Will Apple drop OS X in favour of Windows?

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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
DirectX! That is good news....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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!


.
 
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.
 
Quicksilver said:
Now if you can just imagine this...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
fryke said:
Let's take Adobe Photoshop as an example...
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 ;)


.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top