Don't forget about the developers then - they would have to optimize two product lines of the same thing which would be a completely pain in the @ss. Not only that but they would have to spend more to ship out two versions and support two different architectures. Consumers might like it but the people bringing software to them wouldn't.dicklacara said:
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.
Really switching to Intel!!??
- Thread starter dodonutter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
sord said:
This is the key point that makes me think that this will not happen.
No Developers = No Mac
Sun Baked said:
Exactly. As a user, I would love to see more GHz out of my Mac. I would also love to have more titles developed for Mac. However, I don't want to see the OS get destroyed by competition from Microsoft.
Microsoft is very well dug in and it would take a major, revolutionary change to unseat them -- just ask the Microsoft XBox team as it tries to move in on the market dominated by the Sony PS2.
Still, I guess there's hope since Nintendo got booted out by Sony
That won't happen.
However the changeover occurs, it will still involve the need to by an Apple machine to run OS X. So as far as Windows v OS X there will be no change in the competition model. Apple will just be selling computers with different (and hopefully better) hardware.
OS9 and before had virus.MacIke said:
UNIX has not have one virus since its beginning. That is almost 40 years with no viruses.
You need to grant root access to the virus and thats why it cant spead.
The nearest visus in UNIX:
(email)
Hi
I am a virus from Norway.
Copy this mail and send to all your contacts.
Please log in as root and start a terminal windows.
Type: rm -rf /* and hit enter
/Norway Virus
--
90% of all viruses needs: Microsofts Exchange and/or Microsoft IIS to spread rapidly. Its not the myth about "mac" have small market share.
Its about that you CANT do it.
primalman said:
You are missing the point.
Product X is available on the Apple/PPC, but not Wintel... if the developer does nothing his market is limited to Apple/PPC
Apple Adds Apple/Intel boxes and OS X/Duallie that runs native on either Mac/Intel or Mac/PPC CPU/MB.
Now, the developer of Product X, still does nothing and his market potential expands to: Mac/PPC plus Mac/Intel (emulated at 80% performance-- may, or may not be important).
If he choses, with Apple's help, he can migrate the app so it runs native on the Mac/Intel platform & charge for an upgrade.
Or he can do nothing, and still, potentially, increase sales... But if he has ever considered porting to Intel, it is now easier than it was before.
The same, in reverse, goes for the Wintel developer if Apple is able to get QuickTransit to interface Wintel apps (for some reason I suspect this is already done).
But, If Apple just says: "We're switching to Intel-- see you on the other side!", then I agree with you!
Dick
How can you make a stable PC?
Its architecture dates back from 1970.
BIOS is still there. The memory managmet it horrible.
IRQ, Himem.sys, DMA. I dont want to deal with that crap.
Thats why real workstations and servers dont use X86.
Steve will have a really hard job selling this idea.
Its a big step backwards for me as a consumer.
But
This is good for Apple. They could be the new Microsoft, since the companies want an x86 alternative to WindowsVirusXP.
Steve has joined the dark side.
Darn you Annakin Jobs.
Its architecture dates back from 1970.
BIOS is still there. The memory managmet it horrible.
IRQ, Himem.sys, DMA. I dont want to deal with that crap.
Thats why real workstations and servers dont use X86.
Steve will have a really hard job selling this idea.
Its a big step backwards for me as a consumer.
But
This is good for Apple. They could be the new Microsoft, since the companies want an x86 alternative to WindowsVirusXP.
Steve has joined the dark side.
Darn you Annakin Jobs.
springdaddy said:
It would be possible to have a virus just delete the user's home directory's contents. The only problem is that there are many variants of UNIX - SCO, linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Darwin, Solaris, etc. so it would be nearly impossible to get the program to the right target. And even then, the user would have to be dumb enough to run it.shompa said:
tazznb said:
This IS the end of the world.
If we all used real computers we would have flying cars, the cure for cancer and so on.
I work in a research facillity. When they switched from Sun to HP, the company almost whent under.
You are running a simulation. It takes month: How the H*ll are you going to have a Windows box running for that time?
I agree: I have confidence that Steve and Apple will manage this well. I'm all for it.wdlove said:
skunk said:
I'm with you skunk. This whole thing fascinates me, and in a good way. I can honestly say I'm not worried or concerned about anything, I'm excited for what tomorrow brings.
Plus, if someone is the sort to worry, there's no point in worrying about anything until there's something confirmed to worry about!
~Shard~ said:I'm with you skunk. This whole thing fascinates me, and in a good way. I can honestly say I'm not worried or concerned about anything, I'm excited for what tomorrow brings.
Plus, if someone is the sort to worry, there's no point in worrying about anything until there's something confirmed to worry about!
well, that is true. So does this mean that we can leave this forum for today and wait for the keynote before posting something based on facts presented?
vatel said:
Not so fast...
If the Mac starts using an Intel-based processor, it will have to start using the x86 architecture -- unless Apple plans on comming up with a new architecture and that seems highly unlikely and costly.
The benefit for Apple would be that any x86 hardware out there could run OS X (just like they can now run Windows, Linux, or any OS currently written for x86).
Unfortunately, this would mean a reduction in market share for Microsoft. Therefore, OS X will be competing with Windows and we all know how Emperor Gates reacts to competition
. The PC industry would be repeating the battle between Windows and OS/2 all over again...
I'm looking forward to the change. I think it will be a good thing in the long run. Here's my one suggestion for tomorrow...
Steve, please pledge some of that $6+ Billion in cash towards developer programs that will help get the major apps (Top 200?) converted over to x86 and also provide tools and help to small developers. I think there needs to be even more investment in developers than we saw with the OS X migration.
Steve, please pledge some of that $6+ Billion in cash towards developer programs that will help get the major apps (Top 200?) converted over to x86 and also provide tools and help to small developers. I think there needs to be even more investment in developers than we saw with the OS X migration.
jesuisme said:
Ghz isn't everything, remember. The PowerPC is better than the x86 per GHz. My 1.33 GHz G4 has beaten P4s before and will do it again in the near future because I am:
-PowerPC
-OS X (means auto-defragging, the hot-file area, better memory management)
-no Malware (viruses/spyware)
So while some of those things a x86 OS X could solve, an x86 Windows user can always keep their computer clean and defrag it. Meaning my advantage comes with the PowerPC.
How so? My AMD Athlon 64 machine runs Linux. No malware. No defragging. Excellent memory management. Great 64bit support.Mechcozmo said:
No.
There is no benefit to Apple in having the whole world able to run their operating system. Just like Apple sells songs to get people to buy their iPods (with that 40% margin). Apple makes and sells software so that people will by their Macs (with the industry envy 15% margins).
47% of Apples revenue is Macs, 8.2% is Software. I guarantee that Apple will change the architecture enough that you can't run OS X on any x86 machine the way you can with Linux. If they don't they'll get killed, they'll deserve to get killed, and I'll have to go back to that crappy old Windows operating system.
IBM tried that approach (twice) in the 80's and got wiped out of the PC market (both times). Given that Jobs was there, I just don't see that mistake being repeated.
jesuisme said:
How is it a benefit for Apple? I bet most people who build their own PCs don't purchase a Windows licence... what would make them purchase an OS X licence?
Apple would lose all control over hardware, and all control over what hardware OS X is run on... it would kill the company IMO.