OS X Unleashed

[cb911]

if Apple let others make hardware that sold with OS X installed, do you really think that Apple could just survive with their software and notebook lines?

it would have to be a very small deal, like letting IBM sell OS X servers and workstations.

 

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by cb911
if Apple let others make hardware that sold with OS X installed, do you really think that Apple could just survive with their software and notebook lines?

it would have to be a very small deal, like letting IBM sell OS X servers and workstations.

i think it should be limited too, but not that limited. if they were to open up to the clone market, i would suggest that pple keep some hardware sales and let only a few clones out. of course they would have to follow apple's rules and everything, but still.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by cb911
if Apple let others make hardware that sold with OS X installed, do you really think that Apple could just survive with their software and notebook lines?

it would have to be a very small deal, like letting IBM sell OS X servers and workstations.

Yes. I definitely think they would survive as a software company. Red Had and Suse are surviving and Apple makes a much better OS. You'd have many more vendors pushing the OS and many people don't like Microsoft for being a bully. They also have Final Cut Pro, E magic (which was surviving on its own), Shake, iLife, Keynote and other software. It's not just an the OS. However, it would be the best alternative to windows and garner man Linux users.

 

[mgargan1]

i don't see the problem people have with intel. They make good processors, and are a great company. I've owned more computers with an intel processor than I can count. They make a great product, and yea, the P4 sucked when it first came out, but it has evolved into the highest performing processor in its market. Yes, i have a Mac, but only because of the OS. I could care less about the G4. I would really like to see Mac use intel processors, or the PPC 970, and maybe even the power4/5 in the xservers.

If Apple did go with intel processor (which they wont), I think they would lose a lot of type "a" customers, but would gain a lot of type "b" customers. i for one will never go back to windows unless there's no other choice. I think that windews has so many flaws in it that make the whole system a complete waste of money. i've configured, and bought 4 windows xp boxes, and they've all died.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mgargan1
i don't see the problem people have with intel. They make good processors, and are a great company. I've owned more computers with an intel processor than I can count. They make a great product, and yea, the P4 sucked when it first came out, but it has evolved into the highest performing processor in its market. Yes, i have a Mac, but only because of the OS. I could care less about the G4. I would really like to see Mac use intel processors, or the PPC 970, and maybe even the power4/5 in the xservers.

If Apple did go with intel processor (which they wont), I think they would lose a lot of type "a" customers, but would gain a lot of type "b" customers. i for one will never go back to windows unless there's no other choice. I think that windews has so many flaws in it that make the whole system a complete waste of money. i've configured, and bought 4 windows xp boxes, and they've all died.

I think I speak for the majority of us when I say that I don't have a problem with Intel. I agree they make a great product. The issue is that the majority of there product is used to run Windows which most of us consider the enemy.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I think I speak for the majority of us when I say that I don't have a problem with Intel. I agree they make a great product. The issue is that the majority of there product is used to run Windows which most of us consider the enemy.

I think that's the real issue. It should be about the OS and not so much about the hardware. Apples designs are good but I still use a PowerMac, which doesn't differ much from boxes that contain Intel and AMD processors.

 

[benixau]

ok, look at it like this.

x86 is old. Intel is trying to replace it but it wont go away. AMD is trying to replace it and when they get there x86-64 chips out they may have a chance.

problem is that the PPC architecture is not like that. It can be changed from 32 to 64 and still have backward compatibility whilst retaining all of the benefits of a 64bit proccessing unit.

now just this justify the slower G4 speeds? no. how do i justify the above claims? IBM 970

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by benixau
ok, look at it like this.

x86 is old. Intel is trying to replace it but it wont go away. AMD is trying to replace it and when they get there x86-64 chips out they may have a chance.

problem is that the PPC architecture is not like that. It can be changed from 32 to 64 and still have backward compatibility whilst retaining all of the benefits of a 64bit proccessing unit.

now just this justify the slower G4 speeds? no. how do i justify the above claims? IBM 970

The backwards compatibility doesn't come from it being X86 or PPC it comes from that fact that IBM designed the 970 with an on board 32bit emulation unit that works.

 

[Macpoops]

without going into it yes the 970 can process 32bits as well as 64 it does not do any of it through emulation.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mgargan1
If Apple did go with intel processor (which they wont), I think they would lose a lot of type "a" customers, but would gain a lot of type "b" customers. i for one will never go back to windows unless there's no other choice. I think that windews has so many flaws in it that make the whole system a complete waste of money. i've configured, and bought 4 windows xp boxes, and they've all died.

isn't it the other way around, or do i have my personality types mixed up?

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Macpoops
without going into it yes the 970 can process 32bits as well as 64 it does not do any of it through emulation.

Sorry I didn't really mean to use the word emulation. I simply meant to say that it could natively run 32bit programs.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mgargan1
If Apple did go with intel processor (which they wont), I think they would lose a lot of type "a" customers, but would gain a lot of type "b" customers. i for one will never go back to windows unless there's no other choice. I think that windews has so many flaws in it that make the whole system a complete waste of money. i've configured, and bought 4 windows xp boxes, and they've all died.

I don't think it would make a difference to most users if they use Intel or any other brand. The important thing is the user interface which at this point is OSX and if that doesn't change except maybe it would be ran faster then I don't think nearly anyone would really care.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I don't think it would make a difference to most users if they use Intel or any other brand. The important thing is the user interface which at this point is OSX and if that doesn't change except maybe it would be ran faster then I don't think nearly anyone would really care.

I think it would in the long run. of course it would be welcomed at first. but then M$ would pull out on apple, exclusivise all its apps and make itself uncompatible again, and so on...

of course, that might not happen. the thing that bothers me is the future of DRM, which intel is v ery committed to. i don't want to have apple tied to that, 3GHz P4 or no.

the other thing is that you will find that most people don't give a rat's ass about looks of a gui either. i put themeswitchers on windows XP for people, and so many people are like, so what? it doesn't matter. it looked fine before.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
I think it would in the long run. of course it would be welcomed at first. but then M$ would pull out on apple, exclusivise all its apps and make itself uncompatible again, and so on...

of course, that might not happen. the thing that bothers me is the future of DRM, which intel is v ery committed to. i don't want to have apple tied to that, 3GHz P4 or no.

the other thing is that you will find that most people don't give a rat's ass about looks of a gui either. i put themeswitchers on windows XP for people, and so many people are like, so what? it doesn't matter. it looked fine before.

I'm not talking about making OSX X86 compatible across the board I'm talking about Apple making Macs with the X86 but preventing the MacOS from being used on compatible machines with a boot rom or something.

It's not so much the look of the system but how it works or doesn't work for that matter.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
I think it would in the long run. of course it would be welcomed at first. but then M$ would pull out on apple, exclusivise all its apps and make itself uncompatible again, and so on...

of course, that might not happen. the thing that bothers me is the future of DRM, which intel is v ery committed to. i don't want to have apple tied to that, 3GHz P4 or no.

the other thing is that you will find that most people don't give a rat's ass about looks of a gui either. i put themeswitchers on windows XP for people, and so many people are like, so what? it doesn't matter. it looked fine before.

I here you on the theme switcher deal. It seems whenever we talk x86 we talk intel and I'm a big AMD fan. I always go for the little guys.

As I said before I really see OS X appealing to developers, linux users, and IT professionals at first.

Some of the features OS X has are extremely easy to use and the iApps are very appealing. I think people would like a choice and if you could pick up a copy of OS X as a professional OS for $100 to $120 and pay an extra $50 for the iApps sweet you cover a lot of home users.

Lately I've been educating some Window users on OpenOffice. No one I know had heard of it until I showed them. They like it and many don't use a majority of the apps. Once you show them how to make the .DOC as the default save, they work on it as if they were in word.

A point I made to my girlfriend last night was the fact that you can educate people and the word will get out. I tranformed her into an OpenOffice user. She uses it for school now. She doesn't notice much of a difference. She the OpenOffice Spread sheet was excel. With regards to the OS. It's much easier for me to get someone to try a new OS when they already have a computer then to buy a new computer to try a new OS. I upgrade lots of computer and save people a lot of money. Most aren't power users, but they do love it when I show them the iApps and how easy they are to use. They think the Dock is cool, but other than that they don't notice much of a difference.

Maybe we could start a thread that points out Windows and OS X differences?

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Maybe we could start a thread that points out Windows and OS X differences?

The number one point I push is ease of use. I know for the people I deal with who barely know how to close an app or restart there computer the basic software that comes with there digital cameras and other devices sucks and is very hard for them to use. Especially since they have a hard time find there documents folder let alone the folder the images are being stored in.

In my oppinion that is what the iApps are for. People who don't have a clue. Take iPhoto for instance. It's not that great of a photo but for the absolute begginer it's fantastic.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by MacBandit
The number one point I push is ease of use. I know for the people I deal with who barely know how to close an app or restart there computer the basic software that comes with there digital cameras and other devices sucks and is very hard for them to use. Especially since they have a hard time find there documents folder let alone the folder the images are being stored in.

In my oppinion that is what the iApps are for. People who don't have a clue. Take iPhoto for instance. It's not that great of a photo but for the absolute begginer it's fantastic.

I agree, but there must be more than that.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I'm not talking about making OSX X86 compatible across the board I'm talking about Apple making Macs with the X86 but preventing the MacOS from being used on compatible machines with a boot rom or something.

It's not so much the look of the system but how it works or doesn't work for that matter.

well, i don't think intel would go for that at all, and i think that would frankly piss off a lot of people, who would construe that as extreme elitism--going out of the way to make sure it only worked on APPLE x86.

as to how a GUI works, the windows GUI is actually very efficient. sure they screwed up with the XP one, but you can go back to classic, and that design is perfectly acceptable and has advantages to OS X in certain ways.

pgwalsh--sorry, i hate AMD. i love their philosophy and that they compete with intel, but their products don't impress me. they seem to produce massive amounts of heat to get the same performance as P4s, for one thing, plus they are kind of on the margin now economically.

i think IBM is our best bet, and hope apple goes that route.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Shadowfax

pgwalsh--sorry, i hate AMD. i love their philosophy and that they compete with intel, but their products don't impress me. they seem to produce massive amounts of heat to get the same performance as P4s, for one thing, plus they are kind of on the margin now economically.

i think IBM is our best bet, and hope apple goes that route.

To not like a processor because of heat is a bit silly, but if that's how you feel fine. I'm glad they are working with IBM to modify their copper connects and SOI. That should lower the heat. Plus AMD will be even more interesting when they come out with the Athlon64... In the end I'd like to see OS X run on the 970, AMD, and Intel.

 

[DakotaGuy]

You bring up some good points, but there is also a dark side as well. The chance of this all working is a gamble I don't really care to see Apple take.

You are saying that Apple should go head to head with Microsoft. Look at Microsoft...Look at Apple...who would win? I hate to say it, but Bill Gates would cut every throat in the room to keep his massive market share. You would have to convince PC vendors like Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony to all license the OS and to put it on as the standard config. like Windows XP is. I doubt they would go away from Windows with a 95% marketshare. You could offer the consumers a choice either XP or OSX, but OSX would be killed because most people prefer Windows. I don't like it, but if you took a poll on the street, 95% are going to pick MS Windows, and curse it as they may, they will keep fighting it and using it.

You have to license the PC builders to use OSX, it would be the only way. Just selling the OS to put on a computer would not work very well. Most consumers will not change the OS that their computer comes with. If you think they do, I can point to many figures that will show that Windows 98 is currently the most used OS out there.

It is a gamble and it would put Apple in a direct face-off with Microsoft. I know the David and Goliath story from the bible, but face it this is corporate America. Someone would loose. I love Apple and have great faith in their products, but hardware is still their main money maker. If you license the OS, then you take that away and they have to survive head on with Microsoft.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
You bring up some good points, but there is also a dark side as well. The chance of this all working is a gamble I don't really care to see Apple take.

You are saying that Apple should go head to head with Microsoft. Look at Microsoft...Look at Apple...who would win? I hate to say it, but Bill Gates would cut every throat in the room to keep his massive market share. You would have to convince PC vendors like Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony to all license the OS and to put it on as the standard config. like Windows XP is. I doubt they would go away from Windows with a 95% marketshare. You could offer the consumers a choice either XP or OSX, but OSX would be killed because most people prefer Windows. I don't like it, but if you took a poll on the street, 95% are going to pick MS Windows, and curse it as they may, they will keep fighting it and using it.

You have to license the PC builders to use OSX, it would be the only way. Just selling the OS to put on a computer would not work very well. Most consumers will not change the OS that their computer comes with. If you think they do, I can point to many figures that will show that Windows 98 is currently the most used OS out there.

It is a gamble and it would put Apple in a direct face-off with Microsoft. I know the David and Goliath story from the bible, but face it this is corporate America. Someone would loose. I love Apple and have great faith in their products, but hardware is still their main money maker. If you license the OS, then you take that away and they have to survive head on with Microsoft.

What makes you think Microsoft couldn't enter the PPC market and crush Apple? They need Apple or some some OS to have some percentage of the OS market.

Apple isn't entering x86 or the clone market with PPC because they can't compete with hardware sales. There's no reason that Apples market share would decrease. Unless of course they screw up and don't have drives etc...

Companies like Sun and other Java based companies will use OS X.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
What makes you think Microsoft couldn't enter the PPC market and crush Apple? They need Apple or some some OS to have some percentage of the OS market.

they couldn't beat Apple on the PPC. that would require them to innovate. microsoft has money--they can do anything. except create something new and original. what would they do in the PPC market? come out with a free, good OS that had features to beat OS X? damn, that would be awesome.

i WANT microsuck to beat apple in the PPC market. they can't do it.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
well, i don't think intel would go for that at all, and i think that would frankly piss off a lot of people, who would construe that as extreme elitism--going out of the way to make sure it only worked on APPLE x86.

as to how a GUI works, the windows GUI is actually very efficient. sure they screwed up with the XP one, but you can go back to classic, and that design is perfectly acceptable and has advantages to OS X in certain ways.

pgwalsh--sorry, i hate AMD. i love their philosophy and that they compete with intel, but their products don't impress me. they seem to produce massive amounts of heat to get the same performance as P4s, for one thing, plus they are kind of on the margin now economically.

i think IBM is our best bet, and hope apple goes that route.

I don't think the issue with elistism would be any greater then it is now. That's peoples number one complaint now that the only way they can runs MacOS is on a Mac. I just don't see a problem with it. It shouldn't matter what procesor they have. I mean so Nintendo uses a varient of the G3 in the GC but I don't call them elitist because I can't run there software on an iBook. If a company runs proprietary hardware for there software more power to them. To me that means they want a certain amount of control of there end product and the quality of it.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I don't think the issue with elistism would be any greater then it is now. That's peoples number one complaint now that the only way they can runs MacOS is on a Mac. I just don't see a problem with it. It shouldn't matter what procesor they have. I mean so Nintendo uses a varient of the G3 in the GC but I don't call them elitist because I can't run there software on an iBook. If a company runs proprietary hardware for there software more power to them. To me that means they want a certain amount of control of there end product and the quality of it.

Maybe you should go back and read the point of having more hardware vendors. The OS is what matters. Not the processor. The reason some of us want x86 is speed and "competition." A logical reason is that there's already massive amount of hardware vendors that support that platform. Think of the different motherboard manufactures and the competition they present each other. Apple didn't fix the issue with their motherboards. Why? Cause no one else makes one and they don't have to worry about someone stepping up to the plate. They do what want when they want and they can leave us in a hole any time they want. With Apple you have 1 company and that's it. They'll never get past 10% market share on there own. They might not be able to get past 5% as where they were when they had clones.

Companies like VIA, nVida, SIS, Intel and other that make chip sets and are constantly trying top one or the other. Some motherboard manufactures focus on very stable boards (e.g. ECS). Companies like Asus, Abit, Chaintech, MSI, and others compete in the motherboard market in many areas. Some try to provide as much product on the motherboard as possible, while focusing on the speed of the board. That's one reason we've seen the x86 scream by us. That's also why prices for PC's are so low and have support for so many different things. It's hardware competition and that's what I want with OS X. Hardware Competition.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Maybe you should go back and read the point of having more hardware vendors. The OS is what matters. Not the processor. The reason some of us want x86 is speed and "competition." A logical reason is that there's already massive amount of hardware vendors that support that platform. Think of the different motherboard manufactures and the competition they present each other. Apple didn't fix the issue with their motherboards. Why? Cause no one else makes one and they don't have to worry about someone stepping up to the plate. They do what want when they want and they can leave us in a hole any time they want. With Apple you have 1 company and that's it. They'll never get past 10% market share on there own. They might not be able to get past 5% as where they were when they had clones.

Companies like VIA, nVida, SIS, Intel and other that make chip sets and are constantly trying top one or the other. Some motherboard manufactures focus on very stable boards (e.g. ECS). Companies like Asus, Abit, Chaintech, MSI, and others compete in the motherboard market in many areas. Some try to provide as much product on the motherboard as possible, while focusing on the speed of the board. That's one reason we've seen the x86 scream by us. That's also why prices for PC's are so low and have support for so many different things. It's hardware competition and that's what I want with OS X. Hardware Competition.

I agree that competition breeds a better product but I do also believe that the only way you can achieve true integration and a synergistic product is to produce the hardware and software designer. When you have control of both ends you have a much better idea of what the limitations are and better control over creating a compatible product. I just don't see that sort of quality control and product integration coming from a dozens of custom builders all competing to turn out the fastest, cheapist, crapiest product.