ya'll gotta relax
- Thread starter chornbe
- Start date
I think this is going to be a great thing... if I can dual boot into OS X and Windows (as even Apple seems to think I'll be able to do at some point soon after the switch), that means I only have to upgrade/replace one computer moving forward. No more separate boxes for OS X and Windows/Linux! No more KVM switches! No more SMB hassles!
Add to this the fact that WINE will almost certainly appear on OS X, and I may not even need Windows at all for things like Quickbooks and other programs with either substandard Mac versions or no Mac version at all...
My only concern is that if Macs run Windows apps as well (or pretty darn close to) as Windows itself (either in dual-boot or emulation modes), developers might not see the need to develop Mac-native programs.
Still, I'm very positive about the long-term benefit of this change. I think it's going to help the Mac community in ways we haven't even realized yet.
Add to this the fact that WINE will almost certainly appear on OS X, and I may not even need Windows at all for things like Quickbooks and other programs with either substandard Mac versions or no Mac version at all...
My only concern is that if Macs run Windows apps as well (or pretty darn close to) as Windows itself (either in dual-boot or emulation modes), developers might not see the need to develop Mac-native programs.
Still, I'm very positive about the long-term benefit of this change. I think it's going to help the Mac community in ways we haven't even realized yet.
tumbleguts
Registered
Agreed.
I can't understand why all of a sudden people are so worried about whether or not Windows will run on the up-coming Intel-Macs. I mean, come-on! We all know Windows is a buggy piece of crap. If ill-intentioned idiots want to want to run it on their new Intel-Macs - who cares! This shameful display of insecurity is not what being a member of the 'Mac class' is all about.
Take pride in the fact that Apple is securing the future so Macs have the fastest processors available for the their 'superior' machines. If you care about Apple being around and competing on any level in the next decade and beyond - seriously, this is the ONLY way to go. Out of this arrangement we will get faster and cooler processors for the Apple laptops. We will get faster processors for the desktop machines that can ALWAYS compete with the competition. And, we will most likely get access to other hardware (like graphics cards) without the relevant companies having to make specialised Mac versions. Combine that with OS X "... the most advanced operating system on the planet", and Apple is primed for a win, win situation.
To quote an earlier post;
"Keep in mind that Macintosh computers will always distingish itself from the crowd though the use of clever innovation, use of overall quality hardware components, amazing software, and the use of form and function - to create computers that not only work better but look better too."
This is a smart move by Apple.
I can't understand why all of a sudden people are so worried about whether or not Windows will run on the up-coming Intel-Macs. I mean, come-on! We all know Windows is a buggy piece of crap. If ill-intentioned idiots want to want to run it on their new Intel-Macs - who cares! This shameful display of insecurity is not what being a member of the 'Mac class' is all about.
Take pride in the fact that Apple is securing the future so Macs have the fastest processors available for the their 'superior' machines. If you care about Apple being around and competing on any level in the next decade and beyond - seriously, this is the ONLY way to go. Out of this arrangement we will get faster and cooler processors for the Apple laptops. We will get faster processors for the desktop machines that can ALWAYS compete with the competition. And, we will most likely get access to other hardware (like graphics cards) without the relevant companies having to make specialised Mac versions. Combine that with OS X "... the most advanced operating system on the planet", and Apple is primed for a win, win situation.
To quote an earlier post;
"Keep in mind that Macintosh computers will always distingish itself from the crowd though the use of clever innovation, use of overall quality hardware components, amazing software, and the use of form and function - to create computers that not only work better but look better too."
This is a smart move by Apple.
HomunQlus
Artifical Lifeform
chornbe said:
I think that since Mac OS X is a Unix system, and Windows is a Windows system, it is pretty obvious that apps from one system won't run natively on the other one (unless you have Wine, which allows you to run some Windows apps on OS X, but there's still no way to run OS X apps on Windows though).
Cat
Registered
AFAIK "dual boot Macintosh with windows on a second drive" is not a certainty, at all. Schiller said that some people will probably try this, and Apple wasn't going to actively stop them. However, _running_ Windows is one thing, _booting_ windows another. You will probably be able to run windows or windows programs inside the Mac OS, but whether you will be able to boot an unmodified intelliMac straight into windows is still doubtful.
Squibler
Registered
I am still not sure about this, these new Intel chips just can't be as fast as the PowerPC chips that Apple has, and is evolving. Intel chips are cheap, they don't last as long and they definately don't deliver the same speed. What was Apple thinking? A Mac is a Mac, Mac has never ventured into the Wintel world before and they are going great. They have an amazing OS and I just think an Intel processor might ruin the OS. This developer thing, having to write codes from the ground up is a bit daunting, Mac made the OS9 to OSX change and that stirred a few people up with the transition and now they want to try and change the hardware.
Apple was known well to think different - they have just joined the Intel world and suddenly they aren't so different any more.
Don't get me wrong, I am still on Apple's side.
Apple was known well to think different - they have just joined the Intel world and suddenly they aren't so different any more.
Don't get me wrong, I am still on Apple's side.
As far as speed goes, I think that this may be why Apple is making the switch now. Granted the top end Pentium IV is not as fast as the PPC equivalent (though there's not much in it), but I'm guessing that Intel is ready to launch it's next generation processor - and IBM have no plans for a G5 replacement.
Assuming that this is the case, Intel will leave the G5 way behind quite quickly. Apple looked at the respective Processor roadmaps, saw this and decided that the time had come for the switch.
Assuming that this is the case, Intel will leave the G5 way behind quite quickly. Apple looked at the respective Processor roadmaps, saw this and decided that the time had come for the switch.
symphonix
Scratch & Sniff Committee
As I said in another post...
If you're still in doubt about the Intel switch, take the time (60 quite entertaining mins) to watch to Keynote announcement of it before you make unbased claims. It'll tell you exactly what is real and what isn't.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
- There was no mention of Windows compatibility. Windows is not likely to be a priority for Apple or for almost all of the users who buy Macs. Frankly, I suspect most Mac users don't want to use Windows anyway.
- Universal Binaries and Rosetta will make the switch of hardware transparent to the end user. You'll still run the same .app file and it'll do exactly the same thing regardless of hardware. On Intel hardware, pre-migration apps will run in an emulation layer called "Rosetta" which was demonstrated running Office and PhotoShop. Post migration, the apps will be compiled to run on both platforms natively.
- The PowerPC has not been abandoned, yet. There will still be PowerPC based products in the future. For the next few years, Apple will probably use PowerPC chips wherever they are the most effective option.
- You won't be running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, either. Apple will be locking down the OS to the hardware very tightly. The reason for this isn't that they want to restrict us. With non-Apple hardware, installing and using Mac OS X may or may not be a compatibility nightmare, and they don't want people to have a bad experience of the OS.
- Finally, the impression I got from Steve's comments is that they were going with Intel because Intel have a proven record of being able to develop quickly, and ship in huge quantities, at a reasonable price.
If you're still in doubt about the Intel switch, take the time (60 quite entertaining mins) to watch to Keynote announcement of it before you make unbased claims. It'll tell you exactly what is real and what isn't.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
- There was no mention of Windows compatibility. Windows is not likely to be a priority for Apple or for almost all of the users who buy Macs. Frankly, I suspect most Mac users don't want to use Windows anyway.
- Universal Binaries and Rosetta will make the switch of hardware transparent to the end user. You'll still run the same .app file and it'll do exactly the same thing regardless of hardware. On Intel hardware, pre-migration apps will run in an emulation layer called "Rosetta" which was demonstrated running Office and PhotoShop. Post migration, the apps will be compiled to run on both platforms natively.
- The PowerPC has not been abandoned, yet. There will still be PowerPC based products in the future. For the next few years, Apple will probably use PowerPC chips wherever they are the most effective option.
- You won't be running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, either. Apple will be locking down the OS to the hardware very tightly. The reason for this isn't that they want to restrict us. With non-Apple hardware, installing and using Mac OS X may or may not be a compatibility nightmare, and they don't want people to have a bad experience of the OS.
- Finally, the impression I got from Steve's comments is that they were going with Intel because Intel have a proven record of being able to develop quickly, and ship in huge quantities, at a reasonable price.
CreativeEye
Registered
pjeski - IBM hit a wall, development on the G5 chip just stalled - and their main customers are now the games machines makers.
why develop for apple when they are tiny slice of revenue?
plus IBM could never get enough G5 chips to apple as they needed them. their supply chain was terrible - and its well documented that it was.
those are facts.
so do you see how as a sound business decision it actually makes sense?
do you?...
why develop for apple when they are tiny slice of revenue?
plus IBM could never get enough G5 chips to apple as they needed them. their supply chain was terrible - and its well documented that it was.
those are facts.
so do you see how as a sound business decision it actually makes sense?
do you?...
Lt Major Burns
"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
why?
Because no one, not even Jobs, knows how far IBM is from the next chip. And no one, not even Jobs, knows that intel is going to be any better. Jobs just knows one thing. IBM failed to deliver on the 3GHz chip. And he is going to punish them. All of you on the pro intel side have been saying that IBM does not care enough about the Apple market to perform for them. Well, do you really think intel cares? 2.4 percent of the market and intel is supposed to get worked up? Who do you think is going to get stiffed if there is a delivery problem, Dell (at what, 20% of the market) or Apple, at 2%. Apple had roughtly 100% of the Power PC Computer market. Even if games are taking a larger portion of the chips, Apple would always be a bigger customer to IBM than to intel. intel will only provide Apple with the current chips that every other PC maker is getting. They may even, (and should) give Dell first access to the best chips. Apple is nothing to intel once the news subsides. Apple is now stuck in the mainstream.
Do you see how foolish and emotional Jobs is? Do you?...
Do you see how foolish and emotional Jobs is? Do you?...