Windows on Macs: The Average-Joe magnet

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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 :D 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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

;-)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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....
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top