# What's left for WWDC?



## texanpenguin (Jun 9, 2004)

With these two new announcements out of the blue so close to WWDC (when people are expecting announcements of 3GHz G5s, iMac G5s, a new line of displays etc, etc), does it strike anyone ELSE as odd that Apple would opt not to wait until the big show to unleash things like the Airport Express or 2.5GHz G5s?

To me, these mean one of the following:

- WWDC will suck from a product line p.o.v.

or

- WWDC will see something BIG coming. VERY big.


I'm going to go with number 2, and my predictions are as follows:

- With the new Airport Express newly unleashed, I see a focus on Wireless, at least in part, consisting of:

-- Airport Extreme cards standard in all iMacs, an option on sale for PowerMacs. Standard in all notebooks.

-- A new iPod, 60GB with a colour screen, wireless, an inbuilt microphone (similar to that in the PowerBooks) and perhaps a slightly different button layout (gotta be distinguishable if you're spending tonnes on it). Basically an iPod that noone can resist. This comes as (in Australia) Pepsi is giving away an iPod an hour and Streets Ice Creams (or perhaps it's Cadbury's or Peter's) is giving away an iPod a day; that's a huge quantity of iPods getting cleared out of stock...

-- Some form of wireless remote device (either 802.1x based or Bluetooth based) to control your wireless enabled device (such as for presentations). Could also be a new feature in the wireless iPod (VERY simple control functions) similar to Salling Clicker.


- With the new Powermac G5 range bumped up to 2.5GHz, I see Steve announcing a 3GHz G5 for late-2004 shipping; the 2.5Ghz models are to ship quickly, to tide anyone in a mad rush over until the 3GHz model.


- Of course there's going to be Tiger, which I foresee to be not really worth the upgrade (for once), but I'm sincerely hoping to be proven wrong.



Agree/Disagree?

Discuss.


----------



## diablojota (Jun 9, 2004)

Agree (for the most part. Probably announce new iPod, but of different functionality).
I also feel he'll announce new iMacs.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 9, 2004)

but headless please! And also less than 1000Euro


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 9, 2004)

Looks like it surely won't be a G5 3ghz and also no G5 powerbook. However, it seems the G5 imac will be a tough venture as well. Take a look at this:
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/06/09/apple/index.php?redirect=1086765595000


----------



## diablojota (Jun 9, 2004)

Let's just hope that they are saying this to spur people to buy before making the real announcement.  However, I feel this is accurate.  
However, I still feel they may pull a fast one on us regarding the G5 powerbook.  Using a scaled down G5 90nm processor running at 1.6Ghz seems to be viable to me...


----------



## ged3000 (Jun 9, 2004)

Maybe theyre having more problems with 90nm that theyre telling us about.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 9, 2004)

No 3.0GHz, no G5 iMac, no G5 PowerBook.  Straight from Apple's mouth:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/09/HNnewg5s_1.html

They also admitted that the 90nm process was tougher than anyone had planned, and that contributes to the lack of 3.0GHz chips.

diablojota: If you've seen the heatsink for a G5 processor, even one running at 1.6GHz, you'd know that if they crammed that into a PowerBook we'd all be carrying around briefcase-sized PowerBooks.  It ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Randman (Jun 9, 2004)

"Certainly not before the end of the year" on PBs. That does mean it could be out by then, or announced and released early in '05, say February.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 9, 2004)

I agree, I was referring to the WWDC announcements.  I'm voting "definitely not" for a G5 PowerBook @ WWDC.

I think we'll hear an announcement of some sort around this time next year.  I doubt we'll hear anything about a G5 PowerBook by the end of this year.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 9, 2004)

Maybe they're dropping this stuff because they think Tiger, and whatever other software offerings, are going to be really spectacular...


----------



## mindbend (Jun 9, 2004)

There will be NO big thing announced at WWDC.

The recent announcements were done prior to WWDC because they're just not that impressive. 

I think Tiger will be the priority and I'm actually more excited about that than any more product announcements. The OS changes how I work. The box just makes it happen faster (which is also very good).


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 9, 2004)

the new screens seem quite possible to me


----------



## gerbick (Jun 9, 2004)

Tiger for AMD Athlon64.  hey, why not?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 10, 2004)

why Athlon64 when you have a great G5?


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 10, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> but headless please! And also less than 1000Euro




I don't EVER see the iMac going headless - it defeats the purpose. The iMac is supposed to make the computer into an appliance - something in your house that serves a purpose. Your Toaster toasts, your fridge refridgerates, your microwaves waves at you a little, your iMac connects you to the internet. People who buy iMacs are the people who don't want to have to think about the whole cable situation. I work at a PC-repair shop, and I get called out on location ALL the time by people who want me to plug their computers IN. It's not that it's difficult, it's just complex to these people. The iMac is power, keyboard, phoneline. Speakers perhaps. You look at the back of an iMac as an old person, and you're not thinking anything complex. You're seeing holes with neat labels.

Look at the back of a tower. The PC I'm working on right now has the following ports on the back:

- Power
- Male Power jack for monitor
- ATX Keyboard port
- PS/2 Mouse port
- 2x USB
- Serial port
- Parallel port
- Display port 1 (onboard)
- Joystick port
- Speaker port
- Line in port
- Microphone port
- VGA Port 2 (AGP Video Card)
- S-Video Out
- Composite Video out
- Phone line in
- Phone line out
- 4-pin Firewire port
- 2x 6-pin Firewire ports
- Ethernet port
- 2x USB.


Tell me that wouldn't bewilder you if you didn't know what you were doing.



If ANYTHING is to be headless, it'd be the eMac, and Apple could sell the current 17" Apple Studio Displays cheaper for education when the new G5-displays are released.


----------



## ksv (Jun 10, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> No 3.0GHz, no G5 iMac, no G5 PowerBook.  Straight from Apple's mouth:
> 
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/09/HNnewg5s_1.html
> 
> They also admitted that the 90nm process was tougher than anyone had planned, and that contributes to the lack of 3.0GHz chips.



They only "admit" such things when they want to surprise us later. It's just a marketing trick, to shock everyone when they do release the 3 GHz G5 in late August.
I don't see how the 90 nm process could've been so difficult, when they already started manufacturing those several months ago


----------



## diablojota (Jun 10, 2004)

ksv said:
			
		

> They only "admit" such things when they want to surprise us later. It's just a marketing trick, to shock everyone when they do release the 3 GHz G5 in late August.
> I don't see how the 90 nm process could've been so difficult, when they already started manufacturing those several months ago



They started processing them several months ago, but with a below 15% yield because of cracking, etc.  These are not easy chips to make as Intel, AMD, and IBM found out.
It has been in the recent past month and a half that yields were reaching 80% which is horrible, considering yields for the 130nm processors were stable at around 95%.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 10, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> why Athlon64 when you have a great G5?



easy.  PC users are emulating the MacOSX look as is, but still have to deal with the virii and trojans and security issues (oh my) that come with windows.  Just imagine if they were to pop out a version of the OS that promises them freedom from all of that?

upgrade path... G5.  but I know... wishful thinking, the whole PC market is too segmented in not only users, but parts and chipsets, yadda, yadda, yadda... but just saying something out of the ordinary.  sorta.

headless macs with G4's would be nice.  SFF, et al... finally I could invest into getting my mother a new mac.  she already has everything else, including a new LCD monitor.


----------



## Quicksilver (Jun 10, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> why Athlon64 when you have a great G5?




Some people can't afford a G5/Apple. Unfortunatley most people want OS X on other platforms, theres not a IT person i know that doesn't or wouldn't seriously consider OS X for entire enterprise rollouts/solutions, they may come in droves. 

The current problem IT profesionals see as bright as the sun. It corners them only to Apple only, imagine how many company's may go bust? and then apple will turn into M$.

If you really look at it, it's accually not a bad idea. But the real question is, "how could you make a considerable difference in reason for a customer to buy apple hardware?". There already is: Quality, service, attractiveness, and the community but what else. Software? Proprietry graphics algorythms?, High end film editing software. 

I think it would be amazing if OS X was released for AMD 64 or the like. But i dont feel it happening at WWDC 2004, even though its never been a better time than now, with the longhorn and its current standing etc.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 10, 2004)

Lets wait for the iMac G5. That should be cheaper and a better alternative to the Athlon64s.. I wish it could be WWDC 04...


----------



## markceltic (Jun 10, 2004)

I say a big amen to what texanpenguin has just wrote.I like the iMacs head thank you very much!


----------



## jackdahi (Jun 10, 2004)

Why not consider the fact that WWDC is not a hardware show but rather a show that focuses on the development of software. Therefore Apple releases the hardware and focuses on software.

At the keynote Steve will no doubt talk about a few hardware items but it will atleast focus on the development of tiger and possibly other apps. Maybe a new app.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 10, 2004)

64 bit OS X and Xcode.


----------



## burntoutjoy (Jun 11, 2004)

gerbick said:
			
		

> Tiger for AMD Athlon64.  hey, why not?


Because Apple is a hardware company. They don't make a lot of money on MacOS sales, and if they allowed MacOS to be run on platforms not sold by them, they'd die. C'mon people, it isn't that hard.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 11, 2004)

AMD and Apple partnered a while back, didn't they?  Hardware, hardware... mmmm.

Don't worry about it... I was being merely fictitous.


----------



## speedfreak (Jun 11, 2004)

burntoutjoy said:
			
		

> Because Apple is a hardware company. They don't make a lot of money on MacOS sales, and if they allowed MacOS to be run on platforms not sold by them, they'd die. C'mon people, it isn't that hard.



Apple is a hardware and a software company. We pay for the software when we buy the hardware.  They make money on the software. 

Porting OSX to AMD64 would not hurt hardware sales.  Try pricing a dual AMD64 or Intel system similarly spec'd as a new powermac. Then add $100 - 150 for the OS.  Make sure you get the 1.25ghz FSB, PCI-X, SATA drives, gigabit ethernet, firewire 800 ports, optical audio, oh and a cool case. Let us know what you find out!

I will admit that the average person does not need all the power in a powermac and that this part of the market is not really served well by Apple.  If they do not make the hardware for a category of consumer, why not sell them the software? Personally I do not want Apple hardware to be cheap. They could make an inexpensive headless iMac but choose not to go after that market for one reason or another. I would buy one. Perhaps Apple's trepidation here comes from the 90's when they had a bloated product line of headless machines and got into difficulty.  The Mac clone strategy from that time also failed.  Mostly because the OS was tied to one proprietary processor type (which was way behind Intel and AMD at the time).  Apple only survived because of the loyalty of Apple owners to the brand.

Porting OSX to AMD64 and other processors would greatly expand software sales.  There is a very large community of people skinning windows to look like OSX.  They are going to a great deal of trouble to manipulate their existing OS to look and act like OSX.  Some of what they have done is impressive.  However, underneath the veneer they put over their OS, they are still using a system that is prone to viruses and major security flaws.  If for $100 - 150 they could have the real thing, you can bet that the majority of them would go for it.  

Why I think this will eventually happen.  

Each new and innovative product over the past 18 months has been built for Mac and Windows. The iPod, iPod mini, and Airport Express. This represents a major change in strategy for Apple which for years has avoided the wintel world completely. Apple software for windows is just as good as it is for OSX.  So far it has been free.  Quicktime and iTunes work very well on windows XP and are free because they help Apple sell other products.  The rest of the iApps would be well received in the windows world because they would help people manage their digital content much more easily. But, there is no incentive for Apple to give them away.  So they will have to sell them.  The key to the iApps is their tight integration with each other.  Perhaps iLife'04 for windowsXP is the next step on the pathway, with the ultimate destination being OSX for Intel and AMD machines.


----------



## cq107 (Jun 11, 2004)

Oscar Castillo said:
			
		

> 64 bit OS X and Xcode.



YES finally someone who knows other than me. 
10.3 IS NOT 64bit! Everybody swons over the G5, yea its fast, but its only running in 32bit mode. There is a special edition of Panther for the G5 that enables the system to use 64bit memory registers, thats it. OSX IS NOT 64bit right now. 
Its like running an Athlon 64 on a Windows XP 32bit edition... 
So imagine what 10.4 will be like with FULL 64bit performance...


----------



## Go3iverson (Jun 11, 2004)

That will be huge.  I'll tell ya, I have an Athlon64 system and the machine feels much snappier and quicker running the Windows XP 64 Beta than even the GM of XP Pro.

Just imagine what a 64 bit OS could do for the overall speed of the G5


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 12, 2004)

OS X on Intel would deal a serious blow to Mac hardware sales. To port over the one key software component that distinguishes the Mac from PC will draws users away from Mac to the platform where components and peripherals are so cheap and plentiful may even win over some converts from the Mac faithful.  As exciting as the hardware behind the Mac is,  given the choice, I think many Mac users would be running OS X on inexpensive home brew PCs or Dells.


----------



## Ripcord (Jun 12, 2004)

Go3iverson said:
			
		

> Just imagine what a 64 bit OS could do for the overall speed of the G5



Er, very little for nearly all functions in the OS?


----------



## Go3iverson (Jun 12, 2004)

So you're saying a 64 bit OS would prove to show no speed increase for the hardware?

I don't know about that, my Athlon64 has been considerably zippier since the 64 OS install.  Not that it went from mule to mustang, but you can see improvements.


----------



## hulkaros (Jun 12, 2004)

First of all:
If a 64 bit can give a boost to graphic bound apps then 100% it will give a boost to the way OS X handles its graphics too... Aqua Extreme 2 anyone? 

Also, methinks that porting the OS X to Wintel/Amd platform Apple will have a VERY difficult road ahead... Why? Some reasons:
-Cost for developing 32/64 bit OS X versions for BOTH AMD and Intel CPU families
-Cost for supporting those ports
-Lose huge Mac sales (this is 100% and we all know it )
-Cost for producing software (iApps, FCP, DVD Studio, etc.) for those OS X ports
-Cost for competing with Microsoft inside the same arena (anyone remembers how EVEN IBM managed to lose BIG time against M$ and not to mention the countless other OS and software companies? 

No matter how safe, stable, this and that OS X is, M$ is a force not to mess with especially when you (Apple) charge customers for your products... Linux anyone? Not to mention that if M$ will see an Apple OS coming to the same hardware platform, forget any M$ products for the Mac platform 

Even if Apple will go for some kind of proprietary AMD/Intel based hardware/software design, they will still have to face a LOT more opponents (other OS and software companies) than they currently do (or don't )

This is getting long but hopefully people here are getting the point


----------



## gerbick (Jun 12, 2004)

> forget any M$ products for the Mac platform


What's left now anyway?  MS Office.  MSN.  Remote Desktop.  erm... IE (dead).  

So what?  Ever thought that now would be a killer time to basically strike a deal with AMD, and break out of their singular, myopic, hardware sales strategy, and sorta take advantage of this 2-3 year lull between MS OS's... make them misstep and rush out "something", and pick up people as they inevitably drop them to "something else"?

I know... Apple's "culture" doesn't 1) Do that, 2) See that as a viable business opportunity because they've never done it before, 3) Silly rabbit, x86 is for squares, yadda yadda.  I've heard it all from snob to to fanatic to enthusiast.

But this thread is all about "what if"... not "what will"... and last I checked, Jobs doesn't post here 

I'd buy an Apple branded Athlon64, the x86 OS, or even fully convert to Mac 100% if it meant no more MS in my house.


----------



## hmurchison (Jun 12, 2004)

Go3iverson said:
			
		

> So you're saying a 64 bit OS would prove to show no speed increase for the hardware?
> 
> I don't know about that, my Athlon64 has been considerably zippier since the 64 OS install.  Not that it went from mule to mustang, but you can see improvements.



All OS are zippier after installing a fresh copy.  Get's rid of the cruft that builds over time.


----------



## Randman (Jun 12, 2004)

What's left now? MS Office. Like it or not, it's the best out there for what it does. Someday, someone will knock it down (it always happens) but no time soon.
  Apple is doing well and it surely doesn't need to repeat its failures from the dark days. And it certainly doesn't need to pick a fight with M$. Both companies benefit and profit from one another quite nicely.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 12, 2004)

MS Office?  I actually use NeoOffice/J... does what I need 100%.

and I have to ask out of curiousity... what mistakes from dark days?  Apple clones?  Just wondering.


----------



## Go3iverson (Jun 12, 2004)

Yes, true, but both Windows installs were fresh, since I had just recently built the system myself.  I understand your point, I just don't know if it completely applies to my experience.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 13, 2004)

gerbick said:
			
		

> Ever thought that now would be a killer time to basically strike a deal with AMD, and break out of their singular, myopic, hardware sales strategy, and sorta take advantage of this 2-3 year lull between MS OS's... make them misstep and rush out "something", and pick up people as they inevitably drop them to "something else"?




I think you're heavily underestimating the length of time it would take to initiate such a move. It would take no less than 5 or 6 years, if all of Apple's OS developers were trained to program for an x86 chipset and worked solely on it.

That means no updates for us on our own platform for far longer than the "lull" in between longhorn and xp. And no OS developments in that time either.

PLUS, the length of time to develop actual OSes and software would be far more, because everything would have to be recoded for the new chips. There'd be more complications in buying software as you'd have to be sure to buy the PC Mac software (damn, that'd confuse folks). OSX is already hugely lacking in inbuilt drivers for peripherals - imagine supporting everything else - programming PS/2 ports, I don't trust Apple's ability in this area.

AND there'd be less of a community environment amongst Mac users. Really, I don't want it.

No x86 version. PLEASE.


----------



## hulkaros (Jun 13, 2004)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> No x86 version. PLEASE.



Thank you very much!


----------



## Quicksilver (Jun 16, 2004)

I say go for it, its never been a better time. Oh and speaking on re-developing osx for x86 it would most probably already exist somwhere in a secure lab there at apple. c'mon it would have to.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 16, 2004)

Quicksilver said:
			
		

> I say go for it, its never been a better time. Oh and speaking on re-developing osx for x86 it would most probably already exist somwhere in a secure lab there at apple. c'mon it would have to.



Why on EARTH would Apple have spent time and money porting OSX to the x86 platform, if they weren't going to release it to a PC audience? For fun? For kicks?

Because they had a Dell somewhere and they didn't know what to do with it?


I can't think of one good reason for them to put SO MUCH EFFORT into producing an OS that runs on PCs. PCs which need device drivers for each of its components - device drivers for EVERY PIECE OF HARDWARE IN THE PC WORLD. That's a whole lot of drivers that no-one except Apple has any real incentive to produce.



The last thing I want to see at this WWDC is:

"Mac OS X
For Mac and PC"


Urgh, *shudder* - please no. It would be a monumental failure on Apple's part.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 16, 2004)

why would it be a failure?  that's the one thing I have not seen explained away without a shadow of a doubt.  it's not like they can't also sell that hardware too.  

:shrug: 

I just must be missing something.  Too many years as a MCSE perhaps?  Perhaps I'm not deeply enough into the "apple culture" which seems to eschew x86 like a vampire does garlic?  Just sorta confused at the knee-jerk reactions shown in this thread at x86 OSX.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 16, 2004)

I don't doubt that Apple has, at least, toyed with the idea of OS X on x86 hardware -- that's not saying that Apple ever had plans to release OS X that would run on Intel/Windows hardware.  Apple can use an x86 processor and still prevent OS X from installing on conventional hardware -- all it would take is some ROM chip or open firmware dingy.

A year ago or more Steve said, when asked about OS X on x86 hardware, that he wasn't ruling out any options.  He didn't confirm nor deny it.  And we already know that Darwin, the essense of OS X, runs just fine on x86 hardware.

I don't think Apple ever intends to release OS X for Windows-compatible computers.  I do think, however, that OS X on an x86-based, closed platform could be a possibility.  Now that IBM is kicking some butt with their processors, I think that possibility got even slimmer, but it's always gonna be there.


----------



## Natobasso (Jun 17, 2004)

Anyone here read the article on macnews.com about "liquid cooling" the 3GHz G5 processor? This is not a new idea; they tried it in car amps in the 90's with limited success. What we need is a chip that runs faster but not hotter, and that's the real connundrum.

I say Apple will finally get smart and fully capitalize on its iTunes success (how many million songs and counting, and a $2.40/share price jump today?!) and turn the home into a digital audio empire.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 17, 2004)

gerbick said:
			
		

> why would it be a failure?  that's the one thing I have not seen explained away without a shadow of a doubt.  it's not like they can't also sell that hardware too.
> 
> :shrug:
> 
> I just must be missing something.  Too many years as a MCSE perhaps?  Perhaps I'm not deeply enough into the "apple culture" which seems to eschew x86 like a vampire does garlic?  Just sorta confused at the knee-jerk reactions shown in this thread at x86 OSX.



Because Apple is in business to sell hardware.  They'd pretty much be out of business or at the very least their revenue stream would dry up drastically if they take the one core piece of software and convert it to x86.  The diehards would never leave, but a typical user interested only in OS X itself would surely not pass up the opportunity of running OS X on cheap, fast, x86 hardware.


----------



## Cat (Jun 17, 2004)

I am not sure Apple would fail. Imagine curent hardware sale staying at the current volume level and in addition to that Apple selling OS X for slightly more (200-250$) for PC's. Revenue could even go up... Why would Apple hardware sales dry up? People who really really need the latest and greatest Dual G5's still will buy the dual G5's. Perhaps the consumer line would dwindle a bit, but it still has style as selling point. It's not like nobody is buying Bang an& Olufsen just because there is also El-Cheapo equipment. I'm not saying they _should_ do it, it's just that I am not excluding a priori that they _could_ do it succesfully.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 17, 2004)

It's the PC industry, the masses are expecting cheap, affordable machines.
The core of users that find the Mac easy to use and care little if anything about the hardware would certainly make the move to x86.  And lets face it there are plenty that fall in that category.  Fragmentation is something Apple doesn't need to worry about, particularly if it erodes hardware sales.


----------



## Go3iverson (Jun 17, 2004)

Take iTunes for example.  On my bosses PC, when he first downloaded iTunes, minimizing caused a blue screen...

The point to this story?  Apple on x86 may be better or worse than Windows on x86.  Remember the Apple clones?  

With anyone out there able to build their own out of any random hardware they find, Apple would have to spend incredible amounts of money, time, and manpower to get OSX on x86 to be anywhere as great as it is on PPC.

Its a double edged sword.  You want any hardware you see in the store and millions of software titles, so those people buy a PC and get it, but suffer through the pains.  On the other hand, when Windows customers want server hardware, they tend to look at large companies like EMC, who's solutions are primarily proprietary, since that's the only way you can guarantee the uptime users demand.

Apple is the medium.  You can't just slap anything into your machine, but you don't really want to, either.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 17, 2004)

The thing I keep going back to is Mac's reputation for being easier.

And that's because they are. My mum can use my PowerBook very productively with no help. When she needs to submit an assignment she's just typed up on her little PC box, she calls me into her study to help her.

Now imagine trying to explain to people like my mum that "You want to go buy the PC version of Photoshop. Well... no, you need the Mac-on-PC version. Not the Mac version. Yes, you're using it on a PC. No, you don't want the PC version, it works with Windows only. Well you have Mac OS on your PC, not Windows. You want the version developed for Macs, but for Macs running on PCs."

Oh God, I shudder to think. I don't have anything against x86 processors, they're great, I work at a Windows-world PC sales and repair shop for a living. I use a PC most of the time. But the time on my Mac is just more productive, more creative. BETTER.

And if you're not going to let an x86 version run on anything but proprietary Apple-approved hardware to solve the driver problem, then what's the point?

I'm one of many XP users who lives on a computer that looks like Panther but acts like Windows, and that's how I like it. I have my Mac for Mac OS.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 17, 2004)

Go3iverson said:
			
		

> Take iTunes for example.  On my bosses PC, when he first downloaded iTunes, minimizing caused a blue screen...
> 
> The point to this story?  Apple on x86 may be better or worse than Windows on x86.  Remember the Apple clones?
> 
> ...




Here here!

Who wants people to associate Mac with that horrible buggy thing they tried on their PC one time before going back to tried and true Windows?

Mac OS on Macs works like a dream. It's amazing to see it all fit together exactly like it should. Let's let people associate THAT experience with Macs.

If only a few people have had the good fortune to operate a Mac, and all like it, it's far better than giving everyone the opportunity to use Mac OS and having them hate it. You'd be condemning yourself.


----------



## Natobasso (Jun 17, 2004)

Microsoft is the business model that apple failed to implement (the licensing aspect, anyway) and so must then push its product's value and cool-factor over sheer volume. Well, their one foray into licensing was a disaster: Remember PowerComputing?!


----------



## Go3iverson (Jun 17, 2004)

HA!

PowerComputing was *exactly* what I was thinking of in my post!


----------



## Quicksilver (Jun 19, 2004)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> Why on EARTH would Apple have spent time and money porting OSX to the x86 platform, if they weren't going to release it to a PC audience? For fun? For kicks?
> 
> Because they had a Dell somewhere and they didn't know what to do with it?
> 
> ...





Ahhh! For emergency purpose ONLY! i can't see them releasing it ever, but if they were to? what i was not clearly pointing out was that it would be a tactical move. For if Apple were ever to do such a move, now could or would be the best time to.

Why do you think most enterprise corporations are seriously considering of going Linux? what about apple? what's happening there with that? 
Fair enough apple has captured some, but not what it should or really could be, hey?

I don't see Apple EVER, EVER getting to the market share what microsoft has ever achieved, let alone near. Because of this very reason. Apple sells Hardware and Its Operating Software (OS X). I can't truly see the masses buying just that. Companies like HP, Compaq, Dell, Acer, etc, may lose so much in the process, and people/companies will be cornered into one product/brand, etc.

What i was also not clear on was that if Apple really wants the enterprise market on that level, then it would most probably be more "industry moving", profitably and economicly. For programmers, developers, and hardware organisations, etc. Even for Apple itself. But then Apple will be treding on some people's toes wouldn't they? 

Remember,  most people like lots of "options" and that's one of the reasons Linux is getting some good business now, its an option, thats all. I saw some news on a site where os x "Tiger" will work better with Linux some way or another, i didn't take much notice.

I respect your opinion but my points are mearly an idea based on common market knowledge. We are in a news+rumors discussions forum and i wanted to express an idea that i think is plausable if apple wants that kind of market and its share. Truly i see Apple as a consumer marketed brand more than a enterprise level brand and that is where i think is where apple is doing great.


----------



## ged3000 (Jun 19, 2004)

PLUS - if Apple had become the giant that is Microsoft, whats to say that the Mac OS wouldn't be as pants as Windows is now? Having a 90+% market share is gonna play hell with bug checking and stuff, because of the sheer volume of code to check, and 3rd party apps to support...


----------



## ged3000 (Jun 19, 2004)

ooo - back to the general WWDC suggestions, you remember that patent that Apple took out, for a mouse with an iPod-like horizontal scroll wheel...

Would there be any chance that they might be releasing something like that? I know theres been a lot of rumours and calls for an Apple 2-buttoned mouse, which have kinda become a regular thing before Apple Expo's, and maybe aren't all that likely, but an Apple mouse with a scroll wheel? Thats not a two-buttoned mouse as we know it, so it would be innovative and stuff. Apple said in their patent for the idea that they specifically didnt like the style of scroll-wheels that are currently on mice, because you can only use about a 1/4 of the wheel, so you can't continuousley scroll, and they look ugly. (Not the exact words, but that was the gist of what they said. It was pretty bluntly put though...)

I think it was fryke (appologies if wrong) who said that the developers consortium was more the kind of arena for the release of something that could be developed, and suggested new things built into the OS, or frameworks, and stuff like that. A mouse with a horizontal scroll wheel would be something that could be developed - you could presumably use it to do more than you can do with a vertical scroll wheel, because you can continuousley revolve the wheel without raising youre finger, it would be more intuitave for horizontal scrolling, and stuff like that. Plus, you could program it to, say, control volume, scroll through a movie clip, change hue/saturation properties of a picture? Yes, you could do all those things with a standard scroll wheel, but you wouldnt be able to continuousley revolve the thing, so itd be pants for RSI and posture and things.

Well, its got something novel, something that Apple thinks looks asthetically pleasing, and something that (might) have potential for novel software development... Is it worthy, or even likely or possible to appear at WWDC?


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 20, 2004)

I'm trying to envision some way to put a jog-wheel on a mouse...

I hadn't heard of such a patent, but if they're going to have a go at "revolutionising mice" let's not go anywhere near the problems with the puck mouse. I personally found it very comfortable, but it was an international flop...


----------



## gerbick (Jun 20, 2004)

the patent's real... I've just been wondering what in the hell will they use it on.  last I checked, that type of scrolling would be good only if I was doing limited things... like manipulating my iPod.

the puck was indeed a flop.  and as far as people saying that Apple *has* do lead people into the 64-bit era - there's been 64-bit versions of Unix out for years.  'tis nothing really new.

Not unless you're narrowing it down to just the "desktop" market.  

I'd like to see something revolutionary.  Not another colour of the iPod mini, not a slight iPod HD increase, but something that makes me go "damn, where's my wallet!?"... and a 30-inch monitor that will invariably cost as much as a dual 2.5ghz G5 just isn't that sexy.

and I just don't see them doing this... not right now.  Heck, even the true 20th anniversary of the Mac came and went without nothing really being delivered.  

oh well... nevermind me.  I'm just a bit upset after having a kernel panic attack in the middle of a 54 layer photoshop composition, and I had saved maybe 15 minutes prior, but I was making some serious headway with it.  bleh.


----------



## ged3000 (Jun 20, 2004)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> I'm trying to envision some way to put a jog-wheel on a mouse...
> 
> I hadn't heard of such a patent, but if they're going to have a go at "revolutionising mice" let's not go anywhere near the problems with the puck mouse. I personally found it very comfortable, but it was an international flop...



Following the link that gerbick left can lead to the picture half way down this page: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/devilsadvocate/2003/20030425.shtml 

And the patent itself can be found here: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...303.PGNR.&OS=dn/20030076303&RS=DN/20030076303 (Thanks gerbick, I was gonna find a link like that with my origional post, but was too tired, so i went to bed instead).



			
				gerbick said:
			
		

> the patent's real... I've just been wondering what in the hell will they use it on.  last I checked, that type of scrolling would be good only if I was doing limited things... like manipulating my iPod.



Intreagued - why would that kind of scrolling be limited in functionaily? Surely itd be every bit as good as a 'normal' scroll wheel? (Although, I dont have an iPod, or anything else with that kind of scroll wheel, so I wouldnt know how easy they are to use).
Plus, I'd guess that theyd use it for a mouse, as the patents' got diagrams of mice  in it, even though they do leave it pretty open by saying that 'the position of the dial relative to the mouse housing may be widely varied.'

(The diagrams show a mouse like the ones we use today - NOT a puck mouse, and the patent goes on and on about being able to use the entire body of the mouse as a button)


----------



## symphonix (Jun 20, 2004)

Just a few points:
- Apple will take out a patent on any invention they may want to protect. This does not consitute a commitment to actually release a product.
- In regards to MacOSX on X86, Apple is strongly committed to the PowerPC architecture, which has recently been opened up in an "open-source" style license to allow chip developers to collaborate on improving the PPC architecture. Their contract with IBM for the G5 chipset is worth over 5 Billion dollars over the next 5 years. We can pretty much quash any X86 rumors as being unlikely.


----------



## mr. k (Jun 20, 2004)

I think apple will release a new safari beta with ultra cool features...  It's the developer conference, and didn't they let safari out of the box last year at wwdc?  Safari 1.2b or something, and people are gonna be able to *organize their tabs!*


----------



## symphonix (Jun 21, 2004)

Hmm, I like that one Mr K.  The invitations have all promised demonstrations of new features for Mac OS X, and I'd imagine most of these will be centred on the Safari browser. I think we'll be seeing a few "Wow, how neat!" ideas.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 21, 2004)

Yes, a Safari update would be very, very, very nice to see. One that separates the tabs when you use the Exposé controls, and which allows you to manipulate the tabs themselves. One that has an updated WebKit so it actually displays things right and an option to change Safari so that it uses CSS buttons, not ALWAYS Aqua buttons .

As for the jogwheel mouse, I can't really envision using my finger comfortably in that position. My THUMB, on the other hand, could use it very easily, if it was mounted almost vertically on the side of the mouse...


----------



## mi5moav (Jun 21, 2004)

Tiger will dominate the conference of course and they will have plenty of recaps on itunes 90+ million downloads... Steve was really hoping for 100 but they didn't have enough ipods in europe yet. Of course one of the biggies will be the new redesigned ipods and then the day after HP will announce their new music player.

I'm pretty confident that Steve will bring the prices down to 249 for the 20gig 349 for the 40gig 449 for the 60gig and then either 229 or 199 for the minis. What this will do is shift demand for a while to the newly designed "big boy" ipods. Steve has mentioned numerous times that he wants to bring the prices down. This would be the best time since mini owners would be a bit upset if a new ipod is released, this way steve could say anyone that hasn't gotten a mini yet or has ordered but not received will get theirs for 229 or 199 probably 229. 

So, what else... a little more info on airport express and about 10 other products that have been released for july shipping like the 2.5G5 macs and desktop2 and all the others... But yes there will be one more thing or maybe 2 more things (sorry not 3) and they will be big we'll one of them will be proportionally big anyhow.


----------



## mi5moav (Jun 21, 2004)

This I have not heard anything about and maybe a few people could enlighten us.. Is apple coming out with a POS solution? This may already be in the business website or a bundle... But a few people have just mentioned to me a POS solution for Apple. Not sure if this will just be a bundle of an emac/imac with some third party POS software of if apple is starting to go into business software??? Hopefully, it won't be running on filemaker, then again maybe that's a good thing. But, as far as I know and I don't know much about what exactly is running at the Apple Stores to me it looked like java, but then again that was 4 months ago.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 21, 2004)

well... looks like Remote Desktop 2 - up from 1.2 - bows out early.

So... it now connects to VNC enabled Linux and Windows machines.  Looks like 10.4 might be more enterprise targeted (at least Server) by connecting from Mac to PC/Linux using something other than Samba.

Might get interesting now.


----------



## metfoo (Jun 21, 2004)

apple better not disappoint us now. We have had all of these great releases over the past few weeks, and a huge event like WWDC quickly approaching.


----------



## jobsen_ski (Jun 21, 2004)

any word on weither it will be broadcast over the web yet? if not when would apple be likly to announce this?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 21, 2004)

metfoo said:
			
		

> apple better not disappoint us now.



I mean no disrespect or offense when I say this, but it's that kind of attitude that usually leaves keynote viewers disappointed.  How, exactly, would ANYthing at the WWDC be disappointing?  We've already got new G5s, AirPort Express, a new Remote Desktop (which looks awesome), and the possibility of a new, color iPod at the keynote.  What's the difference of them being released *before* the conference, or *at* the conference?

If that's all that Apple delivers, then how could that be disappointing?  Expecting unrealistic things, like a surprise 3.0GHz G5 or G5 laptops, is just silly, and then being disappointed when they're not released even sillier.

Some keynotes have more bang, as with anything in the world.  None have been disappointing to me, ever, although that's just me.  Expect the absolute best all the time, and you'll be, without fail, disappointed.  Hell, expect at all and you'll usually be disappointed.  It's best just to wait and see what's in store, and be excited about the new stuff already released.


----------



## metfoo (Jun 21, 2004)

well, its also not a supercomputer for the army. what else could be left?


----------



## sheepguy42 (Jun 25, 2004)

ok, so as much as I hate to aid in the off-topic ramblings, I just had a thought about the whole OSX-on-Athlon64 issue: The OS's name is MacOS X. They will never release that OS for anything other than Macs, and as far as using non-PPC processors in Macs, someone got it right earlier saying "what's the point?" However, the (personal desktop/laptop) computer industry is moving towards 64bit. So perhaps Apple could release (not as soon as WWDC, but maybe as 64bit procs are more widely used) a new OS that roughly parallels OSX, with certain key features staying Mac-only, that only is for 64bit PCs. In order for this to be successful, however, they need something like what Lindows was supposed to do, and some project(s) are trying to do, and that is getting open-source APIs that allow Windows apps to run in this new OS. That avoids an earlier mentioned issue of having 2 PC versions of software. Naturally, Cocoa apps would perform better, and I doubt that Carbon would be included. But by being distinguished as a different OS (and not just MacOS on different hardware) then the support issue becomes a little easier; allowing 3rd and hardware manufacturers handle drivers, while not having to answer the question "why does this work on Mac hardware and not PC, when it's the same OS?" maybe I'm just really tired, but this seems at the moment that it could be a future option that would have less of a negative impact on Mac sales.


----------



## Ripcord (Jun 26, 2004)

All I can say is, they better have SMB networking fixed in Tiger.  There was no excuse for 10.3.4 to remain as broken as it is, and with 10.4 they'll have had yet another year to get it right =)

It's just _so_ broken...  =)


----------



## gerbick (Jun 26, 2004)

be careful.  being upset that 10.3.4 may pull out the flamers.  they didn't like it when I was upset over how 10.3.4 broke my airport connectivity.

just a warning.


----------

