# Will Apple drop OS X in favour of Windows?



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 16, 2006)

Article:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1925239,00.asp

I kind of get annoyed when people post stuff they've just seen on Digg or Slashdot, but I simply had to post this article here to get everyone's opinion. 

The article basically explains one person's opionion that Apple is slowly its way towards dropping OS X as we know it, in favour of developing hardware and software only for the Windows platform. It cites things like the iPod dropping firewire, and the Intel switch as proof of this. 

I'm far from convinced, but I did get a little knot in my chest thinking about it. 

If anything, I think Apple woul dbe more likely to in the future offer Windows users more, like more Windows-compatible hardware. Or maybe Apple do have a secret plan to adopt windows, but not as a replacement to MacOS, but rather an accompanyment, through dual booting.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 16, 2006)

It is Dvorak putting his foot in his mouth to generate traffic so he will not loose clickers for his advertisers. He is quickly becoming unimportant and he needs the article that Mac users are going to pounce on. He is then going to go to his advertisers and justify the skewed numbers as popularity for his site. This is old hat for him, so don't fret anything.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 16, 2006)

I didn't even notice that it was written by John Dvorak. Boy does he irritate me.


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 16, 2006)

I didn't read the article, and I don't intend to. Dvorak's not worth reading. But it's not impossible.

Ever since the iPod came out, Apple's focus has been shifting. I like to think there's just no way, but really, Apple could be very successful as a 'fashion' PC maker. Most people already look at Apple as a fashion company with the iPod. And Apple doesn't seem to mind, that's for sure.

What happens when Vista comes out, and people want to buy fashionable Macs to install it on? (Which, from what I've heard so far, is perfectly doable.) Is Apple going to ignore that large market when there are no technical barriers for them? So let's say they do start supporting Windows officially, for a piece of the PC pie. Then what happens when more people are buying 'Macs' for Vista than OS X? How much money does Apple really make from the Mac OS? Not a whole lot, I imagine. Right now, they need it because it sells their hardware. If the time comes when they don't need it to sell their hardware.......

I'm not panicking, but it's possible.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 16, 2006)

i read the article.  it's ridiculous, and not because i like apple.  apparently, with the switch campaign over, and unsuccessful (was it?), and the ipod campaign not winning anyone over to the mac (isn't it?), and the switch to intel processors, and the fact that bill gates was in the keynote audience at macworld 1997.... 

this guy is an idiot...


----------



## limike28 (Feb 16, 2006)

Is it possible?  In the computer industry, anything is possible.   The points made in the article are somewhat questionable.  

Microsoft and Apple have always had coopetition.  (they work together on some things and compete in other areas. all computer comapnies do it.)  

His IBM analogy is interesting. Yes, IBM dropped OS/2.  It was dead when they dropped it.  No, they never dropped AIX for linux.  They market both.  They market z/OS too.  All for different platforms, etc.  

USB v firewire for the iPod.  When the iPods first came out the choice was firewire or usb 1.1.  It was a no brainer to go with Firewire.  When the iPod dropped firewire all Macs have built in USB 2.0.  So do the PCs sold.  While you can  argue the merits of firewire, the specs were "close enough".  

as for the Intel processor debate... to the general non-techy end user, who cares?  Why do I use a Mac? Why did I switch to Mac?  I didn't go ga-ga over the specs of the G3 chip in my first iBook?  No. It was the fact that it worked well.  The whole system worked well, and looked good. 

Will a move to Windows in the future.. .it could... ya never know.


----------



## ergo proxy (Feb 16, 2006)

You're right, this is the computer industry were talking about. Where 
are all those anti-Intel Mac users now? swearing to stick with their 
Beige G3 PowerMacs till the year 3000? I doubt it. they are 
probably drooling over those nice Mac book pro like most of us if
they haven't placed an order yet.

Windows on my Mac? it could be the other way round, where the dell
inspiron at work would come pre-installed with OS X or OS XI. Maybe
Apple will ditch the hardware business and microsoft will make ipods.


----------



## RacerX (Feb 16, 2006)

Ask yourself what is the first thing that Apple does when it buys another software company...

It discontinues the Windows versions of the products.

No a single high end application that Apple sells is for Windows.


The iPod and the iTunes Music Store aren't part of Apple's computer business, and should be taken as such. More importantly, had Apple not opened up to the Windows market they could never have reach 80% market share in them.

In the beginning the iPod was a cute Mac-only music player... but they saw that tons of people were willing to buy it and it didn't hurt them to have them work with Windows.

In the beginning the iTunes Music Store was both an experiment with the Recording Industry and a way to show off the abilities of WebObjects. Again, they saw that their was a market for it and no reason to not open it up to Windows.

Apple may only have 3-5% market share, but they have close to 17% installed user base... that is massive. And while PC users may have gotten used to replacing their PCs every year, Mac users look to Apple for quality. If Apple was a PC maker, their would be nothing to stop people from buying something else.

Mac users use Macs for the Mac environment. No Mac environment, no real reason to buy an Apple Computer over a Dell.


Don't think this is the case? 

Look at me. I have a PowerBook 3400c that can run Rhapsody 5.6. I also have a ThinkPad 760ED that can run Rhapsody 5.1. The 3400c is faster than the 760ED, it runs more apps... and it is an Apple Computer. So I would naturally use the 3400c for Rhapsody over the ThinkPad, right?

Wrong. Rhapsody stayed on the 3400c for less than a week. Why? Because I was more productive on the ThinkPad because it has a 1024x768 display where as the 3400c only has a 800x600 display.

Now consider that both of these systems were out at about the same time (and Apple didn't have a 1024x768 PowerBook until the Wallstreet). If  you removed the choice of operating system from the picture... I'd be an IBM customer back then. The only real reason for me to buy a PowerBook over some other PC laptop was the Mac OS. When the playing field was leveled buy having the same OS on all the systems... I didn't pick an Apple system.

That is why Apple will not sell computers with Windows. That is why Apple will not sell Mac OS X for PCs. Their hardware business suffers in both cases.

And even today, Apple makes most of it's money on hardware sales.


----------



## plastic (Feb 16, 2006)

Apple = iPod. 

This is what that has been pissing me off (though I have to say I love the iPod) and I shall not launch into whether is the iPod doing more harm than good, Steve still love Macs, etc. 

But there is a fear in my heart that Apple might just "integrate" Mac OS X with Vista... that would be plunging the world into an unknown territory... and Macs will be competing against Alientware for marketshare... that is not very cool... 

I guess I am just sharing my nightmare... sorry for the rant...


----------



## RacerX (Feb 16, 2006)

ergo proxy said:
			
		

> Where
> are all those anti-Intel Mac users now? swearing to stick with their
> Beige G3 PowerMacs till the year 3000?


Quick historical note... The Beige G3s were faster than any of the existing Intel desktops back when they were current. When introduced the G4 was faster than any existing Intel desktops.

And Intel has yet to ship a processor that can replace the G5 in Apple's product line (though they should be able to soon).

When you look at performance along a timeline... you'll see that in most of the 90's PowerPC was way ahead of Intel processors. And that after 2000 the main problem (for Apple at least) was Motorola's production quality (IBM stayed at the forefront of processor abilities with it's PowerPC and POWER lines).

Try not to blur history when making statements like that.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Feb 16, 2006)

I switched to Mac because of Stability and security.  I wouldn't mind a dual-booting mac mini with a "normal" 3.5" hard drive.  But i know that is a pipedream and it's not gonna happen.

Apple will never ever ditch their OS for another companies.  Apple is a hardware vendor, not software.  Granted, i know a few people who would Love to install OS X on a dual boot.


----------



## danfan521 (Feb 16, 2006)

plastic said:
			
		

> Apple = iPod.
> 
> This is what that has been pissing me off (though I have to say I love the iPod) and I shall not launch into whether is the iPod doing more harm than good, Steve still love Macs, etc.
> 
> ...




Your right about the part that Steve loves Macs... And that's why I think this is just plain bogus. Nothing in Vista that would make me jump ship. Most people may even revollt and switch to some Linux Distro instead. I can't see this happening.


----------



## Shookster (Feb 16, 2006)

Lots of features in Vista are similar to features that are already present in Mac OS X at the moment so there'd be no real benefit for Apple to just scrap Mac OS. Plus we don't know what's planned for Leopard yet.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 16, 2006)

Wow -- as if a line were drawn in the sand: it seems to me that the younger,  relatively-new-to-Mac user base is actually kicking this idea around, going, "Hmmm... maybe!" while the seasoned, been-a-Mac-user-for-15-plus-years user base is screaming, "You're all out of your mind!  It ain't gonna happen!"

I gotta side with the latter.  It's absolutely ludicrous.

I'd be willing to bet that all the Mac users who had ever used Mac OS 7 (possibly even 8) or earlier say "No" to the possibility of Apple "going Windows" while a good amount of people who were introduced to the Mac via OS X think it's actually a possibility.

I smell a poll...


----------



## Mikuro (Feb 16, 2006)

For the record, the first OS I used was System 6. And I'm still in love with System 7. I certainly don't think Apple will do that anytime soon, but no, I wouldn't rule it out.

I agree with RacerX completely about the PPC. It bothers me when people act like the PPC was always a dog.

But I disagree with RacerX about the hardware. Apple's image and consumer needs have changes a LOT over time. These days, people want Apple's hardware because...it's Apple's hardware! It's sexy, and it has status. If Apple ever killed the Mac OS, they would become a PC boutique, and I think they could be successful as that. That's already what a large portion of the uninitiated sees them as anyway, so from a branding perspective the transition would be smooth as butter. Would _I_ by an Apple PC? No, I can't imagine I would. But then again, I probably wouldn't buy an iPod, either. The iPod has succeeded not because of its technical merit, but because it's fashionable.


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2006)

Gotta disagree with your last statement, Mikuro: When the iPod was introduced, it was the _only_ player with a harddrive. And it was _small_ at that, too. It was easy to use, and the software/hardware integration was just great. Other players have _still_ not matched the iPod on a _technical_ basis. (I count the integration to the technical, not the fashion side.)


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 16, 2006)

except for the Creative DAP player. which was first, and very successful.  the ipod was the first *usable* mp3 player.  and for sometime is was the only usable mp3 player. still is, to some extent.  the ipod is the best solution for listening to music on the go.

full stop.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 16, 2006)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Wow -- as if a line were drawn in the sand: it seems to me that the younger,  relatively-new-to-Mac user base is actually kicking this idea around, going, "Hmmm... maybe!" while the seasoned, been-a-Mac-user-for-15-plus-years user base is screaming, "You're all out of your mind!  It ain't gonna happen!"



I agree with that. In fact, I think that's the problem with Dvorak, is that he _isn't_ a Mac user, and that ignorance shows through quite clearly in his article. 

I think a mac user would know better than to print that kind of bollocks. 

However, I still think that in the future more Apple hardware will be making its way over to the PC (cinema displays and such). With windows people loving the iPod, many will think "well my ipod is cool, i wonder what else apple has that I'd like"


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 16, 2006)

the OS


----------



## smithy (Feb 17, 2006)

What really ticks me off is how Apple never flaunts their OS in advertising. Seriously, pratically everyone knows what an iPod is but not everyone knows what Mac OS X is. When the switch just happened from PPC to Intel, why do they have to spend a vast amount of money to create an Ad just about a CPU change? Realistically not everyone who watches TV knows what a CPU really is or just simply may have a vague idea - So why create an ad just about that really when it's not needed, if people want to know what CPU a mac has go to the specifications of the product. 

I know it would be hard to advertise OS X by itself, so maybe the only suggestion is to combine the 'Cool' iPod-style silhouettes with a iMac and advertise the Lifestyle aspects of the Mac itself and it's Software. 

That's realistically the best way to get our Mac out there - Show it to the people man.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 17, 2006)

you know, that is such a good point smithy. I've never really thought about it before, but you're right - they never do show the OS at all in their ads. Perhaps if they do it will demystify the Mac so people won't be so afraid to try a Windows alternative. 

Hard to do in a 30second ad, but they could have demonstrations on morning TV shows (ok, not quite apple's style to do that, but you know what I mean). Or that could have video demos playing on a loop in the iPod section of department stores -- things like that.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 17, 2006)

i thought the coolest thing about usinbg mac OS X for the first time was that *I* found all these cool things about the OS (wooooooOOOOOoooooo!! look at the dock!), and they weren't sold to me as the reason for owning one.

they should just instead advertise to those people who are fed up of not being able to surf the net in peace. fed up of their 6-month old pc slowing down like mollasses got into it.

not show off the dock etc.


----------



## bbloke (Feb 17, 2006)

My experiences with Macs go back to the original 128 K Mac in 1984, and I too would find it hard to believe that Apple would ditch the OS.  As much as I have occasionally worried a little about Apple going with the iPod and neglecting OS X a bit (more of a concern than a reality, perhaps), the idea of Apple abandoning OS X, after having put in years of development and mocking Vista, just doesn't "feel" right.  

I think the pretty plastics and the like are secondary.  Apple do want a reputation for quality, and I think that comes from them controlling the user experience, from the quality of the components they put in their machines, to the operating system.  As Apple controls the whole machine (granted, third parties make a lot of the components, such as chipsets, but Apple can choose what to use), it makes for a better experience.  Making them "look nice" is the icing on the cake, making the computer look good and making it distinctive, which helps with advertising...

I guess that all things are *possible*, but I just don't see Apple switching to Windows.  I think Steve, in particular, might have some issues with that idea.   


Oh, and very nice post, RacerX.


----------



## markfc (Feb 17, 2006)

woah hang on a minute, I've had a 30gb Neo player since early 2000 way before the ipod, it's now been upgraded with a 120gb drive and still works great to this day.  £9 for a new battery and it uses a standard 2.5" HD. All user replaceable.

 










			
				fryke said:
			
		

> Gotta disagree with your last statement, Mikuro: When the iPod was introduced, it was the _only_ player with a harddrive. And it was _small_ at that, too. It was easy to use, and the software/hardware integration was just great. Other players have _still_ not matched the iPod on a _technical_ basis. (I count the integration to the technical, not the fashion side.)


----------



## ora (Feb 17, 2006)

Joy of Tech clearly noticed Dvorak's FUD 
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/789.html


----------



## Viro (Feb 17, 2006)

markfc said:
			
		

> woah hang on a minute, I've had a 30gb Neo player since early 2000 way before the ipod, it's now been upgraded with a 120gb drive and still works great to this day.  £9 for a new battery and it uses a standard 2.5" HD. All user replaceable.



Uh, no offense but if I had a MP3 player that looked like that, I wouldn't post pictures of it on the net . Just kidding...


----------



## markfc (Feb 17, 2006)

i know it doesn't look cool anymore...it did once!!!

as I travel a lot to london a lot more lately, i had to move to an iPod Video 60gb.

I felt conscious using it on the train..


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 18, 2006)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> I'd be willing to bet that all the Mac users who had ever used Mac OS 7 (possibly even 8) or earlier say "No" to the possibility of Apple "going Windows" while a good amount of people who were introduced to the Mac via OS X think it's actually a possibility. I smell a poll...


I carried out a simple poll in our household and the majority took the view that anything could happen in the future, because market forces will always supercede quality.

Only Edward (our one-eyed cat) and myself felt otherwise (I go back to Mac OS 7, whilst Edward goes back to Mac OS 8.6).


----------



## Rhisiart (Feb 18, 2006)

Ignore this post. Somehow I duplicated the post above.


----------



## jhawk28 (Feb 18, 2006)

Well, at least you wouldn't have to worry about being mugged with your Neo....


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 18, 2006)

Well, if it's big enough, you can crack it open and fit a nano in there to fool the muggers.


----------



## eric2006 (Feb 18, 2006)

You could even use it as crime deterrent


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Feb 26, 2006)

However unlikely it may seem that Apple will start selling Windows, it's not so far fetched that they may offer both OS and/or dual boot systems in order to sell more hardware. For those that have a problem with it Apple will simply respond that they're responding to customer demands wanting to consolidate both systems onto one hardware platform.
I recently downloded Feb 06 DirectX runtime for my Wiindows MCE box and it lists Macintosh as a compatible OS. So it's likely we'll see either a dual boot Mac or just a Mac with XP or Vista. Unless DirectX will be coming to the Mac. Perhaps that gamer's iMac I keep hearing about may be a reality.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 26, 2006)

DirectX! That is good news....


----------



## tomdkat (Feb 26, 2006)

I'm not a Mac user but I've had this debate with an avid Mac user a couple of years ago.  His position was in-line with RacerX's, in that Apple is a hardware company and that's their bread and butter.   My position is Apple should sell OS X for Intel as a standalone product offering.  Continue to produce Macs but sell OS X standalone.

Given the discussion about how the iPod got some to purchase Macs (presumably those who would not have purchased Macs otherwise), I see OS X , as a standalone product, functioning in a similar fashion.  As it stands today, someone looking to get away from Windows must consider the cost of a Mac plus the "cost" of the learning curve, data transfer, etc., or they start asking questions about Linux distributions and then get all confused.  I speculate, this same person might be open to buying Mac OS X to install on their PC. If they like it, they would be more open minded to Apple products, since their OS X experience would probably be great (leaving some room for problems), and might consider a Mac as their next PC ugrade purchase.  

On the flip side, if this person doesn't want to pay the cost of a whole new computer to get away from the frustration with Windows, they won't necessarily be a customer of Apple.

I can see the argument of OS X standalone possibly negatively impacting Mac sales, but I think the iPod example proves this won't necessarily be the case, at least to some degree.  I don't think those who prefer Mac hardware today would stop buying Mac hardware, but those not open to Mac hardware today might change their mind once they've had a taste of OS X.

Just my view, as a Linux and Windows user.  

Peace...


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Feb 26, 2006)

@tomdkat
I think the iPod being a hardware product no longer tied to just the Mac OS is what made it successful. And if Apple applies the same strategy to the Mac they should sell in greater numbers. As for OS X as a standalone product it may be too soon now that it's in transition. New users having to put up with anything that needs to run through Rosetta may be left with a bad taste in their mouth after having used the applications under Windows.


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 26, 2006)

Again, they did this in the 90s except not only did they license out their OS, they also allowed these other companies to make the hardware.  Since Apple is still a hardware company (like it or not, they are), these other companies basically cannibalized Apple's hardware solutions.  Sure, Apple should have just fought them on features and price, but they didn't and since Apple was hemorrhaging money badly, once Steve came in there was no option but to close out the clone makers.

If Apple were to do this, it would be great for consumers, but would it really change people from using Windows?  Consider all the software they have and now they would have to completely replace it.  It would do nothing to change things.  The fact that hardware is also required allows for Apple to supply extra software along with the hardware purchase in order to start using the Mac and Mac OS X right off the bat.  This would disappear once the hardware is gone.

Plus, Apple wouldn't have the hardware to make up for the loss, meaning they would disappear into oblivion.  And having lost the integration between the software and the hardware (which is one of the reasons the experience is as it is on OS X) would basically place Mac OS X in the same position as Windows...completely bloated in attempting to support all of the varying hardware out there at the expense of the experience.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but other attempts at bringing something like Mac OS X (namely NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, and especially BeOS) to the PC platform have proven to be deadly.  Linux and the BSDs have a chance mainly because of their open source nature, but right now Windows dominates the PC hardware landscape in terms of commercial software.  Once Apple loses the integration between the hardware and software that makes it all seemless, it's pretty much over.


----------



## whitesaint (Feb 28, 2006)

I don't know how many times it's been said already but Apple will never switch to Windows and Apple will never sell Mac OS X to anybody, only mac users.  Granted Apple does make money on software, apple makes a lot more on hardware and will not be willing to give that up because it will lose money in the long run.



			
				nixgeek said:
			
		

> Plus, Apple wouldn't have the hardware to make up for the loss, meaning they would disappear into oblivion.  And having lost the integration between the software and the hardware (which is one of the reasons the experience is as it is on OS X) would basically place Mac OS X in the same position as Windows...completely bloated in attempting to support all of the varying hardware out there at the expense of the experience.
> 
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but other attempts at bringing something like Mac OS X (namely NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, and especially BeOS) to the PC platform have proven to be deadly.  Linux and the BSDs have a chance mainly because of their open source nature, but right now Windows dominates the PC hardware landscape in terms of commercial software.  Once Apple loses the integration between the hardware and software that makes it all seemless, it's pretty much over.



I agree with everything completely except for this part.  OS X would run great on any hardware.  NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP became really popular in several organizations and businesses (including the CIA) and ran on Intel hardware quite well, software was also able to be "universal" (as we call it now) in the mid 90's on several different processor architectures.  Mac OS X already has hundreds (thousands?) of drivers built in to work with all kinds of devices no matter what hardware it is.  Drivers can be loaded dynamically without restarting the OS etcetera.  It's just Mac OS X is a lot more stable than Windows because it's designed to handle any kind of hardware without any modification.  NeXT/OPENSTEP has been running on Windows PCs for a while now and quite well at that.


----------



## sirstaunch (Feb 28, 2006)

Thank The Cheese said:
			
		

> Article:
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1925239,00.asp
> 
> I kind of get annoyed when people post stuff they've just seen on Digg or Slashdot, but I simply had to post this article here to get everyone's opinion.


it's all press don't panic


			
				Thank The Cheese said:
			
		

> The article basically explains one person's opionion that Apple is slowly its way towards dropping OS X as we know it, in favour of developing hardware and software only for the Windows platform. It cites things like the iPod dropping firewire, and the Intel switch as proof of this.


Hey OSX wins over XP, how many updates have they done in the last 15 years (pun from another post)



			
				Thank The Cheese said:
			
		

> far from convinced, but I did get a little knot in my chest thinking about it.


I hope this is not smoking influenced


			
				Thank The Cheese said:
			
		

> If anything, I think Apple woul dbe more likely to in the future offer Windows users more, like more Windows-compatible hardware. Or maybe Apple do have a secret plan to adopt windows, but not as a replacement to MacOS, but rather an accompanyment, through dual booting.


No Apple will stick with OSX and their own OS's and beyond


----------



## fryke (Feb 28, 2006)

We heard Apple is working closely with Microsoft to bring VirtualPC to intel Macs. This alone sounds to me as if both companies are not really interested in people booting into Windows on those machines. It's a win-win situation for both companies this way:

For Apple: As long as people can't boot into Windows and use VPC for Windows compatibility, they're still using Mac OS X.

For Microsoft: They not only sell you a Windows license but also a VirtualPC license. Since VPC is part of the full Office package, you'll probably get _that_ instead of just VPC, so they have more Office users, which is probably more important to them.

In general, I think people just read too much into the whole switch to intel. It seems like everybody around the web expects Apple to "let the other shoe drop" one way or another. But there's no pressure for Apple to either release OS X to the unwashed masses, nor is there any pressure to adopt Windows... For now, they'll just go on as before: They'll make Macs (albeit with intel processors inside) and develop Mac OS X for it. The OS will get better and better, some things will get on our nerves, but I just don't think there's a bigger plan behind this. It's just _easier_ for Apple to be on this camp. They don't have to explain to potential customers "how fast a 800 MHz G4 is compared to a 2 GHz Pentium" etc. They're using the same specs now, so people can actually compare the machines. (Although there's still a lot of potential to misinterpret specs of a computer...) That's, imho, one of the real reasons for the switch.

Let's just look forward to Leopard, shall we.


----------



## RacerX (Feb 28, 2006)

whitesaint said:
			
		

> I agree with everything completely except for this part.  OS X would run great on any hardware.  NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP became really popular in several organizations and businesses (including the CIA) and ran on Intel hardware quite well...


OPENSTEP/NEXTSTEP does run great on PC hardware... but only on systems where it can recognize all the hardware.

Companies and the like that used OPENSTEP/NEXTSTEP were all very careful to follow the list of compatible hardware for these systems. I've had very few problems with either OPENSTEP/NEXTSTEP or Rhapsody (it's list of compatible hardware can be found here) because I was careful about what hardware I used.

And even being careful doesn't solve all issues. For example, I have never had sound on my ThinkPad. There are no drivers for NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody for the built-in sound card on my system. I have perfect video (including using an external display), support for both the internal drives (CD-ROM and floppy) and external drives (floppy), an external trackpad and networking via a PCMCIA card... but no sound.

It should be over looked that Microsoft doesn't have to worry about this type of thing. Most hardware makers go out of their way to make drivers for their hardware for Windows so Microsoft doesn't need to put any effort into this. 

Apple (and NeXT before them) had to create many of these drivers themselves. And because of this, the set of drivers for their systems that run on PCs is for a small subset of the total amount of hardware that is out there. 

Worse, the last time Apple was worried about drivers for PC hardware was back in 1998. So it is a subset of the most popular hardware of back then. Since then the only drivers Apple has worked on were the ones it needed for it's internal development systems to keep the Intel version of Mac OS X going.


----------



## Ifrit (Mar 2, 2006)

> DirectX! That is good news....



I don't know why everyone gets excited about DirectX. As far as I know its mainly a layer which allows direct access to certain HW components on Windows systems for "multimedia purposes". (not counting the Direct3D API)

It can't be ported (it wouldn't even make sense) to OSX or other platforms because OSX does not work this way. Otherwise you had to create an "emulation layer" which translates the various direct3D, directx commands etc. to something OSX is able to process and this certainly would lower the game's performance (a certain comercial version of WINE already does this on Linux systems - with varying degree of success)

If Vista runs on Intel Macs then I am not really surprised that DirectX is supported.


----------



## xris (Mar 14, 2006)

Business is business, 
I'm no expert in this area just a slightly cynical onlooker 
and I believe everyone (especially businesses) eventually accepts
"the offer they can't refuse"

I know nothing about the apple empire, but I bet they are in it for the "money", 
and "lots of money" - "talks lots"
Just look at what "money" is doing to China's 'communism philosophy' 
there's talk of removing Mao's Picture from their currency infavour of the chap responsible for China's current financial boom (i.e. embracing western capitalist practices ... (I'm also not a Politician, Historian or Accountant, so I may be oversimplifying this a bit! but I think you get my drift).


----------



## fryke (Mar 15, 2006)

Yeah, but there's more money in being a successful Apple than "just another PC maker". So that's not really a reason to go Windows.


----------



## Quicksilver (Mar 15, 2006)

As mentioned in many previous threads I honestly believe once apple has transitioned all it's hardware to intel based processors. Apple will possibly allow a form of windows to run on their hardware to run certian windows applications. ones that could not form a opportunity for virus threats.

Now if you can just imagine this; that all windows applications running nativley on a apple computer with some kind of special raw basic version of the windows OS especially designed or as a standard version of windows. Ok, now also imagine if apple made the UI elements of the windows applications translate to the Mac OS X UI elements. So when a windows application such as Word, Exel, Photoshop, or anything else when loaded runs effectivley as a windows application BUT displays the UI elements through the Mac OS X UI elementsplus mabey a little more.

This would surley make customers buy more macs.

Some how apple would have to review/approve the applications allowed to be installed via some kind of software update service. eg: why install outlook when apple want you to use mail plus by allowing a limiation on applications to be used would allow apple to effectivley eleminate any/some virus threats from the windows world.

As for my answer about Apple dropping Mac OS X in favour of windows? No Way, Mac OS X is way to good! by very far!


.


----------



## fryke (Mar 15, 2006)

We've heard that Apple is working rather closely with Microsoft on bringing Virtual PC to intel Macs. That could mean anything from MS just asking Apple to incorporate some low-level changes into OS X so it's easier for MS to bring VPC over (Apple has previously supported MS in this way) to a much better integration of how VPC works on OS X, but I doubt the latter.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 15, 2006)

Quicksilver said:
			
		

> Now if you can just imagine this...


I can... and it would be the single worse thing that could possibly happen to the platform. Heck, it would be the end of the platform.

The whole idea is akin to keeping yourself warm by setting your coat on fire. Sure, for a short time you are warmer... but in the end, you have no coat.

In this case, you may think you're getting more apps... but in the end there would no longer be _any_ Mac apps.

It truly amazes me that the logic of this escapes so many people. The cost of this type of fantasy would be the death of our platform. And I see nothing good coming from such a strategy... at all.


----------



## fryke (Mar 15, 2006)

Well... There are three cases. Let's take Adobe Photoshop as an example...

1.) Photoshop runs _so_ well in that Windows layer that it makes no sense anymore for Adobe to also make a Mac version. Well: Where's the _problem_? If it's _that_ good, it doesn't matter.

2.) It runs o-o-okay in that environment. Rather like Classic apps behave. Certainly, Adobe would not be content with that result and would continue to create a Mac version.

3.) It doesn't run well. No problem at all.


Now... Even *IF* all Windows software runs perfectly well in this (imaginary) environment, there's still the odd chance that - and you know this very well - Apple provides APIs that won't/can't be used by such a Windows application and that a real Mac application is simply better because of that alone but also because the Mac app is just really, really good. 

Either way: It's just not _that_ easy, RacerX...


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Mar 15, 2006)

BeOS was really, really good.  but no-one could afford the time/money to develop for it.  if it's no longer viable to produce for mac, then it won't happen, regardless of the benefits.  if it works on windows, then why bother making it better for a majority public who won't care/even know the difference?


----------



## RacerX (Mar 15, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Let's take Adobe Photoshop as an example...


Well, Photoshop is the perfect example, actually.

Have you ever used Photoshop for Windows? I have.

Photoshop for Windows is like most Windows apps... it is a rooted application. That is, the application and all document windows for that application are rooted in a single application window. This window acts like blinders that keep the user from seeing the desktop or any other applications running on a system. It is this type of environment that precludes things like _drag-n-drop_ between applications and using information in other applications for visual reference.

I'm sorry, but when we start getting Windows apps that run _as good_ on Macs as they do in Windows, then we have lost the advantages of running apps on Macs and may as well be running Windows.

Adobe would have no problem dropping the Mac version of Photoshop if the Windows version worked on Macs _as good_ as it does on Windows. They would take the stance that if it is good enough for Windows users then it is good enough for Mac users.

But the Windows version of Photoshop sucks... even on Windows!

And this is just looking at your chosen example... it would be like this with pretty much everything.

I currently don't care for Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice and AbiWord on Macs... not because they are bad applications, but because they are not *Mac* applications. All of these are written to take advantages of the worst environment that they run in, and not to the best. They don't take any advantage from running in Macs because those advantages wouldn't show up in any of the other environments.

What we end up with is _okay_ Windows/Linux apps rather than incredible Mac apps.

If we were all willing to settle we'd be Windows users today. But if we start by settling for Windows apps today, then we'll all be Windows users in some future tomorrow.

Mark my words, that is *exactly* how it will play out.



> Either way: It's just not _that_ easy, RacerX...


Yes it is.

When Mac users start dreaming of running crappy apps on Macs... the end of the platform is not far behind.

Macs have survived this long by the users calling for Mac versions of applications. When Mac users no longer see what makes the Mac versions special compared to Windows versions... there won't be Macs any more.

Please my friend... don't settle.


----------



## fryke (Mar 15, 2006)

I don't settle. I just wanted to point out that it all depends on how "good" such an environment actually would _be_. I get what you say about Photoshop, but I didn't mean it'd run as good "as on Windows". I meant (and said) "so good" that it makes no sense for Adobe to further develop a Mac version. However: If usability of the app sucks, then that's a no-go for Adobe, too.

But we don't have to go that far. Let's say Microsoft brings out VirtualPC 8 for intel Macs, and it's a "see-through" job, i.e. Windows applications are started via the Dock, open in their own Windowsy window (no Windows Desktop) etc. and run at near 100% speed. That'd be actually _great_ news for VPC users who need one or the other application that only exists for Windows. (Notice: There _are_ such apps and such needs, else VPC would have absolutely no sales figures.) There's a long way between here (VPC in a window or full-screen, only so-so interoperability with Mac OS X) and there (fully integrated Windows applications that make use of OS X' APIs as well). And for those who really, really need to run the occasional Windows application, better is simply better. Long before it actually hurts OS X applications.

I see a much bigger danger in people getting Windows XP to dual-boot on intel Macs. Because switchers will obviously try to run both operating systems, but will probably never get around to _fully_ use OS X' potential, since they'd only occasionally boot into OS X to see how it looks. If you live and breathe on Windows and have all nicely set up on an intel Mac next to an empty version of OS X, where neither your documents nor E-Mails etc. reside... I think it's better to have emulation layer-like technology (think WINE, VMWARE, VPC etc.) within OS X. Because then people are still using OS X mainly.


----------



## Quicksilver (Mar 15, 2006)

RacerX said:
			
		

> I can... and it would be the single worse thing that could possibly happen to the platform. Heck, it would be the end of the platform.


 

But If Apple also released xCode for windows allowing developers making there applications on both platforms it would surley be much better for Apple. there would be more developers using xCode and then there would me more apps being developed on both platforms. wouldn't be nice if adobe decided to use xCode to create their windows version of Photoshop.

As a consumor and an Apple fan i think it would be the best interests for Apple if they want to make the switch better and much easier for consumors to considder such a move. Who knows? Mabey they already have.



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> In this case, you may think you're getting more apps... but in the end there would no longer be _any_ Mac apps.



I don't mean that you would get "more apps" im simply stating that as a consumor what if i had a mac and a pc or a mac with VPC or what ever at home and i want my copy of adobe photoshop to run on both os's without having to buy two seperate licences?



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> It truly amazes me that the logic of this escapes so many people. The cost of this type of fantasy would be the death of our platform. And I see nothing good coming from such a strategy... at all.



Thats why we all have fantasies here. there is nothing wrong with suggesting a few ideas and discussing what MIGHT happen or COULD be done.

Yes.. I see your point, but i see that Apple is a hardware company and they need to sell more mac hardware. Thats a good enough strategy to me. Selling iPods may not last forever. 



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> The whole idea is akin to keeping yourself warm by setting your coat on fire. Sure, for a short time you are warmer... but in the end, you have no coat.



I don't see my coat burning! if it's strategic and thought out right. Just in case though, I might just have to keep a good old fire extinguisher with me hey 


.


----------



## RacerX (Mar 15, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> I don't settle. I just wanted to point out that it all depends on how "good" such an environment actually would _be_. I get what you say about Photoshop, but I didn't mean it'd run as good "as on Windows". I meant (and said) "so good" that it makes no sense for Adobe to further develop a Mac version.


Who decides what is "so good"? Adobe? To them, they may think that if the Windows version of Photoshop is _good enough_ for Windows users then it is _good enough_ for Mac users.

I'm saying that if Photoshop for Windows runs at 100% _as good_ as it does on a Windows PC on a Mac, that would be _good enough_ for Adobe to kill the Mac version even though the Mac version is better than the Windows version simply because it *is* the Mac version.

I still think that when people get apps that are _good enough_ to keep them from pushing developers for more, then developers will stop trying to provide more.

The Mac community has never seemed like a large group of users... but we _have been_ an extremely vocal group of users, which has kept developers making Mac apps to, basically, keep us quiet. But if their Windows apps run _good enough_ they *will* drop any ideas about Mac development.

It doesn't matter if their apps would be 1000 times better on Macs than PCs... if their Windows versions are _good enough_ for Windows users and run just as good on Macs, then no Mac versions are going to be developed.


Be very sure... this is a *real* danger to the platform.

Right now, we are in danger of Microsoft finding that Office runs just as fast in VirtualPC as it would natively on a PC. And when they no longer feel the need to make a PowerPC compatible version of Office, they may stop making a Mac version of Office too. We could be looking at some future _Office for Mac_ really being _Office for Windows_ and VirtualPC.

No matter how you sugar coat this, it comes down to the same thing... a slow but inevitable death for the platform.




			
				Quicksilver said:
			
		

> But If Apple also released xCode for windows allowing developers making there applications on both platforms it would surley be much better for Apple. there would be more developers using xCode and then there would me more apps being developed on both platforms. wouldn't be nice if adobe decided to use xCode to create their windows version of Photoshop.
> 
> As a consumor and an Apple fan i think it would be the best interests for Apple if they want to make the switch better and much easier for consumors to considder such a move. Who knows? Mabey they already have.


We've been down this road before. Both with Yellow Box and with QuickTime. And Java for that matter.

 And to let you know... it wouldn't happen.

 Microsoft went out of their way (and are still going out of their way) to keep any other venders technology from working as good as Microsoft's. Microsoft set out to stop QuickTime from running as well on Windows as it does on Macs. Microsoft set out to pollute Java to kill it's ability to be cross platform. Even today Microsoft is fighting the EU to keep from giving other venders a level playing field on Windows.



> and i want my copy of adobe photoshop to run on both os's without having to buy two seperate licences?


You shouldn't need that now. There is no (technical) reason why a license for Photoshop for Windows shouldn't also work for Photoshop for Mac. It was decided by Adobe to make users pay to move platforms... it has nothing to do with any other technical reason... at all.

Adobe wants money if you change platforms... that is pretty much all there is to it. It cost them a couple cents to print a CD with the installers for either platform on them, yet they charge a couple hundred dollars if you switch platforms... and it is *all* profit to them.




You know if you guys don't see it now, by the time you do it'll be too late.


----------



## fryke (Mar 15, 2006)

It's not that I don't agree with much that you're saying, it's just that you paint a black picture instead of a black and white one or even one with greyscales or colour... 
At the end of the day, it's a free market. An emulation environment for Windows applications _is_ coming. Several, actually. WINE is on the way. VPC is on the way. Others probably, too.

I prefer to think of good ways to make these projects useful. We won't stop them, anyway. It's a free market after all.


----------



## tomdkat (Mar 15, 2006)

I think Racer_X makes a good point in that the idea should be to KEEP people using OS X as OS X and not some "Windows" related thing.  Previously, I mentioned running OS X on non-Apple Intel based hardware.  Even though Apple hardware wouldn't be involved, OS X would still be the prime OS.

If people want to use OS X, they should learn and adapt to the OS X environment.  Ideally, they should use OS X apps and not try to get OS X to act like Windows.  OS X is not Windows and people should be more accepting of that instead of trying to get it to be a "secure" or "virus free" version of Windows, which it sounds like some are basically looking for.

I mean to be able to run Windows apps natively on Intel hardware but on OS X allows someone to basically remain in a Windows environment and not have to worry about viruses and spyware and all the other crap that upsets Windows users.

I think the effort should be put in getting more OS X native apps developed for those who want to use OS X.  The more OS X native apps there are, the less need there is for Windows or *nix apps to run (in some fashion) on OS X.  If a OS X user can happily run native apps in their native environment, why wouldn't they be happy with that and why would they have any desire to use anything but OS X native apps?

Peace...


----------



## fryke (Mar 15, 2006)

Well, for example, I'm a Mac user and a Mac user only. A graphics designer, too. I do websites. And test in Internet Explorer for Windows is a must for my job. That's just a small example. There's tons of little specialty applications that simply don't exist for the Mac, and environments like WINE or VPC will be good for those things.


----------



## tomdkat (Mar 17, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Well, for example, I'm a Mac user and a Mac user only. A graphics designer, too. I do websites. And test in Internet Explorer for Windows is a must for my job. That's just a small example. There's tons of little specialty applications that simply don't exist for the Mac, and environments like WINE or VPC will be good for those things.


I agree and I think your case is reasonable.  It's the other cases where people are looking to turn OS X into a "virus-free Windows" where things go downhill.  At least, IMO.  

Peace...


----------



## sinclair_tm (Mar 17, 2006)

the short answer is no they will not.  why?  because ms is not supporting apple hardware.  this tells why.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 17, 2006)

no way apple are not that stupid if this is true this will break apple.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 17, 2006)

I think that's the best argument I've heard yet against Apple adopting Windows... seriously.


----------



## TheQ (Mar 17, 2006)

I've used PC's since they came out. I have just puchased an iMac G5 and love it...leaves winxp for dead. The first week I had my iMac I wanted to throw it out the window. It would not do what I wanted it to. I realised that I was in an XP mentality. Once i accepted it as a totally different OS and re educated myself I began to be able to do the things I wanted but I will never forget that first week. I do think though that the Mac is far superior to a PC.


----------



## pjeski (Mar 18, 2006)

Is this news?

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060318/D8GDN0JO7.html


----------



## eric2006 (Mar 18, 2006)

pjeski said:
			
		

> Is this news?
> 
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060318/D8GDN0JO7.html


It _is_ news, a tad bit old now, but still interesting. There's still hardware problems: overheating, driver stuff, etc. But it works.


----------



## Mikuro (Mar 18, 2006)

Yeah, that's new to me. The article is woefully short on details, so check out http://wiki.onmac.net/index.php/FAQ and http://www.macwindows.com/

Looks very promising. I might even try it as is if I had an Intel Mac.

But this isn't exactly on topic. Oops.


----------



## Win2MAC (Mar 19, 2006)

Well I am new to Mac, but have a degree in networking so I have ALWAYS used  wintel and lintel machines. I got so fed up over time with all the crap going on with a wintel machine as far as crashing and the amount of programs you had to run just to keep the OS from taking a crap. So one night I threw all but on of my machines on ebay and took the money and purchased my first mac. So now to my point. THE reason i like Mac is the stability and performance. So now why is Mac OS X so stable. Quite simply it is (partly at least) the fact that there are not hundreds of manufacturers for each part making it imposable to test the OS with every configuration. OS X can reasonably be tested with most (if not all) configurations of each of there systems. If OS X is released for non-mac machines they are going to have to try and cram a lot of information which is just going to lead to problems wich will lead to fixes wich leads to problems and so on. If they scrap OS X and just use there hardware then all the OS X users are going to be pissed that they have to revert back to a crappy OS. Maybe I am just rambelling but dear god if there is a higher power in the sky let Mac never scrap OS X or port it for non-mac machines.


----------



## macosxuser (Mar 19, 2006)

Seeing that Steve Jobs isn't stupid and he is a Unix type of guy (brought Unix to Next and Apple) OSX is here to stay while Steve is around.

If he ever leaves Apple who knows what will happen.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Mar 20, 2006)

i think to some extent, the Mac OS is his passion, his little baby.  the ipod, the iMac, Disney, Pixar etc give him money so that he can play with his passion.  it gives him reason and licence to get away with being so awkward about it. for being stubborn about its survival.

i mean, i don't bloody know, but that would seem to be the emotion behind it, if i were a psychologist.  windows would be like being told your child were being put down, or something.


----------



## karavite (Apr 14, 2006)

This "theory" makes no sense - without an OS of it's own, Apple is what? A software company (iLife, FCP...)? A hardware company with no clear advantage over cheapo Dell's other than physical design? A MP3 player company? I would think the opposite is happening here (in a strategic sense). Macs that run everything might eventually show people what they are missing.


----------



## Veljo (Apr 14, 2006)

Apple will continue to create their own OS. With Apple's success this millennium there's absolutely no reason to drop Mac OS X in favor of an inferior OS such as Windows.

The thing that has always made Apple who they are are their computers, and their own OS that goes with it. If the OS vanished, then Apple wouldn't survive very long in my opinion. It's the OS that draws users to the hardware, and now with the introduction of dual-booting into Windows it will draw larger crowds to great computers capable of running both.


----------



## Digitorb (May 2, 2006)

Nah, I think it will continue how it is, but just so that you can use the two OS's on the one computer. Makes more money for both companies, Probably Microsoft and Apple made some kind of deal.
It will just be like Linux on a PC so you are able to use Windows on a Mac, and I suppose Windows would probably be more reliable on a Mac system anyway, it really depends.
Although I would like to see Mac on my Windows.


----------

