I'm not sure which forum this would fit into, so here it goes.
I've been a long time mac user, and a big fan of Apple's products. I got hooked in 95, and was made fun of by classmates to an extreme extent at the time for being a mac fanatic. (those same classmates are now hooked on macs, oh the irony) Anyways, with the success of the iPod, and the migration to Intel, I'm not sure how I feel about apple. I miss the days when seeing a PowerBook was something of an oddity, when people would ask me "what is that white and silver thing you're listening to?" or "That's a neat looking white laptop, who makes those?". For me, using a mac or an apple product felt like being a member of a club who found a nice, powerful machine that does everything we want with a minimum of hassle. I recall doing whatever I could to spread the word to get more macs out there. Now that it seems like all of those efforts are seemingly paying off, I'm not so keen on it.
The intel migration is something of an irritation to me as well. I recall being told by Steve Jobs that the G5 was faster and better than anything that intel had to offer. Suddenly, intel chips are dramatically better. Were we being lied to? I honestly doubt that intel has made that much dramatic progress since 2003, and somehow their 32 bit cisc chips are outperforming 64 bit risc chips that are derived from chips being used in the IBM z/series. What's going on with this? Were we lied to, and when? Were numbers fudged? I'm not asking for a congressional inquiry, but I'm a little confused and feel lied to in an odd way.
I wouldn't say lied to. However, Intel really has changed things in the past couple years. They had been going down the P4/NetBurst arch road which was all about GHz at all costs. They were proven wrong and failed to deliver the goods (4GHz+) so they took the back up route - they brought back the 686 line. The Pentium M had shown great promise so they took it further and developed the Core line. Now, they have a better CPU and ole Stevie was just drooling at it. He saw the IBM was in the same boat as Intel as far as speed, but Intel was now helping with the power problem. He'd alredy allowed NeXTStep to be ported to x86 back in the day, and they had done the x86 OS X builds al these years, so I'm guessing that he had the x86 plan up his sleeve the whole time. It was there just in case the PPC arch showed weakness. He was probably enamourd by the P4 when it made its debut and probably got worried when both the G5 and P4 lines showed their faults.
Thank goodness for the Isreali team that kept up the post-P3 development. They seem to be taking it in the way that was need for the last few years: an efficient CPU with a boat load of cache. Who cares how fast your CPU is if it's ALWAYS starved for cache RAM? Just wait until they get the models with 12-16MB cache in 'em. Then load up a small Linux distro and a nice little app. That system would scream if it all fit into the cache!
I've heard stories from an ex-engeneer/designer who worked at a silicon fab around here years ago. Apparently they had a Forth interperter written that was small enough to load into the meager cache (by todays standards) of a 286 system with a tiny app. That thing was crazy fast for it's day. Forget RAM wait states and refresh cycles. Just let the thing chug away on it's little problem at 100% full throttle.
A friend of mine has a theory about Macs, and your post seems to lend some credence to it. In fact, he just posted something on his site about the iPod (and went a bit off topic with some anti-Apple ranting). He says that "if Apple had 95% market share, Macs would be so much less cool and it would be hip to switch to something else. Apple has reinfiorced this with things like "Think different." If they had 95% market share, then what would “different
Were you lied to? Well... yeah. It's called "Marketing". Apple had to convince you that whatever they were selling was worth buying. And because it was impossible to directly compare a Mac to a PC by installing the same versions of the same software on the two it was inevitable that every time it became necessary to make claims about speed they'd be able to find *something* to bolster whatever outlandish thing they were saying.
On the subject of chip architecture, well... to be blunt: The "Core Duo" just really isn't all that and a bucket of wings compared to the choices available in 2003, or 1999 for that matter. Its performance per clock is about as good as the currently shipping AMD CPUs, which themselves are incremental improvements over the original Athlon core, which itself was better, but not *dramatically* better then the original Pentium III. Process improvements have allowed bigger onboard caches, multiple cores, and less power consumption, but the architecture hasn't changed much. For all the trash-talk about the Pentium 4 it did drive the *one* big improvement that has been made in consumer PC technology, which is faster memory busses. (The Pentium M spanks a similiarly clocked Pentium III Tulatin mostly because it's fitted with a Netburst-derived quad-clocked bus, and thus keep its cache full.) Other then memory bus speeds there hasn't been that much "revolutionary" change. However, the incremental bits and pieces have added up. And each one of those incremental bits was *very* expensive for the chipmakers to make, and required selling a *lot* of CPUs to have the capital to make them. And if it wasn't for the competition between AMD and Intel in the bloodthirsty PC marketplace the costs simply would of been unbearable.
Of course, by contrast look at the PowerPC landscape... a safe, protected, elite litte Eden where the pressure to improve is blunted by the fact that there's no one directly competing with you. Then G4 almost hasn't improved *at all* since its introduction, other then having its clock multiplier cranked up. There has been *no* major improvement in the memory bus speeds of the G4s used in Macs. (A 2005 1.67Ghz Powerbook has a whopping 67% faster bus then a 1999 400Mhz Sawtooth desktop. Compared to the 600%+ improvement you've seen in PC machines over the same period.) About the only thing you've gotten is slightly beefier FPUs (Newer G4s have some additional execution units.) and some onboard cache. The G5 looked so great when it was introduced partially because the G4 was so bloody lame by then. And in 2003 the G5 was pretty easily *on par* with its competition. And it still pretty much is. Performance per-clock is about the same as Athlon... a little crummier. Better then NetBurst, but it's clocked lower.
Decent as it is, however, a lot fewer G5s get sold then Pentium 4s, Pentium Ms, etc, so again it just *hasn't* benefited from manufacturing and process improvements to the degree that Intel and AMD's chips have over the same period. IBM *could* keep up if it had any motivation, but IBM just isn't interested, particularly when they have customers like Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft willing to take chips that arn't suitable for Apple in vast quantities. (Apple doesn't sell enough Macs to make producing power-efficient G5s worth IBM's while. If Apple could sell as many Macs as Microsoft can sell xBoxes the situation would be different.)
Honestly, from a technical stanpoint Apple should of transitioned to x86 as soon as OS X was ready to go... maybe 2001/2 or so, even though at the time you would of still been able to grit your teeth and say the then-aging G4 was still "competitive". The "club" mentality you enjoyed and Apple seeks to maintain is nice and all, but anyone with a brain should of been able to see that it was only a matter of time before the cutthroat competition between AMD and Intel would make it utterly impossible to maintain technical parity with their closed minority platform. To make a fast, power-efficient consumer CPU you need to make *a lot of them* and sell *a lot of them*. Apple simply doesn't care about selling a lot of Macs. It hasn't since Steve Jobs got back. The PowerPC strategy really depended on there being *some* large-scale adoption of PowerPC by the marketplace, in some form other then Macs (since Apple didn't seem to want to sell that many.), and it never happened. PowerPC has been quite popular for embedded things, but the problem with embedded applications is they don't drive the state of the art like desktop CPUs do.
Anyway. In my opinion I think Apple did lie to you. They were *not* selling you "superior" technology. Bits processed through PowerPC don't smell any fresher then the same bits pushed through an Intel CPU, and except for a few rare exceptions those bits don't get pushed any faster by PowerPC either. However, well, try not to take it too hard. They did sell you decent OS, some clever features, and all sorts of warm fuzzy good feelings all wrapped up in a pretty boutique package. You felt good and smart and superior when you bought it, so... in this short life of ours, what more do you want? Ride the feeling for all it was worth.
--Peace
The last thing I care about when I start my Mac is what its processor is and whether it is ludicrously fast or merely amazingly fast.
I like my Mac beause it is an excellently designed piece of hardware designed to fit excellently with the best operating system ever created. Using that OS makes my computing experience carefree and simple. It just works. I needn't think about the computer, only what I want to do with it. And that is what every computer should be, unless you want to be a 1337 h@x0rz or something else that involves not having a life.
And yes, I do look down on Windows users. Who wouldn't?
First of all, I too look down on Winblows users. I also know first hand how hard it is to fix windows. A great example of this would be right now. I still know a good bunch about fixing windows (I mean I have to do it often enough!!!), it's just a very hard, mindblowingly, mindboggiling complicated process!I have a friend who was trying to fix her friend's computer. She tried everything that she knew, and then called me, the local computer guru. It got stuck at the safe mode boot screen. No matter what she did, it would still go back to the safe mode screen. To fix it, I am going to have to walk her through, over the phone, how to do it through the recovery console. Before I could do that, I had to look up just how to do that! Even before that, she needs a windows xp cd! I HATE FRICKIN' WINDOWS!!!!!!!!
I feel it my personal responsibility as both a 'Fritter Critter and as a die hard "Mac Head" to try and convert everyone I know to the mac. (Any mac contributions to the cause would be appreciated!) I absoutely LOVE the mac. I don't care what processor is inside it, it just matters what os it's running. (MacOS BABY!!!!)
PS: The first words out of her mouth to me were, "It's not a mac!"
This is starting to sound like a "Mac OS over Windows" thread.
I, too, am a Mac user, as I would assume most on this forum are. I also have a Windows PC and a KVM with cross platform keyboard, mouse, and LCD. With the flick of a switch I can go from heaven to hell. Sometimes hell is fun. Mostly, though, it sucks. As a general rule I will upgrade my Mac OS whenever the updater says I have updates. This has only created minor problems once; 10.4.3 to 10.4.4 deleted my hacked Front Row, and I had to re-enable it. The other day, my Windows Norton SystemWorks notified me of available updates, and I allowed the Live Update to run, which required a restart. The PC would not boot. I booted into Safe Mode thinking I could just remove the SystemWorks software. However, it informs me that I need to boot in normal mode (which it won't do) to do this. How stupid! It would seem to me that Safe Mode should be a mode where one could remove the a troublesome software.
Back to the original thread!
I have never had any elusion about being lied to. Call it marketing if you like. My car manufacturer claims I get 37 Mpg. In reallity I get 27 Mpg. I don't hold it against the manufacturer. Any computer store will tell you their USB 2 device will transfer data at 480 Mbps. We all know, under normal user conditions, it won't. I still use USB 2 devices, and I will continue to use Macs. And, I will continue to hate Windows.
Rick
PS: Just thought I'd update on my Windows problem. It turns out that when I ran Live Update, I had no internet access due to a faulty ethernet hub. Apparently, the PC was trying to connect to complete the update, and rather than generate an error message like "Unable to connect to the server" it would just crash.
You're taking this a wee bit to seriously.
My only hope is that this new future with Intel will open the pathway for the Newton's return, which used the StrongARM processor mabe by Intel.
Out of protest, I will stick to my 68k Macs (with the noteable exception of my Rev A iMac, Rev A iBook, and my wife's 15" FP iMac) until I get my way. (I tried holding my breath and even stomping my foot with a big pouty bottom lip to no avail - perhaps my checkbook will be heard...)
The only feeling I've got about this transition is that it either means we'll either see the further advancement of the Mac, or it's going to get trounced in a level playing field. Not that I disagree with the transition; it had to be done or it would'nt have happened. But it could go either way, and I'd hate to see it go the "wrong" one.
Not that it's going to ruin my life or anything if it does; Ubuntu is an amazing Linux distro, and handles what I need quite handily. But there's the very real possibility that this move could cause Apple's demise. Again though, not making it would've definitely had the same effect...
-- Macinjosh
I've had some BAD experienced with windows. Especially last night. When my friend called me up and described the problem, I took one look on Microsoft's web site to try and fix the problem. I saw how difficult it was going to be, and I just started thinking just how easy it would be to fix on a mac. So, yes, I was a little edgy about Micro$oft last night.
I have to disagree... its quite the opposite. Mac users are compassionate. I feel nothing but empathy towards Windows users... espescially the folks that are just getting started that don't necessarily have great aptitude for computers. Further, there are a larger number of Windows users that have systematically ignored, or even view with disdain, any mention of Macintosh, and would never consider switching no matter how bad Windows gets. They are not only small minded... they are elitist.
No... they weren't lying necessarily, nor are they necessarily lying now. Yeah, the new machines are faster in a lot of tasks, but by many accounts the new machines are still getting spanked by Alti-Vec enabled application tasks on the PowerPCs.
Excellent point... I wish someone would address the bit issues... No one seems to notice that the iMac was downgraded in some respects.
I guess you missed this recent /. article:
NewtonOS Running on Linux PDA
IMO, though no doubt the Newton was great, its OS is really getting old. I wish Apple would trim down OS X for use with a touch screen tablet that could take advantage of InkWell. That would be a great use of Intel's low power chips.
No, I am familiar with the work on Einstein. In fact that is part of what prompted my remark. Emulating Newton OS on someone else's hardware is great, even if we can hook into the hardware's existing features, but life would be som much nicer if Apple just got over themselves and brought back the Newton. Part of what has made Apple Apple is the hardware, not just the software. For better or for worse, it should be a complete package. I am keeping tabs on Adam Tow's work through NewtonTalk (as are all of us over there), but we all also want the complete deal. Lobby for change (bring back the Newton) and make do with what you got (emulate Newton on other platforms).
Yes, a trimmed down OS X would work great. I am thinking an OS X small enought to just run Widgets with the powerful handwritting recognition of classic Newton. Don't know how Inkwell stacks up to Newton's HR.
I'm all for windmill tilting... but this isn't going to happen like you want. You're talking about resurecting technology that for all intensive purposes ceased growing by 1996. 10 years on the shelf is a long time in PDA years.
You don't have to sell the OS short. I wouldn't buy it if all it did was widgets. There is actually quite a lot of bloat in OS X... but, not really bloat because there is a purpose for it, which is what makes Apple famous for the "Just Works" thing.
To illustrate what I'm talking about, I gotta relay a little story about my Epson printer. Once, my system was acting funky, so I decided to reinstall. Only afterwards did I realize I had lost the CD with the Epson print drivers, which weren't necessary, but it also had the Epson printer utility. No prob, go to the site... ah, there's the link for the mac version... and... nother. Something is fubared at the Epson site, because the printer utility was the wrong thing. I told them this... they walked me through it... told me my browser was messed up, I used a different one.... it was them, but they wouldn't do anything about it. "Hope you can find your disc" they said. Jerks. So anyway, I was about to settle for the fact that my printer was useless now, as I couldn't reload inks, calibrate, etc. Then, in a random search, I found it. It was in the Library somewhere, a part of the new installation; Apple included Epson's printer utlility as part of their install!
Now granted... one little printer utility doesn't take up a lot of space... but... imagine all the other built-in functionality that Apple has in there! I'm willing to bet they could trim down OS X to less than 500MB easily by removing all the "Just Works" stuff, along with the 80% of unix stuff that no one ever uses (Have you ever looked in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, & /usr/local/bin? There's a lot of stuff... that no one will ever use... maybe its from BSD and part of all BSD systems, but any UNIX admin will tell you there's only about 20 commands that they use over and over... increase that to 100, and you've still got a lot you don't use). But if they really tried hard... maybe replaced the interface with a similar looking, but much smaller display technology... maybe shrunk the kernel/wrappers until it hurts... they could get it even smaller. It only needs to run on whatever new device were talking about, and support a handful of accessories. Java is huge... that should be trimmed down, or cut altogether (sorry... no widgets). Do we really nead C(s), Perl, Python, Ruby, and other languages and compilers on a handheld? I don't think so...
Anyway... I think you see my point... trim down OS X, but maybe not as little functionality as you imagine.
As far as InkWell is concerned... check this out (its mostly Newton HWR w/ a new name and new technology)
Excellent!
Have you checked out Chod Lang's Newton Comeback movie? Notice at the end the subliminal suggestion for an "iPad" that appears to be OS X based.
I believe you when you say they could cut out bloat, and with space so small, a 10G HD on a PDA is easy. They have all the pieces and the technology is there. They just need to do it.
I prediction is that apple might drop makeing computers.With the great
income form ipods and the cost of makeing computers they might drop
computers.I thought tist even more after the swicth to intel
that could phase out computers insead of quiting all together and sell os x for pc.It is just a prediction what do you think about it
-jman
I have one guy on a mailing list I belong to who never fails to troll for a platform war when I mention my Mac. Here's what he had to say recently:
I mean, really...all this crap we've been forced to listen to for years, and it feels as if Apple has suddenly said, "Yep! They were right!"
That's not the way I look at it at all.
Apple is plastic enough to be able to take advantage of the best technology available. Just because they can switch platforms, doesn't mean that their hardware isn't still superior to your average PC manufaturer (ahem, Dell). I wouldn't pay much attention to Moron.
And every piece of software your Mac runs today will still run the day after the final switch. Plus, with Rosetta old PPC apps do work on an Intel Mac. He's just a troll.
Well, here's something that worries me more...according to a news article I've read, new Intel Macs will be capable of running Windows, which Jobs claimed was good for Mac owners because they'd be able to run more programs.
While that seems reasonable on the face, isn't it suicide for the Mac Os? Why would anyone develop software for Mac Os, when all a Mac user needs to do is run out and buy Windows and get the Windows version?? Isn't it a knife in the guts for companies like Aspyr and Macsoft? Why would anyone buy their conversions when Mac users with Windows can get the same program faster and cheaper, and with the add-ons and support apps which never were cleared for conversion? Age of Empires, for example--none of the add-ons such as Age of Rome or Age of Titans were ever released to Mac. Jobs has just cut the Mac software's small market share to nearly non-existant.
And if nobody makes any more software for Macs, then isn't the new Intel Mac just another Windows machine?
Being capable of running windows applications is good to be able to do, but if you do it too well, you're doomed. Look at the doom of OS/2 Warp. It was capable of running Windows applications better and faster than Windows at the time, so nobody developed applications for OS/2. Good one IBM! This will either go well, or horrifically bad.
That's assuming that people choose to use Windows more often that OS X. I can tell you, most people who buy a Mac aren't concerned with running Windows apps. They buy a Mac for the OS - plain and simple. They couldn't care less what was under the hood, as long as they can do what they want to do. It could be a small hamster on a wheel and it wouldn't make any difference as long as the rig was stable.
The fear that the Mac will disappear if one can run Windows on it is justified, but I think it is a little shortsighted. I'm thinking about what's supposed to happen tomorrow (03/02/06) with the Kama Sutra (sp?) attack on Windows-based PCs. How awesome will it be to fall back upon your OS X install when Windows gets buggered up? Think about how much it will minimize data loss and lost productivity.
I think we're also forgetting the iPod Halo Effect. iTunes isn't half the app on the PC as compared to the Mac. There's just no comparison.
I think the Macintels will only help Apple. People can buy these rigs and slowly transition to the Macintosh, running back into Windows if they need it. I switched in July, and I was amazed at how frustrated I got at my Windows machines only 2 weeks later because I had already become accustomed to things "just working".
Cheers,
The Czar
iTunes and Apple-created software granted, but doesn't that make a Macintosh just an expensive docking system for your music?
The point is, yes, users love the Mac Os., and we'll use it as long as we can do what we want to do.
But say Adobe (or whoever) is going "Woohoo! Now Mac users can run the Windows version, so I can fire the whole Mac team, cut my costs drastically, my stock prices will soar, and I don't have to worry about packaging and creating multiple versions of Photohop!"
So, if this attitude goes around, will we we able to 'do what we want' on th Mac Os?
Yes and no. Yes, the Macintosh will be used as a dock for music, but evenutally people will begin to wonder what else they can do with the Mac OS, and as they work with it more and more, most will want to use it on a regular basis.
I understand what you're saying, but you have to consider that demand (to a certain extent) drives the industry. If there are people willing to buy the Mac versions of Photoshop, then Adobe will continue to produce it as long as it is profitable.
If Adobe were to drop Photoshop for the Mac OS and simply supply Windows versions of the software, unless it was losing money on PS for Mac, their stock price would fall, as their market share would shrink.
I'm confident that most people will choose the Mac vs. Windows on an identical machine. Put OS X Tiger and XP SP2 side by side. Which is the most elegant, stable and user-friendly?
Cheers,
The Czar
and you have to consider the fact that Adobe products are available for windows and os x now and nearly all professionals still do their work on macs.
Adobe will keep developing graphics software for Macs. Being someone who used Photoshop 1.0 I know they put a lot of effort into the Mac versions. Most graphics arts firms use Macs, and there's no way Adobe is going to lose their clients (especially with Aperture out now).
I see Aperture, which sounds pretty neat, sort of fitting in like a Claris product would have ten years ago, by the way. Something that is rather internally developed and pretty good but not "industry standard". Think MacWrite Pro vs Word 5.1 if that makes it easier (okay, that was more than ten years ago...more like 14 but you get my point).
If you read my signature you see that I consider classic Macs to be vintage casual luxury. Along the same line new Macs are casual luxury period. This point was brought up by David Pogue when he visited Pittsburgh last Saturday. The example he used was the screen corners. Take a moment now and look at the rounded edges. You won't find that on Windows. He said that in 1984 it took a ton of thought to get it done, but Jobs has always paid attention to those little things. As the old song from the early 50s (pre rock n roll) said, little things mean a lot...wow, am I dating myself there.
The look and feel of the Macs (yes, you want your look and feel...just like the Multifinder easter egg states for all you System 6 vets out there) has always been one of refinement.
Here's a good example. Acuras versus Chevrolets. No offense to anyone out there who has a Chevy. Acuras, though, are designed with performance and luxury in mind while some Chevys seem to be more about transportation than anything. Consider Windows to be your Chevys and Macs to be your Acuras. Now, if you scan a normal parking lot you'll find tons of Chevys and few Acuras. Still, Acura stays alive because it has its niche in the market. Macs are the same way.
I drive the "Mac Plus" of Acuras, I guess...a 1988 Legend. Still runs well after all these years. Back when it was new System 6 had just come out and the Mac IIx was the top model!
Another market that is decreasing rapidly is schools. Some schools are die-hard Mac people. I worked for two different school districts as an IT guy from September 1992-August 2005. When I started, they insisted on buying ungodly amounts of Mac LC IIs. Then, in September 1998, things changed. They phased the Macs out. Labs of LC IIs and Power Mac 5200s became off-brand Windows machines. My final task before I retired last August? Wipe the drives of all the remaining Macs, get as many working as I could, and donate them to charity. There are maybe eight Macs remaining in my former district spread throughout five schools. However, the district next door uses almost all Macs. I was there for a conference last January and saw about five labs of iMacs in the high school alone. Another school around me gives iBooks to the students. I pushed for more Macs at my district, but the admins wouldn't budge. Nonetheless, some loyal districts will keep Apple's computers alive forever.
The Mac OS itself is something that on one hand will always exist but on another hand will never become dominant. This is probably a good thing--if it did we'd see more viruses and spyware written for it. Honestly, the last virus I had to eradicate was nVIR. That's how old our viruses are. And with OS X only there's no threat anymore because the old ones only affected OS 9.
I just got back from an Apple Specialist near my house before I wrote this...had to pick up a Mini VGA to Composite connector for my iBook. The place was jammed. People were buying Macs, not just iPods. It was a really great sight--especially with the Best Buy across the way not looking too busy. Goes to show that people will always be true to Macs.
I always remember Sting's song "If I Ever Lose My Faith In You" whenever Apple does something like put Intel chips in Macs or replaces Mac OS 9 with OS X. Except we should change the line about faith in politicians to faith in Bill Gates...sometimes he really does seem like a game show host...
Most "Macies" (I'll call them that) that I know, the zealots in practice that I see, are artists. Of course, I *DID* just quit after 8.5 years of working at a college, which might have something to do with it. The Mac-computer labs are all central to the "communications design" department. They're all artists, and wherever you have a horde of artists you are sure to see more than just a fistfull of counterculture elitist a-holes. You know the type that proclaim that their way is better because it's outside the mainstream, against the norm? Invariably they back it up by saying they "get it" and everyone else are "sheep".
Well, when all of a sudden you have businessmen at bus stops with powerbooks, 20% of "sheeple" on the bus are sporting the white ear buds, and no one thinks twice about it -- it's plain to see that Apple isn't counterculture anymore. It's in your face. You see Apple on TV, you see them in the news. Suddenly pimply-faced nerds, 40-year-old mothers, doctors, suits, corporate drones and, well, everyone seems to think Apples are cool. The elitists can no longer proclaim that they're in this minority that "gets it" because the "sheep" are flocking toward their beloved Apple.
Now, I've always liked Apple hardware. It has a different feel to it, a different energy perhaps. I never really cared for Apple's software, especially it's OS, until OSX came out. OS9 and prior were scarcely more useful than PalmOS to me.
I'm not an Apple fanboy by any stretch of the imagination. I still don't get the iPod phenomenon. There's more for cheaper out there. Unless you're addicted to apple's name or their thumbwheel which is completely unique, you can get more GB and more features for a better price-point. Of course by the same token I don't understand a lot of "hip" things, like the motorola RAZR, Escalades, Navigators, diamond-encrusted teeth, and all that.
OSX is simply one of the most powerful OS's I've ever used. It's a power-user's wet dream, a UNIX Geek's playground, and yet it retains the simplicity and straightforward useability that has always made Macs the computer of choice for less-than-savvy computer users.
It's like a ferrari (looks and performance) that's suitable for teaching driver's education in (simplicity).