Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
First Developer Intel Macs (Photos)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MacRumors said:
Right, like there isn't going to be a hack for that once the system is released...
This is interesting, but as several people here have said, not particularly meaningful in any way. All it tells us is what we already know; that for these stopgap developer-only machines Apple took a standard PC motherboard and jammed it into a G5 case. Of course it looks ugly, of course it doesn't yet have any protection or customized features yet, and of course it'll run Windows at this stage.
When a "real" x86 Mac ships, I'm sure that at the very least Apple will have a case designed around a motheboard they like, and at best (what I'm hoping for) they'll have a custom designed motherboard to fit their case--although this increases costs somewhat, I prefer that form follow function rather than trying to design a case around a generic motheboard.
What this doesn't answer definitively, is if Apple actually will use one of these hardware locking chips, and whether shipping consumer products will use Open Firmware or BIOS (oh, please, stick with OF, Apple--x86 I can accept, but go BIOS, and I might have to bleed myself in protest).
I'm really, really, really hoping that Apple will keep building computers like they do now, just with the PPC chip replaced by an x86 chip, rather than going all out with the commodity components and PC-oriented motheboard design.
When a "real" x86 Mac ships, I'm sure that at the very least Apple will have a case designed around a motheboard they like, and at best (what I'm hoping for) they'll have a custom designed motherboard to fit their case--although this increases costs somewhat, I prefer that form follow function rather than trying to design a case around a generic motheboard.
What this doesn't answer definitively, is if Apple actually will use one of these hardware locking chips, and whether shipping consumer products will use Open Firmware or BIOS (oh, please, stick with OF, Apple--x86 I can accept, but go BIOS, and I might have to bleed myself in protest).
I'm really, really, really hoping that Apple will keep building computers like they do now, just with the PPC chip replaced by an x86 chip, rather than going all out with the commodity components and PC-oriented motheboard design.
frankly thats poetry to my ears. i would have loved to be installing OSX onto my home PC's but i think Apple has changed my way of thinking. im all for the EDID thingy.
i just had a thought about the exterior design of these babies. now would be a good time to bring out a new style, but honestly i dont think they will. i think it will be 2007 when new-look hardware is popping up. why upset Apple fans even more? unless its a killer design (it will HAVE to be good to match up to these current PowerBooks) 2 big changes in a short time will be bad for Apple.
i am planning on selling my G4 PB in a years time. looks like these babies maintain their value brilliantly. probably only have to spend £200 extra to get a Mactel PowerBook i feel bad losing the PPC but i need speed. especially because ill be in my 3rd year of uni with all the big power applications
i just had a thought about the exterior design of these babies. now would be a good time to bring out a new style, but honestly i dont think they will. i think it will be 2007 when new-look hardware is popping up. why upset Apple fans even more? unless its a killer design (it will HAVE to be good to match up to these current PowerBooks) 2 big changes in a short time will be bad for Apple.
i am planning on selling my G4 PB in a years time. looks like these babies maintain their value brilliantly. probably only have to spend £200 extra to get a Mactel PowerBook
i feel bad losing the PPC but i need speed. especially because ill be in my 3rd year of uni with all the big power applications 
~Shard~ said:Right, like there isn't going to be a hack for that once the system is released...
Any piracy protection will be hacked, no doubt.
But it won't be straightforward, it won't be supported, it won't be foolproof, it won't be legal, and it won't be on the radar of your average computer shopper.
So it won't be a problem for Apple. They have to stop casual piracy, that's all.
Maybe just an evolution of the current style, like happened with the previous design several times. And more compact I hoperaggedjimmi said:
Microsoft Stands to Benefit
To add to that:
Microsoft could find more legitimate Windows customers by allowing installs on Macs; I know that I would seriously consider purchasing Longhorn to dual-boot on my Mac, simply because my job (computer support for many different people) requires that I have both PC and Mac. That's over $200 to Microsoft right there! But this would *mostly* destroy any market for Virtual PC (however, a few people might like the ability to run many virtual machines...).
Also, while I like to be an idealist, I don't think any of this will put much of a dent in Microsoft's marketshareat least not for the next 20 years. There are still too many people out there clueless about Macs (but that's why we're around).
jeriqo said:
To add to that:
Microsoft could find more legitimate Windows customers by allowing installs on Macs; I know that I would seriously consider purchasing Longhorn to dual-boot on my Mac, simply because my job (computer support for many different people) requires that I have both PC and Mac. That's over $200 to Microsoft right there! But this would *mostly* destroy any market for Virtual PC (however, a few people might like the ability to run many virtual machines...).
Also, while I like to be an idealist, I don't think any of this will put much of a dent in Microsoft's marketshareat least not for the next 20 years. There are still too many people out there clueless about Macs (but that's why we're around
).
Very cool.
Especially the Windows bit. It looks like the ONLY barrier is graphics drivers. Someone will make a hack undoubtedly. So to install Windows, all you do is pop the disk in, install it, then when it boots up in 640x480 resolution (highest it does without a graphics card IIRC) you go and download a hacked driver and bam, it works perfectly.
Dual boot system. Winblows for games, Mac OS X for...everything else
This should attract switchers like flies. I can finally buy a Mac desktop and throw my PC out the Window (pun intended).
Especially the Windows bit. It looks like the ONLY barrier is graphics drivers. Someone will make a hack undoubtedly. So to install Windows, all you do is pop the disk in, install it, then when it boots up in 640x480 resolution (highest it does without a graphics card IIRC) you go and download a hacked driver and bam, it works perfectly.
Dual boot system. Winblows for games, Mac OS X for...everything else
This should attract switchers like flies. I can finally buy a Mac desktop and throw my PC out the Window (pun intended).
iGary said:
Its a freaking developer system. What the hell did you expect at this point.
The bloody desktop macintel's are TWO freaking years away.
ppc_michael said:
Of course they will allow it. Apple has no say in the matter because Intel isnt building chips just for Apple. But that doesnt mean they have to use it. Intels DRM is HARDWARE. If the software doesnt support it, it wont do jack.
What I want to know is how speedy the thing feels or NOT. Lets see some iApps (assuming they came with the system??) benchmarks.
GFLPraxis said:Dual boot system. Winblows for games, Mac OS X for...everything else
My only concern is the developers, and there will be some for sure, that simply say "We aren't going to bother porting to the Mac OS anymore. If you want to use our app, just install windows.
James L said:
There are two BIG reasons why Mac users will NOT be willing--on a large scale--to settle for running Windows on their Macs instead of demanding a Mac-native app. And with the Mac market growing (especially after the Intel change), developers will be more motivated than ever to sell to us
1. Cost. You have to BUY Windows. And possibly some helper app, either for installation or to actually host Windows like VPC. It's a whole extra complex set of setup steps you have to go through before you can run Windows apps--not too difficult I'm sure, but not something your Mac can do out of the box.
2. Usability. You give up the benefits of OS X, which gets better all the time and is the reason you HAVE a Mac. You either accept the time and effort and inconvenience to dual-boot--in which case you give up OS X entirely for those times, and cannot use those apps in conjunction with your Mac apps... or else you run Windows and Mac simultaneously (with a fast new VPC, or even WINE to run--some--apps without Windows itself). Running both at once is cool in a geeky way, but it's terrible usability: working back and forth between two GUIs at once! That's not Mac user friendliness. Not to mention a possible performance hit.
For these reasons, users will continue to DEMAND Macs apps. Even games. The GUI is not always an issue for those, but the other issues remain.
Running Windows on Mac will be great for certain things--such as to give a comfort zone to people fearful of straying from Windows, and thus grow the Mac platform hugely. And it's great as a last-resort option for Mac fans who need a certain Windows app for work or whatever. We use VPC for that, and VPC (or something) will soon be full-speed and work even better! But it won't make us LIKE running Windows, and won't make us want to buy Windows apps. We'll do it only when we have to.
And we already do: if we have to--and often by choice for games--we run VPC or simply own a PC. No change there. So the people most likely to accept a Windows game on their Mac are the very people ALREADY buying Windows games--for their PC game systems.
Conclusion: the market for native Mac apps is about to grow, not shrink, and developers will deliver!
I don't know if anyone said or thought this already but I'll say it anyways.
Phil Shiller said they won't stop anyone from running windows, what if they just meant the developer machine. I mean he was talking to developers about the developer kit at the time. At least that's what I understand, I wasn't there.
Phil Shiller said they won't stop anyone from running windows, what if they just meant the developer machine. I mean he was talking to developers about the developer kit at the time. At least that's what I understand, I wasn't there.
