# Windows on Macs: The Average-Joe magnet



## Mikuro (Jun 9, 2005)

From what we've heard so far, it seems like Windows will probably be usable on Apple's Intel-based Macs. However, Phil Schiller said they will not _support_ it. I think they should. Before you start throwing things at me, hear me out:

Say you're an average PC user in the market for a new PC. You see two choices: An Apple and a Dell. They have the same marketable numbers (i.e., clock speed), BUT, if you buy the Apple, you can run Windows AND Mac OS X. If you buy the Dell, you can only run Windows. Which one are you going to buy? Probably the Apple.

This clear advantage  that Apples can do everything other PCs can, _and more_  will go a long way toward justifying the slightly higher prices of Apples. [Apple's switch to Intel does NOT mean they'll be competing with the likes of Dell on price; Dell's machines are so cheap because A) they suck, and B) they have smaller profit margins. Apple's not going to ship a Mac with no graphics card like Dell does, and they'll most likely keep their margins right where they are.]

So, once you see that the Apple is pretty much undeniably better (again, it can do _everything any other PC can and more!_), what's going to happen? You buy it, you boot it, you start using OS X, and you quickly realize you won't need Windows  ever.

I think this could do big things for Apple's market share, _especially_ in the months leading up to Longhorn's release, when many PC users will be encouraged to buy new hardware and they'll need to buy Longhorn separately anyway.

I think Apple should jump at this chance. Support Windows. Advertise it. Make it clear that a Mac can do it all, and is more functional than any other brand. I think Apple should launch a two-pronged advertising campaign: one selling hardware, and stressing the Windows compatibility; and one trumpeting the superiority of OS X and Apple's software. Reel 'em in any way you can. Whether someone buys it for the hardware or the software, they're probably going to end up a Mac user.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em  and _then_ beat 'em.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 9, 2005)

You don't understand. OS X is a Unix system. A damn good one. Windows is only an ongoing try, I think even the final versions that come out are only Beta versions. Windows is not Unix based, and that brings a lot of problems.

Windows is far more open to Virus attacks. Should Apple advertise for a system that can be attacked by viruses while their own, Mac OS X, is virus-free (in the moment) ? I don't see much sense in that.


----------



## HateEternal (Jun 9, 2005)

OOoooooo you bring up an interesting point that I hadn't though about...

How do you know that apple isn't going to start shipping out lower end computers (iBooks, minis) with intel integrated graphics? I hope we don't see that but as far as market share goes, intel has the largest because a majority of the computers that consumers buy are not gaming machines and just have the onboard video.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 9, 2005)

I think they will do something similar to the graphic card what they've done in the iMac G5 and current PowerBooks. We'll see...


----------



## Pengu (Jun 9, 2005)

Anyone buying an iBook shouldn't expect Radeon or NVidia FX graphics.

and. Apple would be better off offering a "blue box" or "red box" (whatever they used to have back in OpenStep) base it on Wine, or a simmilar product. don't BOOT windows, create an environment that will run windows apps. this of course, like booting to windows, will give companies like adobe a reason to stop Mac versions of it's apps.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 9, 2005)

I think they start to sell low end first since PowerMac speed bump last month or so. It tend start from bottom to top.. So, I am sure apple foucs on mini mac, ibook and powerbook at MacWorld expo 2006 and will tell us about new PowerMac along timeline..


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 9, 2005)

What might happen is that we'll see Windows installed (and also supported) from within Mac OS X.  But instead of using software emulation for hardware such as video and other devices, images for the HDs, etc., we'll see that actual Mac hardware being used which means that you might expect close to the same performance on a Windows environment running along Mac OS X.  The complaint with Virtual PC under Mac OS X was that it was dog slow.  If this environment is running in similar fashion as Virtual PC but instead using the actual Mac hardware (since it will be x86) for driving the OS, it could mean the ability to actually use software that requires more performance (translation: games and multimedia).


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 9, 2005)

Dangerous

I'm reading more and more comments here about having Windows running natively on a Mac without fully weighing the implications, not just the short term ones but the medium to long term too.

WANTING to have a Mac which can have Windows installed onto it, is WANTING a PC - not a Mac.  You (whoever) are saying that you want Apple to build a *PC called a Mac*. It will no longer be a Mac at all, just another PC with perhaps a chip to TEMPORARILY prevent non-Apple PC users running OSX. (Which BTW, in time will be cracked AND in time will lead to Apple not even bothering to try and prevent it's use on non-Apple PCs. End of game for Apple. Sorry, but OSX competing DIRECTLY with Microsoft IS SUICIDE, you live in Cuckooland if you don't see it.)

We don't WANT a PC called a Mac, can you not see why that is a step down the wrong path? Apple will make attractive boxes.. for a while. But really, beneath the hype, the BRAND, even under the BLIND fanaticism of the Mac elitists who'd follow Jobs off the Intel cliff, Apple would be JUST ANOTHER BLAND PC MAKER, like Dell or HP.  The only difference is IT would have it's own OS, which it will desparately TRY to keep control over.  I keep hearing these fantasy scenarios about Apple competing with Microsoft over X, Y or Z. Pointless, competition is NOT always a good thing, Apple has something no other computer maker has, a protected, controlled platform and a dedicated niche market.

IF Apple are to survive this change, they will build new computers designed around the Intel CPUs, not create PC boards. This will help them retain the all-important control they need.

But running Windows IS possible and CAN be implemented by Apple in a controlled manner by providing a virtual machine in a similar manner to VMware.  Then XP, or indeed Longhorn will run at close-to-native speed and provide a credible alternative to PCs while still retaining the control Jobs will want to keep, in fact it could work a bit like Classic mode.  This would NOT be a solution for gaming however, buy a console for that.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 9, 2005)

consoles are a weak comparison to a decent computer (mac or pc) game.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 9, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> But running Windows IS possible and CAN be implemented by Apple in a controlled manner by providing a virtual machine in a similar manner to VMware.  Then XP, or indeed Longhorn will run at close-to-native speed and provide a credible alternative to PCs while still retaining the control Jobs will want to keep, in fact it could work a bit like Classic mode.  This would NOT be a solution for gaming however, buy a console for that.


Apple has already said that you will be able to run Windows on your Mac. Schiller was understood to mean that you will be able to install a shrinkwrap copy of Windows on your Mac just as you install it on any other Intel-based computer with no need for a compatibility environment. You will have several options to run Windows on your Mac. They include Windows (native), WINE, Bochs, QEMU, Virtual PC, _etc._ It will not be a question of if you should do it or not. It will be a question of which is your best option if you want to do it. The dangers are unquestioned. Apple has decided to make its bed this way. I believe that it has already decided how it want to lie in it.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 9, 2005)

When was the last time you saw an Apple Mac desktop commercial on television?  Not the iPod - I see those all of the time, but the actual Mac desktop?

Apple better get marketing.  Now.  Otherwise, they're going to lose too many people to confusion.  They need a Mac Mini replacement that uses the Pentium M processor.  They need a smaller, slightly cheaper desktop - think Dell competition/prices here - and they need to really raise consumer awareness.

If they do that, they'll draw in the users.  Otherwise, this transition will see a lull in sales.  And they've all but killed their future sales of existing PowerPC products... price slash them.  Educate the people.  Expand their Best Buy, CompUSA, and Circuit City presence.

And get the ball rolling on the upcoming transition for the average Joe Blow consumer.  The processor doesn't make that much of a difference, but you'd better explain it to 'em any way.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 9, 2005)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> Schiller was understood to mean that you will be able to install a shrinkwrap copy of Windows on your Mac just as you install it on any other Intel-based computer



Then for me, this is my last Mac.  I will not buy an Apple PC. Sorry. If I wanted some PC, I'd build it myself.

Think twice before embracing this move, if you are right, the Mac is finished. I won't pay over the odds for a PC, I won't get excited about one either. I'm not alone in thinking this either.

I just hope Apple are a bit more intelligent than this, there is a year to go, I'll stay with it until we see the first machines or until we KNOW for FACT that Apple are just degrading themselves into a mere PC maker.


----------



## Cat (Jun 9, 2005)

Why would an intel based Mac be "just a PC"?  Already now you can run linux on a Mac and run Windows in VirtualPC. When they change processors, not much is going to change, except that linux and windows will run faster. Why would people who were interested in buying a Mac before, not be interested anymore in buying a _better_ Mac after?



> Apple are just degrading themselves into a mere PC maker.


I have absolutely no idea what solid reasons there could be of rthis claim. That is just FUD. You don't know, I don't know, nobody knows. Apple has thought about it rather well I suppose and has decided to make the "switch". That means that from the perspective of Apple the alternatives are worse. The best thing they think they can do is change processor supplier. Why that would imply a complete change of everything else baffles me. For developers who have to change their code, of course it is a great deal, but for the end user? The whole point of Fat Binaries and Rosetta is that users are not going to notice anything ideally. Indeed, from both the exterior and the OS you cannot decide what the processor is. So what is the problem?


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 9, 2005)

That's the point!  We don't know.

But if Apple are saying you can install a copy of Windows natively on a Mac, then that Mac would have to be a PC. No?

A PC is just a PC, nothing exceptional or really interesting, or not to me anyway, WHICH IS WHY I BOUGHT A MAC!

I think if they do just start making PCs in a nice case bundled with OSX for x86 and calling it a Mac, then that will be a real shame.  I for one, and many like me probably won't be to interested in buying one.

But if the end result is a Mac as unique as other Macs but with just a different CPU, then I won't care at all.

But we don't know. There are doubts and questions and Apple aren't helping.


----------



## Myke (Jun 9, 2005)

I'm puzzled fjdouse. You seem to think that people will buy a Mac just to run Windows on it. Now that would be daft. But to have a Mac with the additional functionality of running a separate operating system, beit Windoze or Linux, just gives you options. You don't HAVE to do it, just like you don't HAVE to use Virtual PC just now. But if you do want to run Windoze (and some must for work) then it will be a heck of a lot faster and more stable.


----------



## hgomez03 (Jun 9, 2005)

First of all, what makes anyone including high ceos at apple think that people would buy an apple PC that runs windows, the only thing it can possibly have going for it is name brand, and we all know that it would be cheaper to go the PC route with a non apple name brand. As far as OSX I think eventually it would doom it. Your basically allowing people to run windows on apple machines and heceforth become windows not apple.

The better route in my opinion was to force OSX to run on PCs therefore cutting into Microsofts grasp of the operating system market, not helping it expand using apple name brand hardware just like apple does with ipod which has helped in taking such a huge marketshare.

Maybe the way it was presented left the wrong impression. I do believe going the intel route is kinda sad as admitting defeat and joining the rest of the sorry pc vendors that really depend on intel and have nothing really different to offer.

This being said, I know that IBM has let Apple down. They just have not been able to provide the hardware apple needs to stay competative.  

In addition, Apple marketing is PATHETIC at best. They have dumped millions into IPOD but very few dollars into the Imac or Apple desktops relying mostly on word of mouth.

But only time will tell.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 9, 2005)

Myke said:
			
		

> You seem to think that people will buy a Mac just to run Windows on it. Now that would be daft. But to have a Mac with the additional functionality of running a separate operating system, beit Windoze or Linux, just gives you options.


EXACTLY. And take a look at the real world  people are concerned with compatibility and options. The biggest barrier to becoming a Mac user is the feeling that it will "lock you out" of the rest of the world. Windows compatibility will give tons of potential switchers the peace of mind necessary to switch!

And once they switch, THEY SWITCH! It's about getting your foot in the door, and breaking down barriers.

The sentiment that an Intel-based Mac is "just a PC" is absurd. If you bought a Mac just because it used a different chip, then...well, you have issues, my friend. No, I think all of us bought Macs for one reason: the Mac OS! That's the difference. That's where the "Mac" name comes from. Not the hardware. The OS. (A G5 running Linux is NOT a Mac!) I don't hate PC hardware, and I never have. I hate Windows, and I always will. The two are two very different things. Do you honestly think the reason Windows sucks so much is because it runs on Intel hardware? Think again. Intel's hardware has nothing to with Microsoft's gaping security holes, poor interface design, neglect of standards, or evil business practices. Nothing.

The concern that Apple will lose control of the hardware/software integration is possibly valid, but it's really not relevent to this thread. Apple IS switching to x86. That's settled. The question I'm trying to raise with this thread is whether Apple should support and even advertise Windows compatibility. Besides, it really won't make any difference to Apple if a few hackers manage to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware; who cares? It will still be unsupported, and will not effect Apple's development in any way. Apple will NOT be forced to support it just because someone manages to do it  that would be ridiculous.


As I said in my original post, I do think Apple should support and advertise Windows compatibility. However, I really don't think they should offer Classic-like support for it as some have suggested. The way I see it, this would only make the Mac experience worse, as it makes your entire system vulnerable to Windows exploits, and encourages the use of Windows software (to a degree). I think a virtual machine, like with VPC, would be a better choice, and this is bound to happen  it's not even really Apple's concern. Keep Windows isolated and a very clear second-class citizen.

Again, the point here isn't to make Windows users use Windows on Apple hardware. The point is to make Windows users buy Apple hardware. Once they do that, they won't be Windows users for long. Apple has the better product, and people will see that if they give it a chance. But without Windows compatibility, they won't give Intel-based Macs any more of a chance than they do with current PPC-based Macs. If Apple is going to capitalize on this switch to increase market share (granted, that's a big IF), I still think Windows support is the key.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 9, 2005)

I agree with some of your points, most, if not all would be addressed by allowing Windows to run in a VM under OSX in a similar manner to VMware.



> The sentiment that an Intel-based Mac is "just a PC" is absurd


Well that's the whole point isn't it?  Apple can produce one of two things, an Apple Mac with an Intel CPU or a PC with an Intel CPU *called* a Mac.  You can build an Intel based computer without it being a PC, Xbox? That's not the problem.

The problem is it if Apple just become another PC maker but one with a proprietary OS included as standard.  Like buying an AMD system from Sun with Solaris. It's just a PC.

I switched to Mac because I am a UNIX guy, I've been using such systems all my professional life and I don't like Windows or PCs very much.  I wanted a NON-PC (i.e. something designed better) with a great UNIX desktop and environment. Read into that any 'issues' you like.  Sun is going the PC route, and other big UNIX players who produced custom hardware have all embraced PCs and faded.

I don't share your view that an Apple PC (called Mac) will pull people into OSX, many who can't be bothered with learning a new thing, especially if they're Windows die hards (and I've met a few) who think "Hell, just stick Windows on it, it's greatest hardware though, and worth the money!"

I think if Apple become a PC maker, that will be tragic.  I'm hoping for the 
same kind of approach to building computers as before, just with a CPU change, not another PC. Can you understand?

I WANT Windows to run on it, under OSX, and I hope this will be a feature highly touted by Apple, to run your favorite PC apps under the OSX desktop, smoothly, beautifully as we'd expect from Apple. I think regardless of how the hardware develops, this will happen, someone will make it happen if Apple don't, perhaps Microsoft will work with Apple to get Virtual PC to take advantage of the Intel chip.  However, to be able to install XP or Longhorn directly onto the Mac in a partition and boot it natively, will prove the Mac is nothing special anymore, just a nice, really nice, common PC.  I'd be saddened to see it too go down this path, I think it will lead to an inevitable decline for reasons I've explain ad infinitum elsewhere.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 10, 2005)

I can tell you right now that there's a good number of people who will buy Macs *expressly* to use XP or Longhorn or whatever else on them. My boss is one of them. As a hardware designer, Apple (cut to the chase - Jonathan Ive) is above *everyone* else. That's almost universally considered fact (just like a BMW is a better designed car than a Fiat). There are people, however, who actually prefer Windows to Mac OS. And they have that right.

Now, there'll be able to be people who are buying Apple products (hardware), and still using Windows on it. There's a chunk of the "other side"'s market share, using Apple products.

The great thing will be the crossover effect. When I bought my PowerBook, I had a number of programs which did things in XP that I used EVERY DAY, for which there remains no OS X equivalent. So I installed VirtualPC, seeing it as necessary. And for the first few weeks I used it. All the time. Now I don't. Ever.

And the same thing will happen now. People will get Intel-based VPC, which will almost certainly load at close to 100% speed, and run their programs and games and whatnot. And then they'll realise soon that they don't WANT to boot Windows. They'll be running in OS X and have given up on what's on their Windows image. If this happens in a large enough scale, this stands a good chance to result in more OS X software, since suddenly, there'll be a market there.

I know, it's going to be strange. But it's going to work.


Edit:
Another interesting thing to think about is that with Microsoft cosying up with the PPC platform for the Xbox 360, having therefore developed Direct X for it, and, likely, Visual Studio, it's not a far cry (well yes, it is, but not an extremely far cry) from a recode that puts Windows on PPC.

And then we'd have Microsoft on PPC and Apple on x86. Heh.

Then wouldn't Jobs look STOOPID if it didn't work out. What with all the burning the bridges etc.


I'm also interested to see about production delays from IBM (biting the hand that feeds you and what not).



Clearly I love my idioms.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

I see no flaw in what you say, unless Apple just make PCs, then people WILL put Windows on it, and don't bother with OSX, i.e. dual boot, or maybe even wiping the Mac OS off and just using Windows. I know some have voiced the opinion that it would be pointless and who would do that?  Well, in the last 24 hours I've been speaking/chatting online with a broader group of people and I get the impression there are a lot of people who WANT Apple to join the ranks of HP, Dell, Packard Bell et al and produce PC hardware, there are people who actually like to spend thousands on mere PCs (which is insane to me but there you go) and WANT to spend thousands on an Apple brand PC to run Windows on. Fact.

BUT, I have a little more hope today than yesterday after communicating with some PearPC users who have no expectation that Apple will make anything like a PC, an Intel chip sure, but a PC, no.  Software will need to fill the gap to emulate an idealised set PC hardware but using the real CPU, like VMware.  But be warned, that does NOT produce native speed thinking about it, I used VMware under Linux for about 4 years or maybe more, it's slower than pure native, but faster than VPC.

My view: Apple MUST provide Windows compatibility via a VM and must produce hardware different enough to deter "Average Joe" from installing Windows directly or the OSX directly on PCs. Providing a cop-out would be damaging for Apple, best to provide a Windows option, but controlled.

PearPC users are already clicking their heels with joy at the prospect of a new project to allow OSX/x86 to run in a VM, bypassing any lockouts Apple may design.


----------



## Myke (Jun 10, 2005)

fjdouse I have tried hard to follow your logic here, honest. Either I am just thick (quite possible) or it isn't being explained very well.

What makes a "PC" a "PC" or a "Mac" a "Mac"? Is it a) the operating system, b) the processor chip, c) well built hardware, d) good industrial design.

To my mind what makes a Mac is a, c and d. I haven't read in any post any suggestion that these elements will be compromised by the processor change.

So, why do you think the Mac is in danger of becoming a PC? Is it the absence of some quality not listed above? And if so, what is it?


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

He's just panicking. And:

1.) Every Mac, to me, very much was a personal computer.
2.) If people buy Macs and erase Mac OS X and use Windows on them, that's still good for Apple, since it's a Mac sold and an OS X license sold and that money can be put in developing the platform.
3.) I, as a Mac user with a brain, wouldn't buy a intel/Mac, erase Mac OS X and use Windows. Because if I _wanted_ to go Windows, I could have done that a long time ago. By buying a Windows PC.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

Christ! It ain't difficult to understand is it?

It's a PC if it's a PC. ie. PC processor. PC hardware. PC compatible. You know? PC?
If Apple make a PC in a Mac case, it's a.... PC.
If it can run Windows or any x86 OS natively, it's a... PC.
Sticking an Apple logo on it won't make it any more of a Mac, it's still a PC.
Why are so many having a hard job seeing that?

But if you actually read what I said, I said I was more hopeful today than yesterday,  but only because I had spoken to a lot of NON-Apple users who seem to understand the implications better than the Job-o-philes here.  For Apple to make an PC Compatible computer would be stupid, BUT Apple saying Windows could be installed on an Intel Mac and NOT QUALIFYING THE STATEMENT with 'but it will require software' or 'a special Windows' IMPLIES Apple will be making a PC Compatible computer.

Apple Intel based computer = Good
Apple PC Compatible = Bad


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

Fryke, yeah maybe I am panicking but you show me where a company with it's own OS and hardware has gone down the PC route and made a success of it? Where are the OSes now?

You're confusing Personal Computer with PC as in IBM PC compatible and it's decendants. Yes ALL computers are PCs (Personal Computers), not all computers are PCs as in PC compatible.  I want a world with SOME variety.

PC = doom, sorry but that is what I feel. I love computers, I hate boring PCs. I would never pay more than a £200-300 for one and I'd rather build it myself. I switched back to Mac for something DIFFERENT, not the same.  I want a world with different approaches, varied plaforms, innovation, if Apple make PC (compatibles) called Macs, it will not be the same for me.  For people who don't understand or care, so what? Makes no difference to them, it will make little difference when Apple start shipping Windows either, or when OSX is available on a HP or Sony, I don't want that. Moreover, I don't want to start a ball rolling which could lead to that.

As I have said repeatedly, I am more confident today than yesterday that Apple will be making a completely different kind of Intel computer, probably out of the "PC" (compatible) specification. I think the difference is Apple's strength and they will want to maintain it.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 10, 2005)

um. a mac is a computer that can run MacOS. G3/G4/G5 i/PowerMac: runs MacOS(x), doesn't run Windows. Intel/Mac: runs MacOS X, may run Windows.

by definition, PC means Personal Computer. PPC stands for Power PC, ie: Power Personal Computer. that is: a chip developed for personal computers, based on the Power line of CPUs.

so no, a mac with an intel chip isn't just a pc. it's a mac with an intel chip. i don't like this whole thing either, but for christ' sake. when they're using PPC everyone says they're going no where. when they change to x86 everyone complains they aren't macs any more. 

in case you hadn't noticed, the only two parts in a mac that are different to the rest of the "pc" or "wintel" world, are the CPU and mobo. the rest are all INDUSTRY STANDARD parts.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> um. a mac is a computer that can run MacOS. G3/G4/G5 i/PowerMac: runs MacOS(x), doesn't run Windows. Intel/Mac: runs MacOS X, may run Windows.



Yep, fair enough, but Macs and Apple users (until they became hypocrites) prided themselves that Macs are NOT lowly PC compatibles.



			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> by definition, PC means Personal Computer. PPC stands for Power PC, ie: Power Personal Computer. that is: a chip developed for personal computers, based on the Power line of CPUs.



mmmh, I won't nit-pick, so yeah, ok.



			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> so no, a mac with an intel chip isn't just a pc. it's a mac with an intel chip.



No it's not! What utter rubbish! If anyone makes a PC compatible, it's a PC, but if *Apple* make a PC compatible, it's not a PC?  Sorry but that is just dumb.  It's not a Mac if it's a PC compatible, it's a PC. A Mac is MORE than software!

BUT Apple CAN make an Intel computer without it being a PC compatible. BUT if Windows CAN BE INSTALLED ON IT NATIVELY, THAT WOULD INDICATE WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING PC COMPATIBLES FROM APPLE, they will just call them Macs and supply them with OSX.



			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> i don't like this whole thing either, but for christ' sake. when they're using PPC everyone says they're going no where. when they change to x86 everyone complains they aren't macs any more.



They MAY not be Macs anymore, if they are JUST going to be PC COMPATIBLES, please understand the differentiation I am making!



			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> in case you hadn't noticed, the only two parts in a mac that are different to the rest of the "pc" or "wintel" world, are the CPU and mobo. the rest are all INDUSTRY STANDARD parts.



Well, derrrr... That's obvious! Where else would the parts come from? Come on, stop being silly, you're intelligent enough to know what I am saying and that there are some major unanswered questions, I'm sorry if I upset a few fanatics by questioning Apple's wisdom on this issue, but until we have more facts, we deal with what we have. So far, it does not look too good, we MAY get lowly PC compatibles made by Apple. I don't want that. Sorry, seen too many go that route and disappear.


----------



## Myke (Jun 10, 2005)

I believe the US army has a phrase for it ...

If it looks like a Mac and it works like a Mac it's a go**amn Mac!

However, I take your point djdouse, that no operating system has ever knocked Windoze off its pedestal. And I agree that there are dangers for Apple here.

However, it is also true that no other operating system has had the finesse of the Mac, or the pre-existing user base, or the ease of use or the top class hardware.

Yes I have tried Linux and for the average user it is still a pain in the a**. Plus it doesn't run many mainstream apps.

What would make things _really_ interesting though would be to see a Linux installation with the grace and ease of use of OSX. Far from cannabilising Mac sales I think that would help open people's minds to the possibility that Bill Gates doesn't have all the answers.

People often use the VHS / Betamax anaology - good technology scuppered by better marketing is how it runs. In my view that analogy is way out of date, and based around hardware incompatibility. The best thing about the move to Intel is that it sets MacOSX free of that incompatibility issue.

And the danger from Microsoft is also overstated. Microsoft _needs_
Apple, to prove that it hasn't got a monopoly. If by some miracle Apple managed to knock a real dent in MS's share of the market, it would be too late by that time and too embarrassing for them to, for example, pull out of MS Office for Mac.

I have read more posts in the macosx forums than is good for my mental 'elf     and what is most depressing about them is the pessimism and negativity they reveal.

Let's all get behind Apple at this time. It maybe doesn't want our support but it certainly doesn't need our animosity.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 10, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Christ! It ain't difficult to understand is it?
> 
> It's a PC if it's a PC. ie. PC processor. PC hardware. PC compatible. You know? PC?


Well, I think the confusion (mine and others') stems from the fact that we're going on different definitions of "PC". To me, what makes a "Mac" different from a "PC" is the OS it runs, not the OSes it is _capable_ of running. My Mac _can_ run Linux, but it doesn't, so that doesn't make it any less of a Mac. Hardware is only a factor to me in the sense that Apple has a unique design philosophy in the computer world. Neither the OS nor Apple's design philosophy is bound to change much, if at all.

Again, I'd call an Apple machine running Linux or BeOS a PC, not a Mac. And I've always considered non-Apple computers running the Mac OS to be just as much Macs as Apple's computers. I remember that Apple used to ship Macs that actually COULD run Windows natively, through a PC Compatibility card. They were still Macs.

I'm trying to understand here (and I apologize for my earlier comments; I really didn't get your point, and I'm not sure I even do now). I can't see how you feel the LACK of compatibility with Windows (all else being equal) can be a good thing. It (presumably) wouldn't change the hardware, or its ability to run OS X, in any way. It's just an EXTRA feature. How can this make it worse?

If your problem is with the move to Intel, and you just feel it's an inferior architecture, then I can understand that; heck, I even agree  I _still_ haven't heard any really convincing arguments that the G5 is in worse shape than the Pentium 4 (IINM, Intel has increased their clock speeds LESS in the past two years than IBM has!). But, since they _are_ moving to Intel, what is there to gain by NOT supporting other OSes? I just don't see how extra OS support makes it any less of a Mac when it's running the Mac OS. To me, it seems like the best of both worlds.

This is, of course, operating under the assumption that the hardware will be the same either way, as Phil Schiller sort of implied. IF Apple is faced with the choice between supporting/enabling Windows to run on their machines and making their machines run the Mac OS better (say, with extra hardware components that simply don't support Windows), then certainly, I think Apple should forget about Windows support altogether. But if there are no such barriers to Windows support...well, why not?



			
				fjdouse said:
			
		

> Yep, fair enough, but Macs and Apple users (until they became hypocrites) prided themselves that Macs are NOT lowly PC compatibles.


Not me. I've been using Macs since long before the PPC, and I was never proud of a _lack_ of compatibility. I don't use Macs because I want a machine that CAN'T run Windows; I use Macs because I want a machine that CAN run the Mac OS. It's the Mac compatibility that makes it what it is, not the Windows INcompatibility.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

Ok, although I could list the reasons, I am not getting through and I'm apparently unable to articulate it.

I don't give a stuff if Windows runs or not, it's an inferior OS to any UNIX including Linux and is a mass-market OS for those who won't, can't or don't have much I.T. savvy. Each to their own. I don't want to use it and thank God I've managed to avoid that dull OS designed for the lazy, the inept and secretaries ;-)

I'm a UNIX guy, have been all my life, and by looking at some profiles here, I've been a UNIX user for longer than many here have even been alive.  Although I enjoyed my old Macs (PowerBook 520, PowerMac 5500), I came back because of the low-cost PowerPC based Mac mini PLUS the UNIX powered OS X, both. Perhaps my experiences over time have just taught me that playing in the Wintel world is a dance with death which none have survived.  I can remember the optimism I had when many 'unique hardware and OS makers' entered the PC markets, thinking how it would be good, but it wasn't.  Apart from Apple, the computer landscape is bleak, perhaps as I get older and see that computers are just not really going anywhere beyond the bland, souped up, IBM PC derivatives which are technically boring and inferior to any architecture designed from the ground up. All the unique machines are gone or going, what's left? 

Now Apple are moving to Intel, not a bad move per se. They could design something from the ground up and produce something that demonstrates to PC users that a well designed Intel can run rings around a Windows PC. BUT I fear that may not be so, especially if Windows CAN be installed on it. To be able to install Windows, it MUST be a standard PC COMPATIBLE.  Yet another PC.  Another company like Dell, HP et al. Nothing unique, nothing special. Nothing interesting or inspiring even.  The cult of Mac will start to fade.

It depends on what kind of machine they make.  The developer machine doesn't give any clues, apart from the possiblility of what I consider to be the worst case scenario.


----------



## kainjow (Jun 10, 2005)

Wow, a lot of confusions and misconceptions here.

What makes a Mac a Mac, and a PC a PC? Integration. A Mac is a Mac because of the way the operating system (Mac OS X) integrates with the hardware. It is seamless.

What makes a PC a PC? The OS not being well integrated with the hardware. A PC is also defined by the ability to customize almost 100% of the hardware. I could also define a PC as a computer that ships with an operating system that is NOT the Mac OS.

Apple developing a Mac using Intel's processors will still be a Mac. Apple is not giving up quality for quantity (ala Dell, HP, Gateway, etc). They will still have top of the line components.

Even if people find a way to run OS X on their non-Mac computers, do you think the average Joe User will follow? No. It'll be unsupported, and illegal.

Everyone just take a chill pill. It'll be fine. I'll willing to bet Apple's going to come out with some great new designs for their PowerBooks and Power Mac's, and possibly the Mac mini and iBooks. It's going to be great


----------



## kainjow (Jun 10, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Another company like Dell, HP et al. Nothing unique, nothing special. Nothing interesting or inspiring even.  The cult of Mac will start to fade.


What makes Macs special and what will continue to make them special is not only that they ship with an operating system that is secure, easy, productive, reliable, and enjoyable, but also that they are well designed machines.

It's not about the processor. The processor won't change the quality and design of the machines and the operating system. Why would it? It's about the entire experience: the hardware, the software, the support, the community.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

Ok, I'm done on this, it's quite exhausting and the 'iBlind' don't see it, no matter what I write, they just do not get it. So I am really wasting my time.

Trying to redefine what a PC is to suit your arguement is.... pointless.  A PC refers to a Personal Computer, yes, it's a generic term.  But most intelligent people understand it is referring to a hardware platform based around common x86 CPUs and designs going back to the original IBM PC.  What makes a PC a PC or Mac a Mac, is it's platform, it's hardware and software, that's it.

If Apple make a machine as unique as any other Mac but with an Intel chip, no problem. I'm sure that without the PC's legacy baggage, a really nice and efficient machine can be designed. Clock speed for clock speed, it could put PC compatibles to shame.

If Apple make fancy PC (and I don't mean Personal Computer) compatible machines, which are merely branded Mac with OSX ported to x86, it will not be the same, except to point-n-click users who will not know any different or care... at first. It will mark the start of a decline. You can go on and on about it being well designed (as far as PC can be) and how nicely it's put together, but beyond the fancy case, it will be the same as any other PC on the planet.  If Apple start down this path, it will lead to a slow decline, don't believe me? Don't.  I'm not selling anything for you to buy into here, I am stating my view based upon my knowledge, training, studies and years as a systems engineer and how historically such moves go.

Ten years from now I expect Apple to be here, no doubt. Will it enjoy the fanatical loyalty it has commanded since the 70's?  Not if it's been forced into the category of PC maker, just another dull company like HP, Dell etc. etc.  Probably with die hards clinging to their last copies of OSX before it became an open source project to be stripped and went the way of OS/2, Solaris, IBM's Thinkpads, Star Trek Enterprise, CP/M, DOS, XP and the dinosaurs..  :-/

Anyway, like I say, I'm done on this. I'm not alone, others share my concerns about this move, many (beyond the conventional Mac users) are waiting for Apple hardware to put Windows on it, many are waiting for OSX/x86 copies to hack onto their PCs as they think the hardware isn't worth it. It doesn't matter how hard it is or isn't, anyone with a modicom of intelligence beyond point-n-click will be able to figure it out, unless Apple maintain the protectionism which has guaranteed it's difference over the years. Competition is not always a good thing, protectionism is sometimes required.

It doesn't matter in the final analysis, things change for better or worse, as the markets dictate, even if I find it boring and soul-destroying, some people are actually into PCs and like it, oh well.  It's only 1s and 0s, not life changing, just irritating.

In the meantime, any further purchases of Apple hardware (we were planning to get G4 iBooks) are in limbo until I see what the future brings.

;-)


----------



## Pengu (Jun 10, 2005)

actually..
just to add fuel to the fire.

if you base a PC and a Mac on whether you can install windows...

Microsoft had a version of NT(3, maybe 4?) that ran on x86, Alpha, and PPC. that's what they're using for XBOX 360. a custom Windows kernel (running on a g5 for the dev kit).

so by your logic anything that will run NT-PPC is a crappy pc too.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

No, my logic is either incommunicable by me, or unintelligible to you if that last post was anything to go by. So we're done. I'm good for a re-visit on this in a year.


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

Okay. We'll talk in a year about it, then.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 10, 2005)

Of course, the other thing to consider (as fjdouse said) is that Intel might just drop the legacy portion of x86 that makes is backwards compatible to the 8088s, 286s, 386s, and so on.  Remember that this was the whole point of ia64, Intel's competing 64-bit technology which didn't fare so well in the Windows world because of this fact.  This is why MS decided to join up with AMD and support their x86-64 initiative, forcing Intel to come up with a compatibility element in their Pentium processors which we now know as EM64T.  I'm sure they still have ia64 technology (and not just the Itanium which uses this) and this might be will keep the Intel Macs running more efficiently than x86 PCs running WIndows/Linux/whatever.  No one needs that extra baggage on the Mac side, but some emulation or whatever to allow for this would be available to a virtual machine for running Windows from an OS X Intel Mac while still giving us Mac users better performance when running WIndows in a virtual machine.  Who knows....


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 11, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Now Apple are moving to Intel, not a bad move per se. They could design something from the ground up and produce something that demonstrates to PC users that a well designed Intel can run rings around a Windows PC. BUT I fear that may not be so, especially if Windows CAN be installed on it. To be able to install Windows, it MUST be a standard PC COMPATIBLE.  Yet another PC.  Another company like Dell, HP et al. Nothing unique, nothing special. Nothing interesting or inspiring even.  The cult of Mac will start to fade.


I get you now; that makes sense. I agree, too. I would definitely prefer to see Apple continue to innovate with hardware. If they can do things with Intel's offerings that make their systems better, then I think they should. I should have mentioned earlier that everything I'm proposing (and I believe most people in this thread) is operating on the assumption that Apple will be using standard PC architectures (we know they're using x86; how much room for innovation is there, really?). And as long as they are, I think Windows compatibility would be a great move for them, since it would require no real effort. I do NOT think they should go out of their way to add Windows compatibility if doing so would compromise the Mac experience when running the Mac OS.

Before, it sounded like you meant that you'd rather Apple not support Windows simply for the sake of...not supporting Windows. That's what made me so confused. But I get your point now: You're not objecting so much to the idea of running Windows, but the as-yet-inconfirmed implications of such compatibility.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 11, 2005)

YES!!! You've got it!  ;-)


----------



## gerbick (Jun 11, 2005)

All of this because of a processor?  Ever thought that this might be a cost-saving procedure?  No more R&D on hardware... money invested on making the OS that much better.

It'll still be virus-free - initially - and still be better than Windows.  Just a different processor that might actually bring prices down and thus expanding their market share.

Just a thought.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jun 11, 2005)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> I can tell you right now that there's a good number of people who will buy Macs *expressly* to use XP or Longhorn or whatever else on them. My boss is one of them. As a hardware designer, Apple (cut to the chase - Jonathan Ive) is above *everyone* else. That's almost universally considered fact (just like a BMW is a better designed car than a Fiat). There are people, however, who actually prefer Windows to Mac OS. And they have that right.


That's fine...

But, to use your analogy, who the hell is going to buy a BMW and put into it a Fiat engine, Fiat seats and Fiat instrument gagues?

If you want a damn Mac (BMW), then forget your friggin WinDoze OS (Fiat) all together. Must run a VirtualPC-like Windows program, then you'll have to do it in a trailer and not as a native bolt on to the main car.


----------



## Viro (Jun 15, 2005)

My personal opinion is that supporting Windows on the Mac will kill OS X. Here's why.

Consider that: 
1) Every software company wants to maximize profits. 
2) Every Mactel can run Windows and OS X.
3) Every PC can run Windows and not OS X.

Assuming the above statements are true, why on earth would any software company develop for OS X any more? By developing exclusively for Windows, you reach everybody: Mactel users and Wintel users. Developing for OS X will lock you in; cutting your potential market by a very significant amount since only the Mactels and the old Mac users will be able to run your software. Given the size of the Mactels, is this really a good position to take? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just axe OS X development and focus completely on Windows?

Aside from the 'feel good' factor, there is very little reason for a software company to support OS X if the new Mactels can run Windows. As such I would be quite surprised if they allowed you to run Windows on the new Mactels. It doesn't make sense to me. But then again, Apple's actions of late have made very little sense to me.


----------



## fryke (Jun 15, 2005)

Not EVERY intel Mac can run Windows. Only those whose users buy Windows licenses. And until Apple releases the first intel Mac in June 2006, we even don't know whether Macs can boot into Windows. (Although some kind of virtual machine software will probably appear sooner or later.)


----------



## Qion (Jun 15, 2005)

I agree with you Viro. I really don't see why Apple would allow Macs to support running Windows, even if it is x86 based. The Mac would die. It wouldn't be an Apple anymore. 

I do understand Job's action to take on Intel's processors, however. He is trying to provide the best possible computing environment for his faithful crowd. Intel will make the Mac better and faster than ever; that is if they choose not to support (satan).


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 15, 2005)

OK, I'll bite..

These points you raise are part of the hidden implications I've been talking about in various threads, which most seem oblivious to. How long will it be before you see:

*Mac Compatible**
_*Requires Microsoft Windows_

on products, it seems far fetched but it will come if we're not careful. I don't think that many who are embracing this change, blindly, I'd add, have thought or even understand the implications. Someone said to me the other day, Apple's days of making their own hardware platforms is over, the dream is dead, they are becoming a PC maker. I agree, if the PC version of Windows is going to run native on an Intel Mac, it's ONLY possible if an Intel Mac is actually a PC, a point lost on many here.  There is ONLY ONE dominant OS on PCs, Windows.  I think many Mac users, have too much faith or are not objective about OS X, I like it, I think it's the best UNIX OS on the planet, but I know a few people who simply didn't like it.  I've also read a lot of comments from people in the PC world who are litterally gagging for Apple branded PCs to run Windows on, they can't wait. There are Linux users also in the same camp.

I've emotionally worn myself out on this issue, personally I find the idea of a Windows-compatible Mac, which would HAVE to be a PC, to be deeply tragic. Beyond the hype are signs of Apple holding their hands up and saying "yep, we're beat", further implications of course mean that hardware development will drop dramatically, except designing PCs and in time, even OS X will start to slow.  If Microsoft feel challenged, they can turn off their Mac BU with a click of the fingers, if Adobe with it's recently aquired Macromedia, start to get cold feet about supporting a tiny "PC" niche, that's game over for OS X.

If you're a big developer looking to deploy into the PC market, Apple being one of many PC makers, Windows and maybe in time Linux will be preferred over OS X with a tiny user base, limited to Apple hardware. Of course, Apple could then sell it to all PC owners, then what? Why buy the hardware?

It's all a nasty, messy, complicated can of worms and by the comments I've read here, not many realise or care.  Let's wait and see.

I am praying that the Intel Mac will NOT boot Windows (the software Satan) and will not be a fancy PC, but that would contradict the comments made by Apple.


----------



## Viro (Jun 15, 2005)

@fryke
A Windows license isn't a very costly investment. In fact it is much cheaper than Virtual PC, and as an added benefit it will provide native Windows performance. For the price of Windows XP (or Longhorn or whatever they will call it then) you have a fast Windows machine and an OS X machine. 

How many people will buy Windows just to play the games? How many will buy Windows once they see that some software that they need isn't available on OS X or doesn't run as well on OS X as it does on Windows? If you make it an option, you can bet that people will jump at the opportunity to install Windows on the new Mactels.

As a software developer, would it be cost effective to develop for OS X knowing that if your target audience really wanted to run your application, they could just buy a Windows license? Compare the price of a Windows license to an app like Photoshop, 3DS Max, AutoCAD, Matlab, <insert your app here> and you'll see that the added cost of the Windows license isn't too much.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 15, 2005)

Valid points. It comes down to money at the end of the day.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 16, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> My personal opinion is that supporting Windows on the Mac will kill OS X. Here's why.
> 
> Consider that:
> 1) Every software company wants to maximize profits.
> ...



Mac OS X Software cannot run on Windows. This is because the operating systems are completely different in their foundation. X is a Unix variant, while well Windows is, uhm, well Windows.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 16, 2005)

That's missing the point. OS X can't run Windows but IF Intel Macs (PCs) CAN run Windows natively by dual booting, developers can say, "buy Windows, it's a necessary component to run our software".


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 16, 2005)

As much as I am looking forward to the change, I can't help but have the same fear as fjdouse in this respect.  I'm hoping that the worst-case-scenario that we ever see is what we've seen all along even with the PPC inside Macs, which is seeing apps ported over to the Mac after the PC version.  Hopefully, we won't even see _this_ situation at all either, since it seems as though developers are looking positively to this transition.

In all seriousness, it would be unintelligent to buy a Mac just for the design and slap Windows on it, especially since _you would have to purchase a legal copy of Windows._  And if you haven't noticed, Windows XP is even more expensive than Mac OS X.  Yes, there will be those with pirated copies installing, but those don't count.  Either way, Apple has sold a Mactel with a Mac OS X license and OS installed.  If someone wanted Windows, they would buy something considerably less with Windows already installed and FULL hardware compatibility out of the box...for the most part  (remember, we don't know what the final Mactels will look like on the inside, other than the Intel part).


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 16, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> it would be unintelligent to buy a Mac just for the design and slap Windows on it



It would be unintelligent to believe that there are a huge number of people who wouldn't, take a look at the various forums where PC monkeys are salivating with anticipation for an Apple PC.  I know many people myself who love the hardware designs but hate the OS with a passion, we're not very objective about our pet OS, we find it difficult that anyone would NOT like it, but it's true. I hated it at first, to be honest, it seemed counter intuitive, perhaps I was just too used to GNOME or KDE, I missed doing things the way I was used to - *that's* the point! It took a few days of persistence. Now imagine you're a switcher on the Intel Mac, you've already *GOT* XP, how many wouldn't install it? C'mon, be serious, people *ARE* going to install Windows, in *LARGE* numbers and a large percentage are going to use it as their main OS.  XP isn't that expensive, especially the home edition, and yeah, we have to count those with dodgy copies too. Don't forget, Windows has a much longer shelf life than OS X, how many releases have come from Apple since XP?


----------



## Viro (Jun 16, 2005)

Visitors to PC forums aren't the general PC using public . Important point to note there.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 16, 2005)

Again, if you were a switcher, you wouldn't even bother to shoehorn Windows on your new Mac.  If you were a switcher, you would be using the Mac OS and keep WIndows on your old PC (if you were to keep it).  If you wanted Windows, you would get a PC which would probably be a little cheaper and not even bother with the Mac.  It all boils down to common sense for the common computer user.  Geeks like us might do it, although I personally don't see why.  The thought of it reminds me when I tried to install QNX on my PC just to see it work.  In the end, it didn't do anything for me and I got rid of it.  Total waste of time.  And yes, geeks like us MIGHT use a copy of Windows on it whether it was legal or not, but consider that you still purchased the hardware and software, so Apple doesn't lose anything at all...they still make a buck.

fjdouse, you mentioned how we might not be objective to our OS, but consider that you aren't thinking objectively about what a computer is to regular users.  Regular users don't care about how technically superior the hardware is.  They just want their computer to work for them, which means they will get a computer with Windows if they want Windows, or they will get an Intel Mac with the Mac OS...they won't even CARE that it's an Intel Mac if they want the Mac.  They'll just care that they are using something that works for them and appeals to them, be it Windows or Mac OS X.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 16, 2005)

As for the geek factor.....

If they wanted to play around with the Mac OS, they could install either Basilisk II or use PearPC just for an idea of what it would be like.  Sure it's not what we all experience on our Macs (or at least what I've experienced on OS X Macs since I'm still too poor to afford one ) but it's enough to get their feet wet.  This is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than shelling out the cash for the Mactel hardware, since some would most likely download the OS from a p2p site for their PearPC emulator.

I have used Basilisk II and am quite happy with it on my PC.  I have also used Linux and it has become my main OS on the PC side.  PearPC I haven't used but haven't felt the need to personally.

Yes, geeks will try to do it, but don't confuse the geeks with the n00bs.  The latter just wants to get the job done with whatever works for them at the most affordable way possible.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 16, 2005)

No, I think you're wrong.  Saying buyers of Intel Macs will keep their PCs is utter nonsense, I'll say it again, though I'm getting tired of repeating it, IF Apple make a Mac which can install and boot Windows natively, IT WILL BE A PC. A switcher wouldn't keep their old junk, they'd probably get rid of it, and you don't have to be a geek or OS nit to appreciate the hardware, even my father knows Apple make beautiful, classy hardware and he knows NOTHING about computers and doesn't even own one!  Not everyone who will buy an Apple PC (branded as a Mac) will want the OS that comes with it, some will want just the hardware. 

I'm just repeating myself now.  I'm done.


----------



## Cat (Jun 17, 2005)

> IF Apple make a Mac which can install and boot Windows natively, IT WILL BE A PC.


Which is not going to happen. It is simply not the case. Schiller just said they wouln'd spend any money on preventing it from happening. If it is going to reaquire even a moderate amount of (hardware/firmware) hacking it is not an issue. There is less thatn 0.1% of the market capable or willing to do such a thing (like installing a modchip), which would certainly void the warranty. We do not yet know what kind of specs the new Mac/x86 machines will have: what motherboard? What chipset? Moreover, what about the processor? Will it be a dual core processor (probably yes)? a 64 bit processor (probably yes)? dual processors i nthe Pro machines (probably yes)? Well, I don't know what the level of support for tha tis in windows. AFAIK the Home edition doesn't support all that yet. So all this fuss about windows booting natively is really premature, we don't know whether it will be possible, because we do not know what parts Apple will be using.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 17, 2005)

sigh... which is why I said IF.

1. The information we have in the dev kits is they are generic Intel PC-Compatible motherboards
2. Schiller said about Windows "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that." he didn't say a word about running Windows apps UNDER OS X (VM,VPC etc)
3. Windows only runs on PC-Compatibles

Therefore it is a reasonable deduction that Schiller meant although the combination may not be officially supported by Apple, Windows could probably run. Since Windows requires a PC-Compatible to run on, we can deduce further without a quantum leap of logic that Intel Macs will in fact be PC-Compatibles. Not rocket science. You can still make a PC-Compatible with an additional proprietary chip (or something) which will be unique ENOUGH to allow OS X to know it's running on a Apple brand PC (Mac), which also means OS X will fail on non-Apple hardware.

The thing I find amusing is if I'd said this is the way things would go two years ago, I'd have been torn to shreds.  Now it's embraced with a concomitant ignorance of the implications.

Many think it's a good move, could be great for business, I think it's risky in the least, moreover I think it's a shame that Apple, once known as a great developer of it's own hardware is going down the PC route like all the others. OK it's doing it slightly different and may bring some really nice machines to the PC world, there will be many style-conscious Windows users who will want them, but although a great short-mid term move, longer term it could see further erosion of either the hardware or software side of the Mac, the worst case being both.  I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a few years further down the line the removal the hardware lock out and licencing of OS X, de-coupling the hardware and software, would be a suicidal move longer term, as much as it may be 'fun' to have OS X on a HP or Dell PC!

Look, I mean no disrespect, but in all seriousness, it's as clear as day to me and to everyone I've spoken to, who have all concluded the same.  I can't spend my time here just saying the same thing over and over, it's wearing me out and making me miserable to be honest and I'm just slowly loosing enthusiasm in the whole thing. I'll end up just being labelled a troll or a FUD smearer, with nothing else to say.

Part of me wants to see just a swap of the CPU and supporting components, no PC compatibility beyond that in software (using the real CPU of course) under OS X, that's my HOPE.

What little information we have points to a PC-Compatible future, that's my FEAR.  Because that would mean a complete change about for Apple and has only one implication.. MONEY, they are slowly looking to move into the PC market more agressively, I've always enjoyed the fact that Apple were on the independent fringes. If that makes me wrong, so be it.

I AM done on this thread now, please don't be offended if I don't reply, it will not be useful.

BTW if you thing that the Mac mini's are going to be dual-core 64bit, I think you'd better sit down, have a coffee and re-think that.  ;-)  I'll happily argue about that in a new thread..


----------



## Nyssa Ameris (Jun 23, 2005)

Well, speculation is just that.

   I don't think that Jobs is just going to drop the ball here. It's possible that Intel will make a custom chip for apple, one that will handle the needs of being able to go faster without having to install asbestos around the CPU. As it stands, the latest G5 needs to be liquid cooled. They're reaching a limit with the PowerPC line.

   Radical change is needed to keep going. I'm thinking this is the main reason Jobs chose to go with Intel for the next generation in chips. This is a wise move if true. I'm hedging my bet on that OSX won't become like OS9.x. Jobs wouldn't be that stupid to jump off the bandwagon, just as the music vamps up.

   I heard that Leopard (OSX 10.5) is preparing to pounce, developmentally. I feel confident the transition will be seamless and smooth and no integrity will be lost with OSX, and the hardware it will run on. Keep in mind, it's the OS that's prone to viruses, not the CPU.

-- Nyssa


----------

