was at a really strange place in the product line. I don't think consumers knew who it was targeted at.
The Cube has exactly two things going for it: it looks cool, it is silent
Well, another major one is that it takes up very little space at 8" cubed. This means that it can go in places that are not practical for other computers.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu [wildtofu.com]
Why? (Score:2)
--
One wonders how Apple couldn't have seen this.. (Score:4)
This is one of those cases where it seems like everyone on the web was in on one big secret that Apple didn't discover until they started looking at quarterly reports and doing the math.
Notice that everyone likes the look of the Cube, the silence of the Cube, and in general the concept of the G4 Cube. I know that I personally have been lusting after an old NeXT Cube for years now, despite the fact that the hardware is so hopelessly out of date and there's really nothing for me to do on OpenStep. The concept of a computer in a Cube form factor is just so appealing to me that I'd be willing to spend the $400 or so that it costs to pick up a decent NeXT Cube used.
However, if you're going to create a silent cube computer, you have to realize that those are perks. Those are "neat things". Those are *not* important enough issues to justify a purchase at full new retail price for 99% of customers.
Sure, you read here about how Joe Sixpack bought it for his wife and she loves it, or how Fred Smith bought it to add to his stereo as a digital computer component and thinks it's pretty fantastic. Most of us do not have $1800 or $2000 or whatever a decent Cube costs these days (or did cost, heh heh) just to throw away on a whim based on a cutesy design.
Someone here mentioned Rolex and Bentley. These products are *extremely* high priced within their markets, but they are also the acknowledged *BEST* at what they do. The layman thinks "high-end watch", he thinks ROLEX. That makes a Rolex watch 1) a quality piece of equipment and 2) a status symbol.
Any Apple based computer these days is only a status symbol for a small subset of the community. I think Apple had starry-eyed visions of Dot-Com millionaires eating up Cubes like chocolate to put on their glasstop desks right next to their expensive LCD panels and stack of $400 motivational tapes. It just didn't happen. Within the computing industry, Mac owners are more often reviled than revered. Macs are seen as a toy, or at best, as a tool for an artist or graphics designer.
There aren't enough image-conscious artists or graphics designers to buy Cubes. Most of them are still probably holding onto their 9600s for the 6 PCI slots.
Which is the other issue - the Cube is NOT the best in its class. No, it is not "in a class of its own", it's a personal computer. There are much better machines in terms of functionality and quality of components than the Cube - even within Apple's own product line!
That's the one-two punch. The bonuses of the machine are not worth enough to most people in and of themselves, and the machine does not contain amazing whiz-bang hardware to drive the purchases. If the Cube had been the fastest piece of hardware Apple manufactured by a measurable amount and been delivered at a cost of only a few hundred dollars more than the G4 Tower (to make up for the lack of expandabiltiy, etc... even though it'd be the fastest, it would be a static configuration), I think it would have sold very well.
If the G4 Cube was delivered as-is but at a price point closer to the iMac than the G4 Towers, I think it also would have sold.
It was neither. It didn't sell.
In 10 years I'll probably buy one on eBay for $400 to sit next to my (at that point) 20 year old NeXT cube in the museam of cool machines that could've been.
Re:Oh well (Score:2)
Watch the rate of roll on that Cobra III, Commander Jameson...
Yes, I too had a mis-spent youth [acornarcade.com].
P.S.: I wonder how many Merkins will understand any of this?
Re:A Mac future for the PC world? (Score:2)
It's not that simple - before making comments on Microsoft's NT based operating systems, at least know something about them.
It would be quite difficult to re-write the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) in NT4 to allow for USB support. Since Win2K was developed after the uptake of USB, it's HAL was written to include USB from the start. Yes, Win2K is based on NT4, to some degree - but making such a major change to an operating system already in production (I'm talking about NT4 here) would have been deemed too dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Lacking: time, money, uniqueness (Score:2)
Practical design! (Score:2)
I don't know why you hate beautiful things, but for most people it's worth more to be surrounded by beauty than by ugliness, and they are happy to pay for it.
Apple deserves the humiliation... (Score:2)
I love what Apple is capable of achieving in form, but it remains one of their most obnoxious tendencies to assume that form is a means unto itself. When function goes out the door - which it did in the case of the gorgeous but functionally impractical Cube - it is all but impossible to generate meaningful demand. A small population of design purists will buy anything Apple releases. They should have known better and released a more expensive Cube produced in smaller quantities (like the 20th Anniversary Mac from a while back).
This same elitist streak in Apple led to the 'innovation' of their sleek, gorgeous one-button mouse. I, along with the majority of other Apple Power Users, threw the dang thing away and plugged in (the horror) a 3 button Microsoft Mouse instead. I like the look of the Apple mouse better, but since I actually need to USE the thing, and since my usage entails more than simply surfing the Internet and single-clicking, I'm forced by practicality to use a functionally superior product from a company that remains mostly oblivious to aesthetics and originality.
After all these years, Steve Jobs' vanity continues to lead Apple to repeat their early blunders. With absolute certainty, the one thing we can all look forward to in the future of Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership is repeatedly making the most gorgeous mistakes in the computer industry.
Re:convection oven (Score:3)
A computer.. If you wave your foot over the thing it shuts down..
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (Score:2)
To be more serious, though, I think that Apple's desire to be different is a vice as well as a virtue. People think of Macs as somewhat of a curiosity, but don't really consider them for heavy use. The interface is nice, the design is fluid, but it's like those PT Cruisers... some people like them, others hate them. I think that they're hideous; who on earth would want to buy such an ugly beast? Wherever you go, people notice your PT Cruiser, just like people notice your VW Beetle. It's a novelty, and not many people drive them. It's awfully conspicuous at times because of the amount of marketing put into such things as Beetles and Macs. Though you don't drive around your Apple iMac or Cube, I think the same mentality applies. In fact, I find that the same people who love their Macs also love their VWs. Interesting.
----
Re:Oh well (Score:2)
Or a sphere, floating in the air...
Brings a whole new meaning to the term, Bernoulli [omsi.edu] Drive [dreamscape.com].
Apple = overpriced (Score:2)
Re:Hastings's Law (Score:2)
What a strange idea - do you buy things based on whether you like them, or based on whether you think they're targeted at you?
--
The cube didn't assimilate anyone (Score:2)
Re:You're forgetting about size (Score:2)
The Cube is just another option, and obviously not one that caught on, but remember the Newton? It failed miserably, and now we all use palmtops.
I just think it's interesting that people are down on the Cube, when Apple was trying to give people an option other than the standard pizzabox, tower, or laptop decision. It didn't work this time, but I applaud any computer manufacturer that at least attempts to improve the status quo in hardware design.
You're forgetting about size (Score:4)
For those of us who don't have all kinds of space, the Cube was an excellent idea. From what I've heard, Apple was expecting to sell a whole lot of Cubes in Japan, for example.
The fact that Apple mispriced the Cube, making the G4 tower a much more cost-effective bet, and that they mistimed it by releasing it before OS X was available, doesn't take away from the fact that they had the right idea in a small form-factor CPU that actually looked nice.
Re:Sad but predictable (Score:2)
Re:Sad but predictable (Score:3)
Re:Why not just put the computer in the monitor ba (Score:2)
Cable-wise you had the power cord, the network cable and a wire between the keyboard and the computer. The mouse plugged in to the keyboard.
It was a nice, tidy arrangement. I still have a couple in my basement.
Re:"This is good news for Mac users" (Score:2)
Re:Hastings's Law (Score:2)
Maybe so, but then so is Murphy's Law.
To me it seems "better and expensive" is what actually drives most progress.
True, but there needs to be at least a segment of the market that actually needs (or at least wants) the better and expensive product. For example, if you were to invent an improved floppy disk drive, at this point you would not be likely to sell many... especially if it is expensive. Current floppy disk drives are adequate for the purposes for which people need them.
Another example: gourmet hamburger restaurants seem to have a hard time. I really enjoy eating at Fuddruckers [fuddruckers.com] and I don't mind paying extra for the quality... but McDonalds is cheaper and considered adequate by most people, and Fuddruckers has trouble competing.
[The Cube] was at a really strange place in the product line.
Yah. Folks who needed the absolute top performance (including the best expansion capabilities) would buy G4 tower Macs, not the Cube; folks looking for a decent computer that doesn't cost too much would buy an iMac, not the Cube.
another major one is that it takes up very little space at 8" cubed.
IMHO, it is a stretch to call that a "major" one. How many people will pay a premium price for a computer because it has an 8" by 8" footprint? (Answer: not enough.)
steveha
Hastings's Law (Score:4)
Other Macs, with far better price/performance, outsold the Cube. The Cube has exactly two things going for it:
it looks cool
it is silent
Well, other Macs look cool enough, and are quiet enough, and cost less for what they do.
And, by the way, while you can make money by selling a product that is expensive but really cool -- consider Rolex watches, or Bentley cars -- a few visible cracks in clear plastic just may be enough to disappoint the folks who are motivated to buy such products.
The Cube is the only Mac that remotely tempts me. A truly silent box would be a nice thing. If I ever decide to buy a Mac, I'll probably get a used Cube, perhaps on eBay. Apple may not make any more new ones, but there will still be a few around.
steveha
Another Article (Score:2)
Re:A Mac future for the PC world? (Score:2)
Sun, and others doing Unix on 68K had to design their own MMUs, since Motorola did not have an MMU for the 68000.
Even with a custom MMU, you were limited to swapping, not paging, on a 68000, because it did not save enough information on a bus error to resume or restart in the general case. You needed a 68010 if you wanted to do paging.
Re:A Mac future for the PC world? (Score:2)
The first PC that was widely available with memory protection sufficient to support Unix was the PC/AT, which used the 80286. The 80286 has a built-in MMU which is quit excellent at supporting a swapping system. If you were insane, you could even make System V Release 3 run on an 80286 (we did that at Interactive...porting from the 3B2 source...man, that was one pain-in-the-ass port!)
The 1984 Mac used the 68000, which did not have an MMU available from Motorola. Comanies like Sun, Fortune, Callan, etc., that built 68000-based Unix systems designed their own custom MMUs, which, like that in the 80286, supported swapping, but not paging. They did not do paging because the 68000 does not save enough information in the bus error stack to recover from a general page fault.
Re:A Mac future for the PC world? (Score:2)
I'm ignoring it because I forgot about it. :-)
Re:Apple needs clue (Score:2)
IBM could not, can not, and will not ever understand the desktop market. They just don't get that part of the market. (they're not much better in most other area either, but that's another story) If I were Linus, I'd be saying to IBM "Thanks, but we don't want your support--we want to survive!"
Can OS X be the next revolution? Maybe. It should be--it has the potential at least. Personally I'm hoping for it as hard as I can.
Incidentally , you're wrong on one important point: Given the current state of computers, innovation _is_ a pretty box, and a pretty box with no fan and interesting ideas about space is doubly innovative. In the case of the cube, it just wasn't innovative enough to compensate for its flaws.
Re:Lacking: time, money, uniqueness (Score:2)
Trust me--I've still got printouts of the code I wrote to do it.
Also, someone else pointed out that the C-64 only had 8-bit/4-channel sound. The Atari had this as well, but allowed one to gang together two channels into a single 16-bit channel. (hence, two 16-bit channels from 4 8-bit ones) I vaguely remembered that the C-64 could do the same, but I could easily be mistaken.
Re:Lacking: time, money, uniqueness (Score:2)
Mind you, it's been a slow day...
Re:Apple and the next wave (Score:2)
Re:A Mac future for the PC world? (Score:2)
Since day one, Macs have used SCSI. Networking was built in from ages before PC NICs were common. They helped develop the first (only?) modern desktop processor.
The PC still uses an extension of IDE devices. LANs have become common in the last year or two. The x86 processor line (and AMD spinoffs as well) STILL have 8088 codes in them!
Now tell me which is more advanced again? Which one is future-looking?
Lacking: time, money, uniqueness (Score:4)
Those were the days of the Atari 800, the C-64, and even Apple's own ][+ (e, xe, c, whatever). The Atari and C64 had the ability to do 256 colours at about 320x200 (with some seriously clever programming) and had 16-bit sound! Then came the Mac. Lunky, clunky, tiny B+W built-in monitor, bad sound, and this goofy interface. (Remember this was the first home compute with a mouse, and the original mac mouse was _ugly_ to use even after you got used to it)
But it worked! It caught on. It singlehandedly began the next wave of computing, despite its severe limitations. Why?
1) Apple had the money to support it for more than eight months or so.
2) It was absolutely unique! There was nothing like it out there, and what it was offering was a whole new experience.
3) They could _deliver_ the damned things when the orders started rolling in.
4) There was no real concept of a standard platform. You bought your computer, and bought the software for that platform. When the largest company only had 15-20% of the market, there was less feeling of picking the 'right' or 'wrong' platform--just the one you wanted.
Now we have (or rather, had) the cube. Although it was intriguingly sexy, it lost out on all of the above points. Apple cannot afford to keep flogging the things until they start selling. Furthermore, they can't get production up to match demand anyways. The fact that they're perceived as being a (nearly) dead company vs. Microsoft is a huge handicap as well.
But the killer is this: The cube isn't unique enough. It's beautiful, it's advanced (fanless case? It's already becoming the Next Thing--except to see fanless desktop processors from Intel and AMD again in about 18 months), but underneath the skin it's still Another Mac--just like the G3/G4 Macs which are still available, better machines, and cheaper to boot.
Apple has been a computer _design_ company from day 1. This design just wasn't revolutionary to overcome its flaws.
Why not just put the computer in the monitor base? (Score:2)
This works even better with flat screens, which aren't so bulky.
Re:Why not just put the computer in the monitor ba (Score:2)
I'm thinking of a flat panel attached to a thick base.
Re:What Happened (Score:3)
Apple Design (Score:2)
Thing that always amazes me about Apple is that they have such well thought out hardware designs, yet they can never seem to turn that into commerical success. Their OSes have also been well made compared to the other mass market system out there.
Re:Hastings's Law (Score:2)
--
Re:Hastings's Law (Score:3)
please educate me here - this thing has a hard drive, yes? if so, how can it be truly silent?
(lets ignore the sound of the plastic cracking, for now)
--
Re:Missing the point about MacOS Rumors (Score:2)
So I still read it -- I just don't count on seeing everything they talk about appearing at my local MicroCenter.
/Brian
mismarketed is what it was... (Score:2)
/Brian
Oh well (Score:5)
Re:Sick of hearing about "such a great design" (Score:3)
You don't have a girlfriend, do you?
Re:Sick of hearing about "such a great design" (Score:3)
Hmmm
The original fellow seems just clueless, and when he starts dating he'll figure out in short order that in normal society it is expected that one pays at least moderate attention to the aesthetics of one's existence -- but you, now, display an altogether different level of fear and loathing. My diagnosis is advanced sociopathy manifesting itself as an alleged rejection of mainstream values in an effort to disguise your inability to relate to polite society -- what does your therapist say?
Re:Sad but predictable (Score:2)
Hahah, no really, the other day my grandma was sitting at my OS9 Mac and she tore me a new one because she couldn't run bash on it.
Hilarious.
Apple's delta (Score:3)
Re:Sick of hearing about "such a great design" (Score:2)
Never attribute to intention what can sufficiently be explained by stupidity. They were unreliable and defect-prone exactly because they were poorly engineered and pushed out the door without sufficient quality control. Equipment unreliabily is quite simple to acheive without going to the trouble of being unorthodox, and it's quite possible to be unorthodox while remaining careful about your engineering. The two NeXT cubes running in my basement, while based on different principles, testify that this unorthodox design can be implemented well.
Quite frankly, people who seriously factor the appearance of a computer into their buying choices are idiots.
I myself thought this until the day I borrowed a friend's VAIO and went to a cafe, and a woman sat next to me and said "that's a really sexy machine."
Dell doesn't get you laid :)
Re:Wrong Market? (Score:2)
MACS are a great pile of hardware, dont get me wrong, but they are generally not the domain of the hard-code-gamer.
It WASN'T for everyone, that was the point! (Score:2)
History recap. Apple, after Jobs came back, decided that there were 4 markets they could go after. There was the basic computer (iMac), the Advanced for professionals (G4 tower), the Laptop (the iMac laptop and g4 titanium), and the executive. For businesses, the cube was a brilliant idea. They had something for the clerks (iMac), something for the techies (G4 tower), and the cube was their attempt to go after the executives that otherwise wouldn't touch an Apple. This could've been a real coup. Sell them to the execs. The boss really likes it (esp. if you pair it up with a flat-display), hates the incompatibilities with PCs and so moves the company to Macs. Brilliant. I know of several execs that did that.
The problem was that it was never supposed to be for the masses. Yes, it's cool looking. Yes it's silent. Yes I want one. But it's not expandable (which is a much smaller deal than everyone makes it out to be.... your average computer buyer will never upgrade anything aside from RAM), and it was widely panned. If they had marketed it at executives exclusively (ala the 20th Anniversay Mac), they could've done gangbusters, and possibly raised their market share. Alas...
Re:A Mac future for the PC world? (Score:3)
"Since Apple hardware tends to be slower and smaller (in memory, storage, etc) than PC hardware of the same price, does this mean that PC users will look forward to 700 mhz machines with 3 gig HD and 64 mb RAM in 5 years? "
The very first macs in 1984 had motorolla 68000 chips in them. They were very fast back then and are still used to this day in high speed routers by cisco and in the palm pilots. I believe sun's first workstations used the 68000 due to its speed. The dragon ball processor in the newer palms is a modified 68000. The processor supported preeemptive multitasking and memory managment for true multitasking. The motorolla processors were by great bounds and leeps faster as well.
Lets see when Intel brought these features to the x86 series? Oh about 5 years later for like 5 grand. The first 386's were also nearly worthless when multitasking due to serious bugs. The second generation 386's fixed the problem. It wasn't untill around 1990 before intel had a prefect modern processor that could run Unix, NT, OS/2 and other 32 bit apps with reliable memory managment and preemptive multitasking at an affordable price. Old 16 bit code with no memory management/cooperative multitasking is why windows 3.1 crashed so often. I admit apple never used the features of its chip, but at least the libraries were better then windows 3.0 and windows 3.1 at the time making macos more stable and easier to develop on.
Also untill recently, powerpc processors outperformed intel ones by a %50 margin comparing megahertz to megahertz. So the old megahertz to magahertz dabate wont work. It was only after intel stole oops I mean borrowed riscs functions from other processors and overclocked its pentiumII's that the gap closed a little more. A 733mhz G4 processor is about as fast as a gig athlon. If you do photoshop work its even faster due to a special graohics core engine in the g3 and g4 processors. I recently saw an article here on slahsdot which compared linuxPowerPC to LinuxIntel running standard unix apps. On average the powerpc is about %25 faster then a similiar p3 at the same megahertz.
Now lets do a comparison:
q.) Who was the first to market a.) PC
q.) But who was the first to use a gui and mouse? a.) Apple
q.)Who was the first to use a 1.2 diskette? a.) apple
q.) Who was the first to include a preemptive multitaksing capable processor with advanced memory managment support? a.) apple
q.) Who was the first to include a risc processor? a.) apple and intell is not finished with the IA64 yet to comepte on newer chip designs
q.)Who was the first to include nic cards on all machines a.) apple
q.) who was the first to use scsi? a.) apple
q.) Who was the first to support USB/Firewire? a.) apple
q.)who was the first laptop maker to include a touch pad for mouse movements? a.) apple
Oh, by the way I haven't used a mac in years and I am using WIndows NT4 while I am typing this so I am not a mac zealot!
If PC's will be like Mac in 3-5 years, I'm going back to my Vic-20. "
Well, while apple was the first to include a limited one button mouse, tiny b&w screen, small speaker, my old XT resembled more of your Vic-20 then a modern pc today.
Re:A Mac future for the PC world? (Score:3)
Ah yes, let's beat that dead horse some more. You must mean stuff like Microsoft Office, the Adobe and Macromedia suites, development tools, Corel Draw, Canvas, Word Perfect, Strata 3d, Netscape, etc. Oh wait, all those DO exist on the Mac.
Are there programs that exist on PC but not Mac? Yes. But please don't pretend you can't get work done on a Mac.
Re:Lacking: time, money, uniqueness (Score:5)
I always thought, once you bought the machine, that booting it was free.
Re:What Happened (Score:5)
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2885165.html [cnet.com]
Despite these small issues, it is sad to see it go. On the G4 Cube webpage there is now a heading about it being "put on ice"
http://www.apple.com/powermaccube/ [apple.com]
bbh
I Just Went Through This Decision... (Score:3)
The Cube comes in a 450/500MHz version, which is comparable to the G4 Tower... Before the current crop of 466/533/733MHz models were released. The newer models feature 133MHz RAM/bus, gigbit Ethernet, 4x AGP and other slightly enhanced items.
With the pricing the way it was, it made a lot more sense to get a G4 Tower in the latest flavor, and in the end, have room to add in features. I'm planning on using the Mac for video editing, and the prospect of adding drives in a RAID or a video processing card (like the RTMac from Matrox) was all too likely.
The price/performance/expandability of the Cube just couldn't compare to the G4 Tower, and in the end - like others have said, it came down to "style" vs. having a real tool. I still want a Cube. I'd buy one if the price came down a few hundred dollars. I'm sure I can find a use for it even if it's not my primary system.
So, I ended up getting a G4 Tower w/466MHz G4, 256MB RAM, 30GB drive - with the 133MHz bus/RAM, gigabit Ethernet for $1500. A Cube at 450MHz, 64MB RAM, 20GB drive - with a 100MHz bus/RAM and "only" 10/100 Ethernet and a slower AGP slot was $1000-1200. Both have the same ATI Rage Pro AGP video card. For $300 more, the Tower makes a LOT more sense.
I hope they still offer tech-support (Score:3)
convection oven (Score:3)
issues (Score:4)
I also heard that the thing got hotter than fuck, which I know is an issue with some of apple's other machines too (*cough*titanium*cough*).
Oh well. They still make the coolest hardware. And I still want an iBook...
___
Sad but predictable (Score:5)
Apple has always been an innovative system builder with a strong emphasis on design, playing at being Ferrari while the rest of the industry was happy playing at being Ford - the Mac Classic, the 20th Anniversary Mac, the iMac, even today's standard G4's all have design features that have critics and users alike begging for more.
Unfortunately, the Cube also had its share of faults. Its fanless silence, case design and touch sensitive on-off switch were all great but were all problematic - the units overheated often, cases became cracked and the switches sometimes failed. Apple buried its head in the sand over these for a while, but it was inevitable that the writing was on the wall for the Cube, not least of all because of all the negative press that these failures generated.
Will Apple stop being innovative in terms of case design? Not likely while Steve Jobs is still at the helm, and a good thing too. Without the influence of Jobs and Apple we'd probably all be stuck with a CLI. That's not to say that CLIs are a bad thing but Apple bought the GUI to the mass market, and the mass market appeal of an easy to use PC made PCs cheaper for all of us.
Sick of hearing about "such a great design" (Score:3)
Quite frankly, people who seriously factor the appearance of a computer into their buying choices are idiots. It's like buying a furnace or water-heater for its looks. While idiots might seem like an ideal target market, you have to beat the competition to get to them, and Apple's marketing isn't aggressive enough.
--
I had a Cube... I took it back for a G4 tower. (Score:3)
But because of the length of the USB speaker cable, I couldn't have the unit on the floor and still have the speakers on my desktop. Besides it really is supposed to sit on the desktop.
I would have kept it (most Mac users don't put expansion cards or 2nd drives in their Mac anyway) if only the drive was quiet enough to sit on the desktop. A beautiful machine but some practical aspects just didn't quite mesh.