This is too long to cut and paste, but it's scary and interesting. M$ is truely evil and they are trying to take over the world.
http://www.iht.com/articles/96289.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/96289.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For Microsoft, market dominance doesn't seem enough
- Thread starter pgwalsh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok, what I'm sick of hearing from all these PC weinies about how Apple will be finily killed in 2005. Ok, I saw the stuff on Longhorn, but this is stuff we had when OS X.2 came out. So, imagine what OS X will be like in 2005. Imagine what Panther will be like. I really haven't heard news on Panther. So Panther has to be incredible.
IMO, S. Jobs could do us pc users (thats me) a favor by releasing an OS to run on a pc. Im in a dilemma now that I would like to try out a Mac, but I am not willing to completely give up my pcs to do it.
Why isnt this something they have looked into doing? Ive seen mention of Maklar or something, some secret OS that was built for the pc platform, well release it already. I tried Linux and I hated it.
If Apple did this pc os it would/could show ppl what macs are all about without having to buy the whole damn (overpriced) computer. I know I'd certainly like to try it out first before I were to buy a whole new system.
What would it hurt??
I really dont like the way M$ trys to dominate everything either. Im not a M$ hater, but it concerns me that they was it ALL. Its so obvious with everything they do. Take the Xbox for instance...its losing MILLIONS and they continue to pump millions more into it in hopes it will overtake Sony and gain control of the console market. I mean, what the hell is this?? If most companies releases a failing product they wouldnt dump endless money into it, they drop it.
Why isnt this something they have looked into doing? Ive seen mention of Maklar or something, some secret OS that was built for the pc platform, well release it already. I tried Linux and I hated it.
If Apple did this pc os it would/could show ppl what macs are all about without having to buy the whole damn (overpriced) computer. I know I'd certainly like to try it out first before I were to buy a whole new system.
What would it hurt??
I really dont like the way M$ trys to dominate everything either. Im not a M$ hater, but it concerns me that they was it ALL. Its so obvious with everything they do. Take the Xbox for instance...its losing MILLIONS and they continue to pump millions more into it in hopes it will overtake Sony and gain control of the console market. I mean, what the hell is this?? If most companies releases a failing product they wouldnt dump endless money into it, they drop it.
There are many issues to releasing an x86 port of MacOS X. These issues have been discussed over and over again in other threads, I suggest you do a search for x86 or Marklar.
Basically the short answer is that such a move will not definitely produce a positive effect. It would be a tremendous risk, especially against a company that can easily undercut anything that Apple could offer.
crackpip
I don't think so. They're really not that close and Quartz extreme's performance cannot do what Longhorn is doing on PC ahrdware.
I think that Longhorn is good. It will force apple to continue implementing and optimizing Quartz extreme and will ensure they go 970 across the board.
Competition is good on both sides of the street.
BTW, the plumbing for Longhorn has been in Windows since Windows 2000 and GDI+. Stardock has been using it for some time with Object Desktop. The reason Microsoft has delayed is becuase not enough people had powerful enough hardware. I mean, how many mac users can actually run Quartz Extreme, and then how many can run in well, given it's modest use.
Competition is good. For Microsoft, and for Apple.
well the way I see it if Apple is happy with their small market share then we will never see something like a Mac os for pc. But if they really wanted to increase marketshare this is the only viable solution. They will never compete with M$ by selling an os that has to run on their proprietary hardware. Maybe they dont want to compete, but if not then what are they in business for??
Actually, when you count the price of purchasing Rare co. Ltd. for a cool what was it 300 mill(?) and the addition of thier consecutive losses for two years straight, they have lost more than mere millions.
The truth is though, even though they help to increase competition - right now, and lower prices - right now, once they gain domination of the market, like OS and Office software, they just jack up the prices to rediculous levels, and then gain it all back, plus more. That is the MS strategy and it has worked in the past...at least for thier core markets. Beware.
You'll never see Mac OS ported to the PC side. I'm not going to pretend that I know the REAL reason for this, but I'll sure give it a shot.
Steve Jobs' passion for ease of use, elegance, and simplicity go beyond the look of his boxes. His thinking extends to the OS and the various iApps that go with it. I am of the opinion that he would never consider porting the heart and soul of his line up (the OS) over to the PC side because he would feel that the "total user experience" would be lost...like dropping a RollsRoyce engine into an AMC Pacer.
Please don't take me to task by dragging out the old "automobile" argument, but it's the only thing I could come up with to get my point across. Apple will always have market share, and it will never be anywhere near the PC share. I really don't think Apple cares much about that. They do what they do, and they're the only ones that do. The OS, the machines, the iApps...they're all tied together to make the whole experience as best as it can be. No other computer maker does that. There are a lot of stereos out there, but I happen to own a Bang & Olufsen. Yes, the cost was outrageous. But it does what I want it to do in a package and a look and feel that "speaks" directly to me, and to many others, or that company would have gone broke ages ago.
There will always be a market for Apple because there will always be people who want that "certain something" out of a product. And that's the audience they continue to work for, improve for, and woo.
I don't think its a question about Apple being happy with its market share. It's a question about how to increase market share without making a move that has a good chance of making the company go under. My point is that, while it's possible that Apple could gain a great deal of market share through releasing osx on x86, it is certainly not a sure thing, and there may be better ways to accomplish it.
crackpip
The fact that it runs on proprietry hardware is the reason that the OS is so stable, and the reason certain features can be implemented. An OS X for x86 would probably jsut as bugyg and bloated as Windows.
Compared to what their marketshare would end up being (0.0%) after releasing OS X x-86, I think Apple is quite happy with their little niche. Apple is a hardware company that makes a killer OS for that hardware, not a software company.
However, if you do want to debate Windows vs. Mac OS installation base, consider that 12+% of the world runs the Mac OS of some kind (8, 9 or X) on their primary computer. Hell, 15% of all computers in use out there are Apples. No one else has an installed base that large. Dell is next, with 11%.
your comparison is a little skewed. You say Apple is 15% of the user base, and Dell only has 11%. Thats just like saying General Motors doesnt have a significant share of the US auto industry because only 11% drive Chevys. See, you are leaving out Cadillac, Buick, Olds, Pontiac, Saturn, Hummerm GMC..., they are all part of GM and make up a much larger user base for GM.
Dell is a small part of the Windows market.
And Im not sure where your numbers come from but the latest numbers I saw said "3% of the US Market is Apple, 5% worldwide."
Hey! I there's a thread on OS X for x86. I agree with you... Check-it-out. https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26800&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
That is a completely different situation. The XBOX is the best system out there for the money, hell you get the games and the controllers etc. I mean have you played splinter cell? I was playing it the other day, and on one of the levels you are on an oil tanker, and its sunset out. The colors are so realistic, the water moving just slightly. extremely realistic. You cannot do that on the gaycube or on the Pissy2. I am sorry but XBOX has built a superior console and I am willing to defend it
Umm, how about Apple? They have never done this now have they?
There's a big difference between manufacturer market share and total market share. Apple is one of the largest manufacturers, but their total market share is less due to DIYers and no-name PCs.
Thats why its coming out for GC and PS2...
Xbox has a Geforce4MX whoa man, thats like, uh eMac (Radeon 7500) technology....
I mean, have you played Grand Turismo 4 or Metal Gear 3? Have you played Metroid Prime, or seen Rouge Squadron 3? How about Resident Evil 4? Hmmm, just as good if not better than xBox...
It depends on what you are comparing. Are you wanting to compare non-Mac users and Mac users? Mac users and Windows users? Mac users and Dell users (or any other computer maufacturer be it Gateway, HP, IBM, etc.,). Each comparison will yield different numbers.
Lethal
So Linux, FreeBSD are unstable on non-proprietary platforms? Your logic there is flawed.
Actually, Xbox has a custom engineered jacked up GeForce 3. It's a very, very powerful GPU. I believe it might be even more powerful than any GF3 Ti series. It is in no way a GeForce MX technology.Originally posted by Fukui
Thats why its coming out for GC and PS2...
Xbox has a Geforce4MX whoa man, thats like, uh eMac (Radeon 7500) technology....
I mean, have you played Grand Turismo 4 or Metal Gear 3? Have you played Metroid Prime, or seen Rouge Squadron 3? How about Resident Evil 4? Hmmm, just as good if not better than xBox...
I think the main advantage of programming for Xbox is that it isn't much different from Windows DirectX programming. It saves a lot on training, emulation systems, proprietary compilers, etc. that Sony and others force you to use. You wouldn't need to learn a new SDK, and so on.
apple is a hardware vendor not a software one.
If they release marklar nobody will buy apple hw, and they will finally break down.
That s it. now i won t discuss anymore of this.
Yes, more than anything, that is the biggest advantge. Its a cyclical loop, windows programmers that are familliar with DX can more easily move thier PC games to the Xbox, and traditional developers who write console games get used to the DX interface, and it makes it easier for them to move thier cosole games to the PC (well at least windows PCs), its pretty interesting to leverage that. And DirectX is proprietary. OpenGL which GC uses isn't. Take your pick.
Halo...grrr
Anyways, soul calibur 2 is comming to all 3 and its looking identical on all 3 systems. Its all on how the developerrs utilize the HW. The GC is significantly cheaper to manufacture than the Xbox, but still somehow manages to hold its own against Xbox in terms of graphics. PS2, while being older, has the potential to be way more powerfull than either because of its parallel vector units (emotion engine) but its extremely hard to program for, so we'll see what happens, that and its limited VRAM (2MB or something)
I just think its sad that Halo is a year and a half old and M$ still hangs their hat on that game as THE game for Xbox.
Sorry, I had an Xbox and frankly is was 2nd (maybe 3rd) rate to PS2. Now Nintendont on the other hand, I'll never buy their crap systems ever again.
Sorry, I had an Xbox and frankly is was 2nd (maybe 3rd) rate to PS2. Now Nintendont on the other hand, I'll never buy their crap systems ever again.