Steve den Beste http://www.denbeste.nu has a conspiracy theory linking Microsoft, IBM and Apple. He's a Microsoft fanboy and sees Bill Gates as the hidden hand behind IBM and Apple. It almost comes across as plausible...
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.
Xbox2 Conspiracy Theory
- Thread starter cubist
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here is the article:
Brian Tiemann is overjoyed (and oversmug) to learn that Microsoft's XBox 2 SDK (Software Development Kit) runs on G5 Macs. But there are implications to this announcement that I don't think he noticed.
It was no great surprise to learn that Apple's new generation of machines were based on a cut-down version of IBM's Power4. It had become blatantly obvious that Motorola had shut down its efforts to develop a new version of the PPC to replace the G4, leaving Apple in the position of having to implement a gawdawful hardware kludge as its only way to eke out any more performance from the existing G4, while waiting for something else.
There was never any possibility of Apple porting to X86; the only solution which made sense was the Power4. So there was little surprise when it was announced that was where Apple was going. But when they finally appeared, they caught me by surprise in two ways.
They appeared earlier than I expected; apparently IBM was able to bring production online sooner than they said they would. And I expected G5-based Macs to cost a lot more than they did. For a long time I was really puzzled by this: why was IBM giving Apple a sweet-heart deal on CPU prices, when that same business decision had cost Motorola so dearly?
This announcement answers that question.
The only way that could happen is if IBM expected huge volume, far greater than they could reasonably expect from Apple alone and from IBM's own use of those same CPUs. That meant they expected another market, a big one, a reliable one, one which would involve a lot more volume than Apple.
That was what Moto thought too when they invested in development of the G4. What they bet their money on was a standardized open hardware architecture for PPC computers which would run Apple's software but also WinNT and some version of Unix. Motorola expected computers based on that architecture to be produced and sold by several competing companies, the way that PCs were and are. Apple ended up stomping all over that and in the end Moto lost a huge amount of money and ultimately decided that having Apple as a customer was not an asset. (In fact, Moto recently decided that its entire semiconductor business is not an asset.)
So how did IBM think it would be any different? Now we know: Microsoft decided to use the G5 in XBox 2. It's a very strange choice for Microsoft; why would they do so?
Some Mac freaks will plump themselves up smugly and declare that it's because the G5 is obviously a superior processor, but that answer doesn't wash. In nearly every regard, technically and commercially, an X-86 compatible processor would have made more sense. But in strategic terms, this is a win for Microsoft.
Microsoft is yet again intervening to save Apple and keep it viable. This is not the first time. But each time it happens, Apple pays a price.
Microsoft was responsible for making the transition from MacOS Classic to OSX successful. It was only when Microsoft publicly came out in support of OSX (in Gates' notorious "Big Brother video image" speech at a MacWorld) and announced that Office would be ported, that the other software developers began to take it seriously and became willing to invest in porting their apps to OSX. But to get that Jobs had to give Microsoft licenses to Apple's entire patent portfolio.
And now Microsoft has, against all expectations, decided to use the G5 in XBox 2, which will give IBM the volume on the part needed to permit it to sell G5's to Apple at a price which permits Apple in turn to sell G5-based Macs at a price which is competitive with comparably-powerful PCs. Gates is not known for altruism in his business dealings, so what is Apple giving up this time?
That's the second thing which this announcement makes clear: This time, the architecture definitely will run operating systems other than Apple's own. The SDK for XBox 2 has been released, and it targets the G5. It's quite natural that development will also be based on the G5, and right now that means Macs -- but the SDK doesn't use OSX. It runs on Apple hardware, but the OS is WinNT.
NT also ran on the moribund "standard" G3/G4 architecture, but I don't believe it was ever released in a version which would work on a Mac. This time, it DOES run on the Mac.
The thing to watch for in the next few years is reappearance of commodity G5 units, simultaneous with announcement of a version of Windows which runs on Apple's own hardware and on commodity G5's. Whether OSX will also be made available to run on commodity hardware is more difficult to predict, but I think the price Jobs paid this time is that Apple's architecture will become open ? at least to Microsoft, if not to anyone else.
There are two pieces needed for that to happen: the BIOS and the chipset. Everything else in Apple's G5 units is available openly, but those two components are Apple proprietary. But if Microsoft has ported NT, then they know everything they need to about both in order to permit someone else to replicate them.
In fact, both must have been replicated in at least limited form already, for the XBox 2 itself. It's exceedingly unlikely that Microsoft is using Apple's chipset in XBox 2; undoubtedly they have their own, created for them by someone else. And there's got to be firmware in the unit which works with that chipset. Though those are at least somewhat specialized for Microsoft's application, it means that the knowledge and ability to implement a full solution is out there in hands other than Apple's.
If both of those happen, and are announced simultaneously with commercial availability of a compatible WinNT version, then commodity G5's become possible -- and this time, Apple won't be able to prevent it. If Microsoft appears to be fully behind such an effort, it has instant credibility; only fools bet against Bill Gates in this industry.
Why did Jobs agree to this deal? For the same reason he agreed to the previous one: he had no choice. Only Bill Gates could save Apple, and Jobs could either pay or die. Last time, only Bill Gates could bless OSX and make it "legitimate"; this time, only Bill Gates could guarantee to IBM that there would be enough G5 volume to make chip pricing low enough for Apple.
The timing of this announcement is also interesting: if WinNT runs now on G5 Macs, then it means Microsoft has been working on the port for at least a year, possibly even longer. Negotiations must have begun far earlier than that. Which means that they knew all about the G5 Macs before they were publicly announced -- and means that they had made their deal to use the G5 in XBox 2 before Apple's G5's were publicly announced. The Microsoft/IBM deal was already inked before Apple began shipping G5's, because if it had not been, IBM would not have lowered the G5 price to the point where Apple's G5-based Macs could be competitive.
So: IBM was happy with this deal, for the obvious reason of increasing the sales volume of the G5. Products as complicated to design as the G5 must have a big market or they cannot be commercially viable, and Apple simply isn't big enough on its own these days. (As Moto clearly concluded.)
Apple probably isn't happy, but had no choice. But why is Microsoft doing this? Part of the reason is that continued existence of the Mac is a defense for Microsoft against antitrust proceedings, but there's more to it than that.
Bill Gates has been worried for more than fifteen years about hitching his wagon too tightly to the X86 architecture, and to Intel. One of the most important design goals for NT from the very beginning was for it to be portable to multiple architectures, and the first releases of NT included installation directories not only for the X86, but also for the PPC and for two other major processors sold at the time, both of which have long since vanished from the scene. NT (in its current incarnation as XP) is still portable, but there's nothing viable for it to be ported to. Gates wants to make sure there's another ship to move to if Intel eventually becomes cranky or if the X86 ship begins to sink.
Intel and Microsoft have always had a love/hate relationship. Intel has been supporting Linux in part because it doesn't want to be so dependent on Windows. Even as they have cooperated and become wealthy together, each has also been trying to make the other unnecessary.
Microsoft's encouragement of AMD is part of that, and that's why Microsoft signed on to support AMD's X-86/64 instruction set, which Intel is now going to support as well (as recently announced). But that's not enough, and Microsoft wants to be ready if the G5 does somehow end up being the X86-killer everyone has been expecting for the last 15 years. (The death of the X86 architecture has been predicted even more regularly than the death of Apple.) IBM is one of the very few companies to actually have the resources to mount a serious challenge to Intel.
Thus, the effect of the three-way IBM/Apple/Microsoft deal: Apple gets to survive and to sell competitively-priced boxes now, but only if they have an open architecture which can run NT.
continued...
Brian Tiemann is overjoyed (and oversmug) to learn that Microsoft's XBox 2 SDK (Software Development Kit) runs on G5 Macs. But there are implications to this announcement that I don't think he noticed.
It was no great surprise to learn that Apple's new generation of machines were based on a cut-down version of IBM's Power4. It had become blatantly obvious that Motorola had shut down its efforts to develop a new version of the PPC to replace the G4, leaving Apple in the position of having to implement a gawdawful hardware kludge as its only way to eke out any more performance from the existing G4, while waiting for something else.
There was never any possibility of Apple porting to X86; the only solution which made sense was the Power4. So there was little surprise when it was announced that was where Apple was going. But when they finally appeared, they caught me by surprise in two ways.
They appeared earlier than I expected; apparently IBM was able to bring production online sooner than they said they would. And I expected G5-based Macs to cost a lot more than they did. For a long time I was really puzzled by this: why was IBM giving Apple a sweet-heart deal on CPU prices, when that same business decision had cost Motorola so dearly?
This announcement answers that question.
The only way that could happen is if IBM expected huge volume, far greater than they could reasonably expect from Apple alone and from IBM's own use of those same CPUs. That meant they expected another market, a big one, a reliable one, one which would involve a lot more volume than Apple.
That was what Moto thought too when they invested in development of the G4. What they bet their money on was a standardized open hardware architecture for PPC computers which would run Apple's software but also WinNT and some version of Unix. Motorola expected computers based on that architecture to be produced and sold by several competing companies, the way that PCs were and are. Apple ended up stomping all over that and in the end Moto lost a huge amount of money and ultimately decided that having Apple as a customer was not an asset. (In fact, Moto recently decided that its entire semiconductor business is not an asset.)
So how did IBM think it would be any different? Now we know: Microsoft decided to use the G5 in XBox 2. It's a very strange choice for Microsoft; why would they do so?
Some Mac freaks will plump themselves up smugly and declare that it's because the G5 is obviously a superior processor, but that answer doesn't wash. In nearly every regard, technically and commercially, an X-86 compatible processor would have made more sense. But in strategic terms, this is a win for Microsoft.
Microsoft is yet again intervening to save Apple and keep it viable. This is not the first time. But each time it happens, Apple pays a price.
Microsoft was responsible for making the transition from MacOS Classic to OSX successful. It was only when Microsoft publicly came out in support of OSX (in Gates' notorious "Big Brother video image" speech at a MacWorld) and announced that Office would be ported, that the other software developers began to take it seriously and became willing to invest in porting their apps to OSX. But to get that Jobs had to give Microsoft licenses to Apple's entire patent portfolio.
And now Microsoft has, against all expectations, decided to use the G5 in XBox 2, which will give IBM the volume on the part needed to permit it to sell G5's to Apple at a price which permits Apple in turn to sell G5-based Macs at a price which is competitive with comparably-powerful PCs. Gates is not known for altruism in his business dealings, so what is Apple giving up this time?
That's the second thing which this announcement makes clear: This time, the architecture definitely will run operating systems other than Apple's own. The SDK for XBox 2 has been released, and it targets the G5. It's quite natural that development will also be based on the G5, and right now that means Macs -- but the SDK doesn't use OSX. It runs on Apple hardware, but the OS is WinNT.
NT also ran on the moribund "standard" G3/G4 architecture, but I don't believe it was ever released in a version which would work on a Mac. This time, it DOES run on the Mac.
The thing to watch for in the next few years is reappearance of commodity G5 units, simultaneous with announcement of a version of Windows which runs on Apple's own hardware and on commodity G5's. Whether OSX will also be made available to run on commodity hardware is more difficult to predict, but I think the price Jobs paid this time is that Apple's architecture will become open ? at least to Microsoft, if not to anyone else.
There are two pieces needed for that to happen: the BIOS and the chipset. Everything else in Apple's G5 units is available openly, but those two components are Apple proprietary. But if Microsoft has ported NT, then they know everything they need to about both in order to permit someone else to replicate them.
In fact, both must have been replicated in at least limited form already, for the XBox 2 itself. It's exceedingly unlikely that Microsoft is using Apple's chipset in XBox 2; undoubtedly they have their own, created for them by someone else. And there's got to be firmware in the unit which works with that chipset. Though those are at least somewhat specialized for Microsoft's application, it means that the knowledge and ability to implement a full solution is out there in hands other than Apple's.
If both of those happen, and are announced simultaneously with commercial availability of a compatible WinNT version, then commodity G5's become possible -- and this time, Apple won't be able to prevent it. If Microsoft appears to be fully behind such an effort, it has instant credibility; only fools bet against Bill Gates in this industry.
Why did Jobs agree to this deal? For the same reason he agreed to the previous one: he had no choice. Only Bill Gates could save Apple, and Jobs could either pay or die. Last time, only Bill Gates could bless OSX and make it "legitimate"; this time, only Bill Gates could guarantee to IBM that there would be enough G5 volume to make chip pricing low enough for Apple.
The timing of this announcement is also interesting: if WinNT runs now on G5 Macs, then it means Microsoft has been working on the port for at least a year, possibly even longer. Negotiations must have begun far earlier than that. Which means that they knew all about the G5 Macs before they were publicly announced -- and means that they had made their deal to use the G5 in XBox 2 before Apple's G5's were publicly announced. The Microsoft/IBM deal was already inked before Apple began shipping G5's, because if it had not been, IBM would not have lowered the G5 price to the point where Apple's G5-based Macs could be competitive.
So: IBM was happy with this deal, for the obvious reason of increasing the sales volume of the G5. Products as complicated to design as the G5 must have a big market or they cannot be commercially viable, and Apple simply isn't big enough on its own these days. (As Moto clearly concluded.)
Apple probably isn't happy, but had no choice. But why is Microsoft doing this? Part of the reason is that continued existence of the Mac is a defense for Microsoft against antitrust proceedings, but there's more to it than that.
Bill Gates has been worried for more than fifteen years about hitching his wagon too tightly to the X86 architecture, and to Intel. One of the most important design goals for NT from the very beginning was for it to be portable to multiple architectures, and the first releases of NT included installation directories not only for the X86, but also for the PPC and for two other major processors sold at the time, both of which have long since vanished from the scene. NT (in its current incarnation as XP) is still portable, but there's nothing viable for it to be ported to. Gates wants to make sure there's another ship to move to if Intel eventually becomes cranky or if the X86 ship begins to sink.
Intel and Microsoft have always had a love/hate relationship. Intel has been supporting Linux in part because it doesn't want to be so dependent on Windows. Even as they have cooperated and become wealthy together, each has also been trying to make the other unnecessary.
Microsoft's encouragement of AMD is part of that, and that's why Microsoft signed on to support AMD's X-86/64 instruction set, which Intel is now going to support as well (as recently announced). But that's not enough, and Microsoft wants to be ready if the G5 does somehow end up being the X86-killer everyone has been expecting for the last 15 years. (The death of the X86 architecture has been predicted even more regularly than the death of Apple.) IBM is one of the very few companies to actually have the resources to mount a serious challenge to Intel.
Thus, the effect of the three-way IBM/Apple/Microsoft deal: Apple gets to survive and to sell competitively-priced boxes now, but only if they have an open architecture which can run NT.
continued...
rest of article...
Which means that in the long run, boxes based on the G5 will either become a commodity and will sell at commodity prices, or will fade away entirely. If they don't become a commodity, Microsoft won't use the G5 (or whatever follows it) in XBox 3. What Gates giveth, Gates can take away. Without Microsoft volume sales of G5's or volume sales to commodity computer manufacturers, IBM will eventually give up just as Moto did.
Apple's business model has always been based on selling its software at a loss, which was subsidized by Apple's premium price on hardware. That game will end now, but not immediately; this gives Apple several years of breathing room to bootstrap other businesses and to diversify. Without this deal, Apple would be dying now, stuck with the G4 and no escape. But even with this deal, it means that eventually Apple won't be able to charge a premium price for its hardware, and Apple's software business has never been viable on its own.
Jobs chose graceful decline of his computer business over sudden death of the company. That's a good choice. It's also his only choice, because Jobs works for his stockholders. But it's not what most Mac fans might have hoped for. Jobs is concerned with Apple's survival, but Apple can and must ultimately survive without the Mac.
Which means that in the long run, boxes based on the G5 will either become a commodity and will sell at commodity prices, or will fade away entirely. If they don't become a commodity, Microsoft won't use the G5 (or whatever follows it) in XBox 3. What Gates giveth, Gates can take away. Without Microsoft volume sales of G5's or volume sales to commodity computer manufacturers, IBM will eventually give up just as Moto did.
Apple's business model has always been based on selling its software at a loss, which was subsidized by Apple's premium price on hardware. That game will end now, but not immediately; this gives Apple several years of breathing room to bootstrap other businesses and to diversify. Without this deal, Apple would be dying now, stuck with the G4 and no escape. But even with this deal, it means that eventually Apple won't be able to charge a premium price for its hardware, and Apple's software business has never been viable on its own.
Jobs chose graceful decline of his computer business over sudden death of the company. That's a good choice. It's also his only choice, because Jobs works for his stockholders. But it's not what most Mac fans might have hoped for. Jobs is concerned with Apple's survival, but Apple can and must ultimately survive without the Mac.
This guy totally doesn't consider the fact that software vendors would have to rewrite programs to work on WinNT for PPC. This would mean that every vendor would have to write a program to work on Windows x86, Windows PPC, Windows 64, and then Mac OS.
Why would anyone want to do this when the x86 is "good enough".
Why would anyone want to do this when the x86 is "good enough".
I think the answer is simple. M$ doesn't want anyone to take their X-Box which has the guts of a heavy duty computer...minus a few parts...and sells at a fraction of the cost(remember M$ sells them at a huge loss). As a result, they don't want people buying an X-box and running linux on them...they in fact have gone to great lengths to disable any ability to run Linux (through their online gaming service XBox live they will erase or disable any non-M$ software that is installed on your X-box such as MOD's and Linux without your consent.)
The reason they want PPC chip is you won't be running Lunux on this box!
Is this right, that linux won't run on PPC? Hope so as this is my entire basis for this particular "conspiracy"
The reason they want PPC chip is you won't be running Lunux on this box!
Is this right, that linux won't run on PPC? Hope so as this is my entire basis for this particular "conspiracy"
flyfish29 said:The reason they want PPC chip is you won't be running Lunux on this box!
Is this right, that linux won't run on PPC? Hope so as this is my entire basis for this particular "conspiracy"
There are many distributions of linux that will run on PPC platform. Take, for example, YDL: http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/ ..
Also see: http://penguinppc.org/
They have even ported linux to the GameCube (based on PPC architecture), so I'm sure someone would be able to port linux to a PPC Xbox 2.
They even have linux running on iPods .... (http://ipodlinux.sourceforge.net/) which is not PPC, I know, but still shows how wide of a potential install base linux has
its at least a clearly explained and plausible argument... though it makes me personally sick to even think it could be true... lets just write it off like the "murder" of kurt cobain... m$ fanboys can go to hell...
What a bunch of malarky!!!
CHRP and Mac clones were already dead before the G4 was even thought of. Remember the time when Moto and IBM split apart? That was around the time Steve Jobs came back to Apple, but before the iMac was introduced. The G4 was not even around then, and it still had a few months of development time left, around a year, in fact.
russed said:
I think this may very well be true. M$ arguement in the antitrust world was in serious disarray at the time Apple was close to "going under" or at least suffering from serious market share in the late 90's under Gil or whatever his name was. If you remember, Apple made some payments to Apple by way of some sort of investment at the time in addition to porting office to OSX. They would have had a monopoly if Apple had gone under, so they had to make sure it succeeded enough to keep the monopolistic lawyers off their backs. Remember too the gov't was talking about a pssibility of breaking up M$ initially, until Apple made a comeback and LInux came to fame. Then they had no real groud to stand on.
topicolo said:Maybe now we can take an Xbox2, get a mod chip, and instal OS X on it
yeah this is what I am praying for... At $300 w/ USB support and everything could be a kick ass deal.
flyfish29 said:
I think that you missed the story.
The $300 million that Microsoft invested in AAPL was for nonvoting stock. And it was in exchange for the out-of-court settlement of patent infringement brought on by Apple against Microsoft.
At the time the stock buy was made, Microsoft was still in the middle of the case, with no verdict to be set for a few more months.
As much as the thought of this makes my skin crawl *shudders*... Parts of it do seem plausible. If you think about it though, there are lots of "Conspiracy theory" reasons for M$ to keep Apple around. Innovation for one. Apple has been known to take risks with innovative technology and design. The other computer companies follow suit and then sell tons of knock offs that run... Windows! Also in the OS area, Apple is an innovator with M$ reverse engineering right behind. Apple is a risk taker. Sometimes it works, sometimes not... We saw lots of iMac ripoffs in the PC world, but were there any cube clones. Nope.
I think that this guy's argument is flawed from the get go. The G5 is not inferior as a gaming system processor. It's actually far superior to an x86 in performance, which is an Xbox key point, and will remain key for the Xbox 2. Right now, there is NO comparison in pure power between the three gaming consoles, its Xbox by a mile and M$ knows that. The 64 bits of G5 power will be much more efficient for games in a console implementation. One must remember that these games are tailored for ONE system configuration. OSX is "crashproof" partially because of the minimal amount of Mac system configurations. Windows is less stable and more buggy because of the sheer amount of differing systems. With a game console, every hardware advantage gets used to its maximum potential by the end of the systems life. If you look at the progression of console games, generation to generation, you'll see that games that come late in the cycle look very similar graphically. This is because the dev teams know all of the tricks to get the max performace out of the system.
I say that the argument is null based on his original reasoning of the G5 not being as good of a choice for a console.
Spooky though
-Hasta
I think that this guy's argument is flawed from the get go. The G5 is not inferior as a gaming system processor. It's actually far superior to an x86 in performance, which is an Xbox key point, and will remain key for the Xbox 2. Right now, there is NO comparison in pure power between the three gaming consoles, its Xbox by a mile and M$ knows that. The 64 bits of G5 power will be much more efficient for games in a console implementation. One must remember that these games are tailored for ONE system configuration. OSX is "crashproof" partially because of the minimal amount of Mac system configurations. Windows is less stable and more buggy because of the sheer amount of differing systems. With a game console, every hardware advantage gets used to its maximum potential by the end of the systems life. If you look at the progression of console games, generation to generation, you'll see that games that come late in the cycle look very similar graphically. This is because the dev teams know all of the tricks to get the max performace out of the system.
I say that the argument is null based on his original reasoning of the G5 not being as good of a choice for a console.
Spooky though
-Hasta
It's sad to say but it's true that the only reason Apple is still around is because MS wants them to be. MS can easily put Apple out of the OS business at any time. If Apple ever does become a serious threat to Windows then MS just may kill MAC OS.
Apple really only has 2 choices when it comes to the Mac. Either be content with their current marketshare or let MS kill the Mac. Steve Jobs is Bill Gate's little bitch!
Apple is changing it's business model and is moving beyond the Mac. iPod-iTunes is their new market and am sure will be moving into other digital media arenas.
Apple is a great innovative company, but it may be a little to late for the Mac to thrive in a Windows dominated world. Apple marketshare continues to decline and it is only a matter of time before the major software developers leave the platform. That doesn't mean Apple can't be a successful, innovative, profitable company--but not for the Mac, but for Windows. The only question is will Steve Jobs be too proud and arrogant to admit Apple's future success lies in innovating for Windows and not the Mac?
Apple really only has 2 choices when it comes to the Mac. Either be content with their current marketshare or let MS kill the Mac. Steve Jobs is Bill Gate's little bitch!
Apple is changing it's business model and is moving beyond the Mac. iPod-iTunes is their new market and am sure will be moving into other digital media arenas.
Apple is a great innovative company, but it may be a little to late for the Mac to thrive in a Windows dominated world. Apple marketshare continues to decline and it is only a matter of time before the major software developers leave the platform. That doesn't mean Apple can't be a successful, innovative, profitable company--but not for the Mac, but for Windows. The only question is will Steve Jobs be too proud and arrogant to admit Apple's future success lies in innovating for Windows and not the Mac?
Wrong!
As long as Apple makes a profit and keeps its devout followers, it isn't going anywhere. I hate to use this, but Macs are like a Luxury car. Not a Ferrari, but like an Audi or something. It's not necesarrily faster or more powerful than a Mustang, but the experience is nicer, smoother, and a little bit elite. It's a niche market (the Mac) and it will stay that way until people quit buying. M$ has no reason to squash Apple. Office makes money for them. Unless Apple starts to gain A LOT of marketshare, they aren't going anywhere.
-Hasta
As long as Apple makes a profit and keeps its devout followers, it isn't going anywhere. I hate to use this, but Macs are like a Luxury car. Not a Ferrari, but like an Audi or something. It's not necesarrily faster or more powerful than a Mustang, but the experience is nicer, smoother, and a little bit elite. It's a niche market (the Mac) and it will stay that way until people quit buying. M$ has no reason to squash Apple. Office makes money for them. Unless Apple starts to gain A LOT of marketshare, they aren't going anywhere.
-Hasta
Frisco said:
How? I was going to say that the original article is ALL opinion, with not a quote in sight. And then you say thia. I am not standing up for Apple, if you had evidence, fine, but you don't!
IF MS tried to rid the world of Apple's OS then there would surely be a legal battle bigger than the sum of all of MS' previous legal battles, am I wrong? They have been dragged through court for a lot lot less. Also, for MS to 'kill MAC OS' as you put it, MS would have to stop people from buying Apple OS and hardware. I don't have the figures to hand, but I believe that Apple are in credit by a few dollars and are shifting a couple of computers here and there at the moment
. If we all decided not to buy Apple anymore and all go MS, then yeah, MS would obviously win. Apple is, I beleive, in a better situation currently than it has EVER been (correct me if I am wrong) and in a better financial position than many many companies. Does your statement seem less realistic now?Marc
topicolo said:Maybe now we can take an Xbox2, get a mod chip, and instal OS X on it
Since OSX is based on Linux, if the G5 or avarient thereof is placed in the next gen XBox, I don't doubt that both coul dbe installed. This however depends on wheter or not the next XBox will have a HDD.
At this time I'm prepaird to bide my time and seek refuge in my NEC RISC powered Sega DreamCast
Steve's Jobs Secret Plan
Well if it is true, Bill Gates is not the only one who can make secret plans. Steve Job's is a very intellegent man, and his hatered for Microsoft is widely known. I have heard for a while now that Apple might be working on making a version of OS-x that works on a PC. With the all the faulty programming in windows XP and all the virus' that target windows XP, there sure is a good reason to switch, software if you can use it on your exsisting hardware. This is why FedEx has switched to macs, but it is not cost effective to switch to macs for every company. Mac's are not cheap. However if they make OS-X able to run on a cheap PC. Then I think you will hear a great sucking sound coming from Microsoft's bank accounts. The only problem is it's all a game of chess. Or when Bill Gates is concerned a game of poker. (He loves poker) If Mr. Gates finds out apple is working on anything like this, then he will do everything in his power to make sure it doesn't happen. Unfortunately he has quite a bit of power. After all he is the richest man in the world. Money gives your power power gives you money. God knows he bought himself out of that last antitrust lawsuit. Windows is the inferior product, and it doesn't have to be the best. People have to buy it. The only reason it's number 1 is because of the mafia like tactics of microsoft, it's what people are used to, and it's really the only choice. Mac's are to expensive, to cater to the common man, and most people don't really understand how wonderful macs are. This is the problem. This is what needs to change. Now the only question is how. I hope Steve jobs has a good an answer.
Well if it is true, Bill Gates is not the only one who can make secret plans. Steve Job's is a very intellegent man, and his hatered for Microsoft is widely known. I have heard for a while now that Apple might be working on making a version of OS-x that works on a PC. With the all the faulty programming in windows XP and all the virus' that target windows XP, there sure is a good reason to switch, software if you can use it on your exsisting hardware. This is why FedEx has switched to macs, but it is not cost effective to switch to macs for every company. Mac's are not cheap. However if they make OS-X able to run on a cheap PC. Then I think you will hear a great sucking sound coming from Microsoft's bank accounts. The only problem is it's all a game of chess. Or when Bill Gates is concerned a game of poker. (He loves poker) If Mr. Gates finds out apple is working on anything like this, then he will do everything in his power to make sure it doesn't happen. Unfortunately he has quite a bit of power. After all he is the richest man in the world. Money gives your power power gives you money. God knows he bought himself out of that last antitrust lawsuit. Windows is the inferior product, and it doesn't have to be the best. People have to buy it. The only reason it's number 1 is because of the mafia like tactics of microsoft, it's what people are used to, and it's really the only choice. Mac's are to expensive, to cater to the common man, and most people don't really understand how wonderful macs are. This is the problem. This is what needs to change. Now the only question is how. I hope Steve jobs has a good an answer.
Opteron said:
Os X is not derived from Linux?
where have you been for the last couple years?
Mac Os X comes from *nix roots --> 4.4 BSD/FreeBSD (mostly, still some debate) --> Darwin + GUI (Aqua) --> Mac Os X (side note: Cocoa is based off of OpenStep)
Harthansen -- Very doubtful, apple would need to make everything run on an x86 processor... which is almost impossible to do... It would be worst then the Mac Os 9 --> Mac Os X switch.
--MrMacMan
Opteron said:
Well technically OSX is based on BSD Unix so it's not totally the same as linux. But if memory serves me correctly, M$ learned from their mistakes in the XBOX and aren't including hard drives in the XBOX 2
. It would've been soo cool too. I believe they're replacing the gigs of storage with some kind of flash memory.I am unsure how people can keep predicting the demise of Apple, dont people take notice of the daily "Hey im switcher!!!" posts from people? My friends, who are generally all either programers, or technophiles, and in their early 20's, half have iPods, a quarter have switched to mac's, and another quarter talk about it. I dont think apple has been this healthy since the early days. And personally I trust Mr. Jobs to run this company without any of these potential 'horror stories' that plague the mac community.
On another semi related topic. People talk about how apple is never going to make its way into the business world. However, I read an article on CNN, about the new theories for targeting the business world. Whenever something 'high tech' comes out, businesses are rarely the first to have it, rather they are sold to the public, who then introduce them to the workplace, where they are adopted later. In this regard, if Apple continue's to target people in their homes, theoretically the people will at some time want the same technology in the office.
Anyway, these crazy ideas come around all the time, no need to believe them till they can actually bring proof that such an illicit afair is indeed occuring.
Altair
On another semi related topic. People talk about how apple is never going to make its way into the business world. However, I read an article on CNN, about the new theories for targeting the business world. Whenever something 'high tech' comes out, businesses are rarely the first to have it, rather they are sold to the public, who then introduce them to the workplace, where they are adopted later. In this regard, if Apple continue's to target people in their homes, theoretically the people will at some time want the same technology in the office.
Anyway, these crazy ideas come around all the time, no need to believe them till they can actually bring proof that such an illicit afair is indeed occuring.
Altair
Dippo said:
I'm not saying this guy is correct, but a rewrite is probably not required especially considering 3 of those platforms would use the same or similar API. I write stuff that is released under Windows, OS8/9, and OSX. Typically I write it on a PC laptop, check it in to Source Safe, check it out on the Mac, recompile using CodeWarrior, and test, never typing a line of code on the Mac. If people can already get to the point where the same codebase can be compiled on Windows and Mac, compiling to another Windows with just a different CPU is a no brainer unless you're doing something like inline assembly.