Well, all this talk about the ability to run Windows code natively on the new macintels may create a bit of a problem. Firstly - why does the Mac have to be emulated and the windows run natively - apple should have just stuck with IBM.
Anyway - the ability to dual boot windows or even run applications natively in the OS X environment all sounds a little familiar to those of you who know OS/2.
The OS died because of its ability to beautifully run windows apps, at which point developers eventually terminated OS/2 software development altogether because - well logically it isn't worth the investment in time.
Damnit i wish Apple would have just stuck to PPCs, IBM is gonna move along sometime...
__________________ “To create a new standard, it takes something that’s not just a little bit different, it takes something that’s really new and really captures people’s imagination and the Macintosh, of all the machines I’ve ever seen, is the only one that meets that standard.” — Bill Gates
The biggest thing in this point in time.. is OS X is superior to Windows. Being able to run Windows applications natively takes care of the "Threat" to switching. Therefore, generating more switchers, therefore generating more OS X users.
If we belive in OS X enough, then, these people switching will as well.
This will generate Users to look into OS X more, therefore generating a spark in Native OS X applications. Some might even argue there are better "native" resolutions in OS X to Windows Apps already. Which these users may try and LOVE. Therefore, generating more sales in OS X applications.
All this would do.. is take the "Edge/Threat" to switching.
Thats bad too. I personally hate the thought of people switching, it only increases the likelihood of malicious code being programmed for OS X. All in all i think this was a stupid idea, and i say again and again to myself that apple would not make a move like without proper evaluation of all the consequences.
<a href='http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars'>The recent article</a> on Apple being forced out of the PPC game was not much of a relief though. Perhaps apple didnt voluntarily make the move to intel.
__________________ “To create a new standard, it takes something that’s not just a little bit different, it takes something that’s really new and really captures people’s imagination and the Macintosh, of all the machines I’ve ever seen, is the only one that meets that standard.” — Bill Gates
I don't get it. Why stick with PPC chips if they're not going anywhere in the foreseeable future? So we could whine and moan about how we still don't have a G5 laptop, how we can't get 3 Ghz chip anytime soon in spite of IBM furnishing game consoles with faster (different) chips? IBM has shown that they can't keep up with Intel (in development and supply.) In spite of the performance differences, Intel processors beat IBM by sheer numbers, and they can keep up with the demand!
If someone wants to use Windows, they can do so right now, without waiting. You still won't be able to run iLife (except iTunes), DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Express/Pro, Keynote, iWork, Motion, Shake, Logic, etc. and most importantly MacOS X on a Windows box. It's still too early in the game to know one way or the other if it's going to be an easy transition or able to run Windows on a Mactel box... Apple says yes, but they won't support it, however that's not to say they won't pull a fast one a la Real's Rhapsody.
Look, Apple has always been in some sort of perceived threat by Windows. Why all of a sudden does it feel like they're in real jeopardy now? Apple is making a ton of cash, they're debt-free... they're moving rather than stagnating.
I think the stability and protection that OS X offers alone will be enough to keep it alive. Not to mention its user-freidnliness and great design, after all, it's all about looks nowadays.
As well, what I have always thought to be microsoft's main strength is that they own so much of the market, now that Apple can run windows and vice versa, I would think they (Microsoft) will have serious competition to keep their OS on top. There was a time I concidered getting a PC laptop simply because of the amount of stuff I was missing out of because it was all made for PC (though, Mac is becoming more and more compatable, thus).
I think in the end, Mac will become extremely popular, Apple has so much to work with. Design, stability, saftey, looks, advertisement (there comercials are so well done in my opinion), as well as the iPod which is already a major pul factor.
I'm no business man so I can't predict the future but I doubt Apple will suffer like many people seem to think.
It all depends on your perspective. OS X is undoubtedly more secure than Windows. That's not because of the Architecture or the Userbase. That's because there was actual real thought put into the OS.
I have no doubt in my mind.. people will write malicious code for OS X. However, I do not think it will ever come to the state of which Windows falls. From the ground up, X has been developed as a highly secure OS. There's always going to be morons, we have to deal with it. Not a big deal in my eyes. I deal with them everyday in the real world
it's all about portability people......Apple obviously have a ton of stuff in the pipeline that needs low powered high speed processors. Obviously it's going to be laptops galore.....but also more processing power in ipods to do more, wireless controller/sketchpad type device maybe.....it's all about wireless....IBM just couldn't do it for them.
I bet the only thing that really changes is we get better hardware......and hardware we didn't even think of, I mean, who ever thought the concept of the ipod would be where it is today ?
I don't get it. Why stick with PPC chips if they're not going anywhere in the foreseeable future? So we could whine and moan about how we still don't have a G5 laptop, how we can't get 3 Ghz chip anytime soon in spite of IBM furnishing game consoles with faster (different) chips? <b>IBM has shown that they can't keep up with Intel (in development and supply.) In spite of the performance differences, Intel processors beat IBM by sheer numbers, and they can keep up with the demand!</b>
If someone wants to use Windows, they can do so right now, without waiting. You still won't be able to run iLife (except iTunes), DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Express/Pro, Keynote, iWork, Motion, Shake, Logic, etc. and most importantly MacOS X on a Windows box. It's still too early in the game to know one way or the other if it's going to be an easy transition or able to run Windows on a Mactel box... Apple says yes, but they won't support it, however that's not to say they won't pull a fast one a la Real's Rhapsody.
Look, Apple has always been in some sort of perceived threat by Windows. Why all of a sudden does it feel like they're in real jeopardy now? Apple is making a ton of cash, they're debt-free... they're moving rather than stagnating.
__________________
Au contraire..
Firstly: Intel has already hit a brick wall at 3.6GHz - it abandoned two cores which promised to take it beyond because the heat problem was insane (150W of pure thermal output) so they threw on another core. Then what. keep adding cores?
Secondly: IBM is VERY well capable of producing the laptop G5s or 3GHz desktops that Apple wants - recently however, IBM had its eyes on the more important $1.7 Billion contract from Sony and similar from MS and Nintendo - Then Jobs got pissed because he made a fool of himself promising 3GHz in a year, two years ago. long story short, IBM decides that Apple isn't exactly important now as opposed to shipping around 50 million cores for the 3 games consoles and its small market share just wasn't worth the investment.
The smart move? intel! now apple is an even smaller fish in a bigger pond, and with stevie there the bipolar middle aged man demanding faster stuff, intel can just kick apple out again - after all, it DOES have licenses from all the other major PC manufacturers out there, what are a few apples?
__________________ “To create a new standard, it takes something that’s not just a little bit different, it takes something that’s really new and really captures people’s imagination and the Macintosh, of all the machines I’ve ever seen, is the only one that meets that standard.” — Bill Gates
I agree with Call Me Sherman comments "I think the stability and protection that OS X offers alone will be enough to keep it alive. Not to mention its user-freidnliness and great design, after all, it's all about looks nowadays"
Also I think that people over reacting to this decision. I think that Apple has some great stuff coming out and with the intel processor.
I could imagine the following happening. They start selling machines with both Mac and Windows XP on it. For the end-users, if they are smart enough, they will play with both and come to a logical choice that the Mac OS is a superior operating system. Naturally they will start using the Mac OS as the default operating system.
Also Apple can do the following, the Mac OS will only run on Apple computers. This means that Apple continues to secure their hardware sales and continue to increase it at the same time. Imagine a computer buyer going into a store and seeing the options of buying a PC machine and then seeing the Apple computer that can do everything the PC does and more! Naturally people would buy the Apple machine for its looks and added features.
For software developers, all they have to do is have the software work on either operating system.
Also if Apple does it right, they could put in the proper technologies to prevent viruses and run faster and so on.
Microsoft is not going to lose, but the hardware vendors such as Dell and Gateway will lose more business as people will start purchasing Apple computers with dual operating systems.
Apple is not going to lose but gain from this transistion.
__________________
Dual 2.5 Ghz G5 MDD, 5.5 gigs RAM, 23 inch Cimina Display, 1.67 ghz 17 Inch Powerbook, Dual 1.42 Dual G4, 1 gig of ram, 20 gig iPod 4G, 666 mhz Powerbook, 1 ghz Ibook, and goes on and on ....
but I doubt Apple will suffer like many people seem to think.
Linear Mode
