TCPA: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid (if you use a PC)

Here's yet another reason to be glad we don't use a Microsoft OS. The Trusted Computing Platform Alliance, headed by Microsoft & Intel, provides both hardware and software standards that will allow only licensed operating systems to run on a machine. This means unlicensed operating systems such as Linx can no longer even be installed on a TCPA-compliant system.

In a not so distant future (2004) the TCPA hardware will take charge, when you turn on your PC. This onboard chipset checks the integrity of your boot ROM, executes it and measures the state of the machine. After that, it checks the booting process of your operating system. If the chipset detects a TCPA-compliant OS it will load and execute it. Furthermore, the chipset maintains a list of your hardware (means: soundcard, videocard etc.) and checks them for TCPA-compliance, too. So, let's assume, Fritz (remember? the name of the chipset) detects, that all the stuff in your PC is on the TCPA-approved list, it will be finally happy and boot your system to the login screen. Be careful: If there are significant hardware changes, you will have to go online and re-certify your machine (like XP does).

After the booting process, Fritz hands over the control to the software part of TCPA: Palladium.

This piece of Operating-System-Integrated software is going to determine what you are allowed to do with "your" PC. Let's say: What you are not allowed to do with. Before you can start an application or open a document, it checks wether it thinks you are allowed to or not. No, that's no joke. It really does. Via the Internet, Palladium keeps an up-to-date list of software (the blacklist), you can't start. One can imagine what's on that list. e.g: every kind of cracking / hacking software, illegal copies and so on. Sounds like Microsoft installed a DRM via the backdoor? And that's not even all it is. Every PC with a Fritz chip has an unique ID. Only the software you bought for THIS ID (means: your PC) would be able to run. There's not even the chance to sell software you don't use anymore. Palladium / Fritz won't allow it to run on ANY other machine. There's also a blacklist for documents. Imagine: You're not able to play one of your thousand MP3's anymore, because they don't have a valid certificate, even though the original CD sits in your rack. Not one of your Movies. You also gave Microsoft the permission to delete all the files, once it has found them. You don't believe me? Read the last EULA of your Media Player.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Most people that I know and work with buy packaged PCs with very specific components. They don't upgrade the hardware. They simply replace the machines when they reach the end of their useful lives. Device driver problems are a rarity, at worst.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on quite a few points. No surprise there. I'm largely talking about corporate environments where PCs are moved around and abused a bit. The biggest problems occur when a hard drive has to be replaced and the OS needs to be reinstalled. That's when the drivers also need to be reinstalled. But I don't doubt that there are people who never have this problem.

Disagree. For most people, their computer doesn't have to be absolutely effective in order to be useful. It's a tool. Somebody may not mind the potential hassles they might encounter as a result of buying a $299 Walmart computer because they know that they are offset by the low price. I simply have never had this problem because I always tend to buy top-of-the-line hardware.

That's switching the argument. I pointed out a problem. You said that you don't have the problem because you use top-of-the-line hardware. I pointed out that Apple does, too, but that offsets the price advantage that PCs have. I've never said that PCs could be cheaper than than Macs and I never said that they don't serve a purpose. I simply pointed out that Apple doesn't operate in that space, for better or for worse, and that this offsets problems that people do have with cheap PCs with cheap components.

At the very low end, yes. But the vast majority of PC hardware isn't junk. Whether you will admit it or not, these things have become commodities. There isn't a whole lot of difference in IDE hard drives from one manufacturer to the next. Same thing with sound cards. Same thing with memory. Even motherboards and processors have become commoditized.

If it doesn't matter, then why do you buy top-of-the-line hardware yourself?

And for you to suggest that that hardware is junk simply because it wasn't made by Apple is the height of arrogance.

Again with the straw man argument. Can you point out where I said that any hadware not made by Apple is junk? Is it possible for you to finish one reply without introducing a straw man argument?

Agree. I never said that Macs were junk. They're actually pretty nice machines for graphic designers, school teachers, and other non-technical folks.

Fair enough. By "non-technical folks" I assume you mean people who are not technical with Windows. Since OSX can also be used as a Unix workstation, it seems to have a market with Linux and Unix technical folks, as well.

Laptops aren't really a good comparison because people can't build their own laptops. From that standpoint, they aren't commodities -- nor will they ever be, in my opinion. Mac and PC notebooks are very close in price -- and generally higher-priced -- because OEMs have you buy the balls.

And I picked laptops (A) because that's a substantial part of what Apple sells and (B) it's the place where you are most likely to find easy "apples to apples" comparisons, as we did with the Dell and iBook (it was easy enough to discuss where they differed).

That said, I've also shown you and other Mac advocates quality desktop PCs that were hundreds of dollars less than their Mac counterparts -- and you guys mumbled that they would be roughly equivalent if the user were to throw in additional hardware included with the Mac but which the user might not even need.

Fair enough. If you want bare bones, buy a bare bones PC. Apple isn't willing to go into that space. I've never claimed that all Macs were as cheap as all PCs. I simply claimed that given the same features, Macs are not "overpriced" (which is a value judgement that should take the features you are getting for the cost into account) when compared to PCs. You may certainly claim that the least expensive Mac is more expensive than the least expensive PC by quite a bit. That's not the same thing as being "overpriced", which implies that you are getting significantly less for your money.

And regardless, performance in PCs is simply better. If you disagree, fine. We disagree. But this fact is well documented: http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/apple.html

I read some of the later findings. The Ace Hardware review seemed pretty level headed. Yes, it put the PC ahead but admitted that the Mac could keep up with higher-end Pentiums for certain high-end tasks. It also suggested some ways for Apple, Motorola, and IBM to fix the problem. Are PCs currently faster? Sure. But speed isn't the only reason (or even a big reason) why I use Macs. But I'll agree that Apple needs to take the performance issue more seriously or it will lose the graphic artists and designers that it relies on for a big segment of its user base.

If it doesn't matter, then why do you buy top-of-the-line hardware yourself?

Because I need the best possible performance in my line of work.

Can you point out where I said that any hadware not made by Apple is junk?

Fine. You said "much", which implies a substantial number:

YOU: "As I pointed out above (and even you seem to realize), much of that "wider choice" is junk ..."Fair enough. By "non-technical folks" I assume you mean people who are not technical with Windows.

Uhhhhh, no. Read on.

Since OSX can also be used as a Unix workstation, it seems to have a market with Linux and Unix technical folks, as well.

That may be your perception but it's largely just a perception. As pointed out in recent posts, Mac is losing market share to Linux; in fact, what's happening is that people are moving away from the Mac to Linux -- not vice-versa.

And I picked laptops (A) because that's a substantial part of what Apple sells and (B) it's the place where you are most likely to find easy "apples to apples" comparisons, as we did with the Dell and iBook (it was easy enough to discuss where they differed).

Dell, Gateway, and others sell a lot more desktops than notebooks. And I have a hard time believing that the bulk of Apple's business is notebooks. Reference?

That's not the same thing as being "overpriced", which implies that you are getting significantly less for your money.

Let's put it this way: The average PC is less expensive than a comparable Mac.

Are PCs currently faster? Sure. But speed isn't the only reason (or even a big reason) why I use Macs. But I'll agree that Apple needs to take the performance issue more seriously or it will lose the graphic artists and designers that it relies on for a big segment of its user base.

Put together lower cost and better performance -- and it's easy to understand why the PC has become the industry standard.

the labels are quite a bit bigger than the text of most web pages

Unfortunately, not on my iMAC; the "Back Forward Stop Refresh Home AutoFill Print Mail" printsize on the toolbar is microscopic -- almost unseeable.

Go to the Cookies section in IE's preferences, click on the table showing the cookies, and choose "Select All" from the Edit menu. Now they'll all be selected, and if you hit the "Delete" button they'll all be deleted.

When trying to delete cookies, I can't click "Select All" and Delete; that function is disabled at that point.

Unplugging the speakers (my idea) didn't work. The "gong" is an internal sound, even though I have the volume of everything either off or muted.

If I go back to Windows, do you have a suggestion on an operating system? I've heard people here at FR speak very negatively about XP. Do you know which OS is a good one?

Thanks.

Fine. You said "much", which implies a substantial number: YOU: "As I pointed out above (and even you seem to realize), much of that "wider choice" is junk ..."

First, you introduced top-of-the-line components in response to my talking about realibility, not performance. And then you complain that less than top-of-the-line components don't have a reliability problem. Now you bait-and-switch to talk about performance?

Next, my comment about wider choices was in response to a comment about hardware and software. Yes, I think that a lot of the variety of PC software is garbage I wouldn't buy. I only have to walk through the aisles of a CompUSA to see that. As for hardware, I've built a PC. I've purchased components. A lot of the lower-cost choices are relative junk that I personally wouldn't want to buy. Your milage may vary. Would you like me to tell you about the Samsung HD I bought and got a replacement for, without question, because so many of them had failed? Or how about the IBM drives that people avoid because of their reputation (their suggestion to drop their drives onto a tabletop to free seized heads a few years back was a classic). Or maybe the stories of whole batches of Gateways or Dells where the same components failed on a substantial number of teh machines. You may never have seen or heard of these things. I have.

That may be your perception but it's largely just a perception. As pointed out in recent posts, Mac is losing market share to Linux; in fact, what's happening is that people are moving away from the Mac to Linux -- not vice-versa.

See this article and this article. And from personal experience, I sold a Solaris sysadmin friend on the iBook and he bought two (one for his wife). Again, your milage may vary. If the Mac is losing market share, I suspect it isn't losing it directly (instead, I'd suspect that Mac users are moving to Windows and Windows users are moving to Linux).

I wrote, "And I picked laptops (A) because that's a substantial part of what Apple sells[.]"

Dell, Gateway, and others sell a lot more desktops than notebooks. And I have a hard time believing that the bulk of Apple's business is notebooks. Reference?

I guess you can't get through a reply without spin. I said "a substantial part", not "the bulk". Of course Dell and Gateway sell more desktops because, as you pointed out, that's where they can make really cheap computers.

From a mid-2002 report (if you want more recent numbers, you can find them yourself -- these were the most recent I could find easily):

378,000 iMacs and eMacs
169,000 iBooks
167,000 G4s
94,000 Powerbooks

I think that by any measure, about a third of Apple's computer sales qualifies as "a substantial part". Apple has sold a lot of laptops since the early Powerbooks days.

That's not the same thing as being "overpriced", which implies that you are getting significantly less for your money.

Let's put it this way: The average PC is less expensive than a comparable Mac.

Again, you've got to spin to make your point. What is an "average" PC? There may not be a comparable Mac to the "average" PC unless the "average" PC includes a flat panel display, neworking, and firewire ports. And as we already discussed, the iBook is comparably priced to a similarly equipped Dell laptop.

Put together lower cost and better performance -- and it's easy to understand why the PC has become the industry standard.

Red herring. PCs became a standard in the 1980s when Macs were outrageously priced and because IBM spent a lot of money promoting PCs but didn't bother to make them proprietary. C'mon. Do you honestly believe that Mac prices in the year 2003 have anything to do with making PCs the industry standard? Apple had a price problem, which they've largely addressed, much as Windows had a stability problem that Microsoft has largely addressed. The current batch of Macs isn't perfect and there are things that PCs currently do better, but they are hardly overpriced for what you get.

Now you bait-and-switch to talk about performance?

The referenced comment has no bearing on performance.

Next, my comment about wider choices was in response to a comment about hardware and software. Yes, I think that a lot of the variety of PC software is garbage I wouldn't buy.

We were talking about hardware, remember?

See this article and this article. And from personal experience, I sold a Solaris sysadmin friend on the iBook ...

That's 3. Several hundred million to go...

I guess you can't get through a reply without spin.

This kind of whining reminds me of Little Chuckie Schumer's MO: Tar your opponent's statements as spin, regardless of content.

I said "a substantial part", not "the bulk". Of course Dell and Gateway sell more desktops because, as you pointed out, that's where they can make really cheap computers.

And it is in desktop computers that the Mac doesn't compare favorably on price. That was the fundamental point. You want to highlight notebooks in order to do a sleight-of-hand regarding this weakness.

Again, you've got to spin to make your point. What is an "average" PC? There may not be a comparable Mac to the "average" PC unless the "average" PC includes a flat panel display, neworking, and firewire ports. And as we already discussed, the iBook is comparably priced to a similarly equipped Dell laptop.

If you go to Dell or Gateway and choose an average PC, you will find that the comparable Mac is more expensive. This isn't calculus. There's nothing confusing about it.

Do you honestly believe that Mac prices in the year 2003 have anything to do with making PCs the industry standard?

Not in 2003. The battle was won a decade ago. But consistently lower prices and better performance have maintained that balance of power in the PC's favor.

Let me make this point very clear: Apple makes good hardware and software. I almost bought a Mac LC years ago. I was using one at work off and on, and I liked the fact that I could run DOS under emulation using SoftPC. The emulation was excellent. It even ran a kernel-level debugger that I wrote. Consequently, my opinions of the Mac are not primarily focused on quality. I do believe that Apple produces a quality product, no matter what anybody says about their business acumen.

But I'm a software developer by trade. I have to know and understand market trends -- or I don't eat. I could see early on that Apple was going nowhere fast -- regardless of its quality -- because of some huge marketing blunders. These blunders weren't the fault of the rank-and-file engineers at Apple. They are damned good at what they do: Producing highly-integrated, functional, turnkey computers. The vast majority of my business comes from the PC side. Even if I could somehow come up with a justification for using the Mac, it simply wouldn't pay. The productivity gains, if any, are negligible now. And my customers want what everyone else has. It's pointless to question market wisdom or logic. It simply exists. You either go with the flow -- or you sink to the bottom and drown.

What you said in your last reply certainly makes sense and I can't fault you for making the decision to go with Windows, especially if you prefer to play the odds. I have friends who have made the same decision. That said, I think that putting Mac OSX on top of a BSD Unix kernel could give the Mac new life through the Unix community, since it provides a strong synergy between the gritty Unix back-end and a usable GUI that can run important commercial software. I'll agree with you that Apple has a performance issue and it needs to do something about that. Where I disagree is that I don't think (A) that Macs are "overpriced" at this point or that (B) they are always a bad choice now. People simply need to understand what they are buying.

FYI, before Apple released the iMac, I was ready to give up on them. They were producing pretty crummy low-end Macs and weren't going anywhere. While I even have some issues with some of their decisions, I think they've done a respectable job of bouncing back and, for what I use the Mac for, it's been a good choice that I'm happy with. Please bear in mind that I'm primarily a Solaris/Linux developer so the Unix backend of OSX and its ability to run open source software is a big plus for me. If you are a Windows-based developer and are comfortable with Windows, clearly there aren't many, if any, benefits to using a Mac. But I've been able to get by quite well at home with no Windows, especially now that Microsoft has a strong port of Office on the Mac.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.