Xbox2 Conspiracy Theory

[stcanard]

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.

It's even simpler than that.

Assuming we're taking about Win NT on these three systems, since the API is defined by the OS there are no API differences. The only thing that needs to be ported is the compiler. The companies simply need to cross compile.

NT was designed from the beginning to be cross platform so there are no API issues; MS was even selling a version for the alpha processor for a while -- I used one running a cygnus server in the days of NT 3. There have always been at least internal versions running on powerpc and ARM. So this has been possible (even easy) from the very beginning of NT.

The surprise here isn't NT on powerpc, the surprise is MS actually shipping it on Apple branded hardware.

 

[G4scott]

I know this has been mentioned before, and I know it sets off a few deep nerves with some, but realize this. Microsoft is a software company. They make a mass-produced OS, and some software. Apple is a software / hardware company. All of their software is superior to microsoft software in almost every way imaginable. Now I know it's been said, and shot down every time, but Apple releasing an x86 version of the Mac OS would do some damage. Assuming this, imagine if Microsoft switches over to the G5 and the PPC architecture. Apple would be in the perfect position to take on the OS market. Yes, linux may have more market share than Apple, but these are geeks who despise Apple because the would rather refer to themselves as "command line commandos", which is fine with me... Apple has worked with IBM to tweak and optimize OS X and most of their apps to take full advantage of the 970's libraries, something IBM doesn't let too many people into... Believe it or not, iTunes is optimized for Alti-Vec to offload it's processor demand onto the vector unit, freeing up more real processor time. That's how dedicated Apple is to making their software superior on their hardware... Anyways, back on topic... If microsoft switches to the PPC architecture, then Apple would be in a prime position to take them on. If PPC hardware catches on because of Microsoft, it wouldn't take much from Apple to gain more marketshare. They just have to be careful when they do it, because they're risking losing their hardware division, which is still a very important part of Apple.

Of course, this theory is about as founded as the one this post was started on, and if it's true, I'm sure microsoft has some contingency plan, but if Apple ever faces it's demise, I think they'll be prepared to 'jump ship', and invade the current microsoft platform (if microsoft hasn't done it first...)

 

[Stike]

Maybe now we can take an Xbox2, get a mod chip, and instal OS X on it

Difficult... it has been made official that the XBox 2 will not come with a preinstalled harddrive.

 

[Gyroscope]

Legend Maker

Althought article raises some obvious points (nothing i did not think of before) it fails miserably to establish some links between them to form any kind of valid theory. Reason why Microsoft choose PPC over X86 is because they did not want to melt "super slim sexy cool case " of Xbox2 with 100>W of power that P4 > produces. Besides x86 is nearing it's end. Microsoft sees this,Intel is going nowhere with it. It's cludgy "add-on" design requires x 3 transistor count to achieve same performance as PPC. It disap. so much heat its just not an option for console hardware. Intel has nothing else to offer as replacement for it. PPC is also better for multiprocessing so they may be able to stick more than one CPU into Xbox to increase performance. So simply Microsoft goes to IBM. For time being i don't think that they'll move away from Intel beyond XBox2. Unless Microsoft decides to try to kill PC as we know it today with some post-PC appliance that would benefit from PPC design/thermal characteristics.

 

[windowsblowsass]

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?

yeah your insane

 

[Dippo]

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?

Microsoft isn't going to kill the Mac even if they could...from whom would they steal all of their ideas???

The OS wars are not going to end with one dominant platform, but rather different platforms that can work together. As soon as we can make applications that are no longer OS dependent then we can move toward the future (either that or OSes that can run any application)

 

[Frisco]

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

You are right and I apologize. I guess I got a little carried away. I just get so mad when I hear about how Apple is so dependent on Microsoft. It also really makes me angry that almost everyone uses an inferior OS. Mac OSX is just so beautiful, elegant and easy to use. The work world and world in general would be a much greater place if it only used Macs.

Once again I apologize. I am a big Mac Zealot myself.