Expectations For Intel Macs [Archive]

snoopy

07-08-2005, 03:47 PM

Well, there is a thread for how the new Macs will look. Also, reasons for going with Intel have be discussed. Still, I'm wondering about new features the Intel Macs may offer, features that are related to the CPU change? Many appear to think we will not see much difference other than typical changes found in new models of the Mac. I think otherwise and expect one or two surprises in this move to Intel. Then again, if we figure it out beforehand these will not be surprises. :(

I'll toss one out for starters. This idea is so obvious that it must have been discussed already, somewhere. This idea comes from two facts. First, that Intel Macs will not run Classic mode. Classic is officially dead on new Intel Mac, a fact that is obviously to most who understands a little about how computers work. Second, it is very possible, even likely, that the new Macs will boot Windows OS, though Apple will not support Windows booting.

Now consider how classic worked when OS X came out. There was a copy of OS 9 on the Mac, and OS X could run this as a Unix process without actually booting into OS 9. Double click on an old Classic application and voila, there is the OS 9 desktop showing the application. It works instantly and seamlessly. It works not just because Apple developed Classic mode, but because OS 9 runs on the same PPC processor as OS X.

Now we have an Intel CPU. What is to prevent Apple from developing a Windows mode that will run a copy of Windows as an OS X process? My computer knowledge is far from complete and I may be overlooking something obvious. There is a huge advantage to doing it this way. First, it is instantaneous and seamless. Second, there is no need to support Window OS on the hardware. It is simply running as a process.

So that is the idea. Just to add some worthless rumors to this, an "Apple Rep" let it slip to a CompUSA manager that the new Intel Macs will all have Windows installed. I though this to be rather unlikely until I got the idea for a Windows mode. Could MS have cut a deal with Apple to provide a copy of Windows that would not boot? Apple may have gotten it pretty cheap, maybe in exchange for agreeing to prevent OS X from booting on generic PCs?

Any thought? Please give technical details if you shoot down my idea. I like to learn as much as I can. :)

stustanley

07-08-2005, 04:11 PM

the only problem i would see with it is that developers would stop developing for osx.

Why develop for theplatform is the windows version we have working works just as well?

i think the same thing happened with the NeXt system! (please correct me if i am wrong)

stu

slughead

07-08-2005, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by snoopy
What is to prevent Apple from developing a Windows mode that will run a copy of Windows as an OS X process?

The fact that Apple would have to bundle a copy with windows with every OSX version.

Virtual PC on Macintel will be almost as fast as booting directly into windows.

And btw, the way Apple's doing this, all it's going to do is give developers a tough time for a few months and allow windows to run on a mac.

Most people (AKA the smart ones) don't buy macs for the hardware, so the likelyhood of someone buying a mac to use windows is really remote and laughable.

mynamehere

07-08-2005, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by stustanley

i think the same thing happened with the NeXt system! (please correct me if i am wrong)

IBM's OS/2 as well...just couldn't compete with Windows.

snoopy

07-08-2005, 11:58 PM

There is no need for Virtual PC to run Windows on Intel Macs, since no emulation is needed. Something similar to the Classic mode but designed to run Windows in an OS X process will do the job. A very good point is made that Microsoft may be the best one to provide this application, rather than Apple.

Whether or not a Windows mode would be on all Intel Macs is debatable. I could see Apple including it if Microsoft prices it right. From MS viewpoint, it could be very profitable to sell cheap to put a copy on every Mac. Also, no marketing costs or trying to get people to buy it. From Apple's point of view, it would be one heck of a selling point. Are you switching from a Windows PC? No problem. All your Windows software will run on your new Mac. Also, it would be a real selling point for business.

One technical point I wonder about is whether a Windows mode would work with a copy of Windows that does not boot. If so, it would seem to guard against piracy since the Windows code could not be installed as an OS on a generic PC. As a result, MS may be more receptive to providing Windows mode at a low price.

snoopy

07-09-2005, 12:02 AM

Deleted

slughead

07-09-2005, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by snoopy
There is no need for Virtual PC to run Windows on Intel Macs, since no emulation is needed.

I knew that, I was just trying to simplify things :)

M$ would never cooperate in including a Windows environment to run along side OS X.. that's just setting themselves up for a coup.

maybe M$ will finally just say "ok F-this" and buy apple

maybe we'll finally see a 3ghz G5 :D

snoopy

07-09-2005, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by stustanley
the only problem i would see with it is that developers would stop developing for osx.

Why develop for theplatform is the windows version we have working works just as well? . . .

Well, Apple is stuck with this situation whether or not there is a Windows mode on every Mac. Such an application will exist sooner or later. By having an Intel processor, new Macs will be able to run Windows applications in OS X very fast. I'm sure someone with technical savvy can offer a good guess. My uneducated guess is 70 or 80 percent of the speed running in a Windows booted PC.

Apple must have taken this fact into account before deciding to transition to Intel. It is much too obvious for the folks at Apple to overlook.

snoopy

07-09-2005, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by slughead

, , , M$ would never cooperate in including a Windows environment to run along side OS X.. that's just setting themselves up for a coup. . .

Why not? Microsoft provides VPC now. The only difference is that Windows will run better on the new Intel Mac. MS would likely look on this as an advantage, or opportunity. If Windows were to run on every Mac, the percentage of PCs that run Windows applications will be higher. It also exposes all Mac users to Windows. (Thought many may just ignore it.) If given enough thought I'm sure most of us could see ways that MS might consider Windows on all Macs to be an advantage. If nothing else, there is the fee MS would collect from Apple, even if it is small.

Ensoniq

07-09-2005, 02:22 AM

Snoopy is correct...there is NO downside for Microsoft in developing a better VPC for use on the Intel Macs.

They already sell Virtual PC for Mac, which lets Windows (and other x86 OSes) run under Mac OS X. They also sell Virtual PC for Windows, which lets Windows machines run multiple x86 OSes under Windows XP/2000.

So Microsoft has a front end that is designed for Mac users (VPC Mac) and a back end that knows perfectly well how to talk to an x86 machine (VPC Windows), and once they combine the best parts of both those programs into one, we should have a very good VPC Mac for Intel that will actually be quite speedy and usable.

Every time Microsoft sells VPC and a copy of Windows, they make money. They own the majority of the OS market. It would take years of Windows users getting exposed to Mac OS X and switching before they would have any worry that the loss of business would even cost them a tiny percentage of the billions they make each year. So far that hasn't happened, and Mac Intel machines will do almost nothing to change that.

A Mac will still be a Mac to an average customer, a Wintel will be a Wintel, and the processor in the Mac isn't going to change almost anyone's mind into switching. That is a fallacy. The only reason a PC user would switch to a Mac would be to run OS X, not to run Windows on a cool looking machine.

Windows on a Mac won't hurt Apple, as people who buy Macs do so because of the OS, the ease of use, and because they know enough to know it's a good machine with a long life. If they need to run Windows too, they willl buy VPC and Windows and that will help Microsoft. Expect the next version of VPC (for Intel Macs) to be the best ever.

-- Ensoniq

snoopy

07-09-2005, 10:54 AM

It's easy to assume that Windows will run on future Macs like it does now but much faster -- MS will sell VPC for Intel Macs. I guess the point I've wanted to make is that things may be a little, or a lot, different. VPC is just one possibility. The name may change because, as I understand it, there will be nothing "virtual" about the PC that is running Windows applications. Here are a couple options for new Macs that come to mind.

1) Apple provides the basic application that will run Windows OS as an OS X process. It would be in the Systems Preferences menu in place of Classic. It would be up to the user to provide a copy of Windows OS to make this work.

2) Microsoft provides the application rather than Apple and packages it with a copy of Windows. Emulation code is no longer needed, so it should be a simpler application and priced accordingly, lower than VPC.

Whether or not an operational Windows mode would be on all Intel Macs is debatable. I think it is unlikely myself, but it is interesting to think about. It is also just crazy enough that Apple might do it, providing MS comes across with a very good deal.

tacojohn

07-09-2005, 11:27 AM

It would be cool if someone developed an application that could see a separate partition and could boot the version of windows that's installed on that partition- kinda like VPC, but if you wanted to you could also dual boot and run windows natively without running OS X.

If you needed to jump into windows really quick and grab something or check something you could run it within OS X with reasonable speed. Then if you needed to run something that requires a lot of system resources (game, 3Dsmax, etc.) you could boot into windows without OS X.

snoopy

07-09-2005, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by tacojohn
It would be cool if someone developed an application that could see a separate partition and could boot the version of windows that's installed on that partition- kinda like VPC, but if you wanted to you could also dual boot and run windows natively without running OS X.

If you needed to jump into windows really quick and grab something or check something you could run it within OS X with reasonable speed. Then if you needed to run something that requires a lot of system resources (game, 3Dsmax, etc.) you could boot into windows without OS X.

What you are saying seems to describe how OS 9 worked on Macs up to a couple years ago. OS 9 could be installed on a separate partition, which is how I have it on this one. The Mac could be booted into OS 9, or OS 9 could be run in Classic mode. I see no reason it might not work exactly like this with Windows on Intel Macs. One difference, Apple said it would not support Windows booting, but it may work fine anyway. :)

Big Mac

07-09-2005, 12:12 PM

Come on, all of this is patently ridiculous. A Windows VM installed by default on OS X would swiftly kill Mac software development. Developers could write against Win32 alone and be able to claim to have Mac support. And it would completely open Apple's PCs to the Windows world of malware. The average user would not care, as long as his or her applications would run properly. Apple (presumably) has more sense than to allow Microsoft to completely eat its lunch.

snoopy

07-09-2005, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Big Mac
Come on, all of this is patently ridiculous. A Windows VM installed by default on OS X would swiftly kill Mac software development. Developers could write against Win32 alone and be able to claim to have Mac support. . .

I did say, "I think it is unlikely myself, but it is interesting to think about." I think the key words you used are "installed by default." I concede this point. However, Apple could still have a Windows mode in the System Preference in OS X. It would, however, require that the user install a copy of Windows OS to make it work. :)

aplnub

07-09-2005, 02:33 PM

I expect to have a fast version of VPC that will run AutoCad and MS Frontpage without me having to reboot. If MS can do that, then I get a intel powermac and intel powerbook at work. What a dream I am having...

XorAxAx

07-10-2005, 02:47 AM

Most likely scenario IMHO: There will be no Apple-developed Windows mode in OS X. Microsoft will sell a version of VPC with Mactel support. It will perform at a speed comparable to VPC running on Windows, a respectable improvement over the PPC version.

Yes, Microsoft does make a VPC for Windows. I use it frequently in my evil alter ego as a Windows developer.

Sceptic

07-10-2005, 06:06 AM

The doomsday scenario for Apple is Pear PC type emulation running Mac OSX within WINDOWS on non-Apple machines.

Pear PC type "sand box" emulation is next to impossible to prevent. While you may not be able to run OSX standalone on a Dell, you will almost certainly be able to run it in a sandbox.

Picture this.

$999 3.5 ghz Dell P4, running OSX in a sandbox at 90% speed

OR

$999 2.5 ghz Mac P4, running OSX natively

This is what Apple should be concerned about.

Blackcat

07-10-2005, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by snoopy
There is no need for Virtual PC to run Windows on Intel Macs, since no emulation is needed.

We don't know that yet. VPC does more than emulate an x86, it emulates an entire PC including RAM, BIOS, ports etc. While we know the dev Macs are just PCs running a custom OSX we don't know if the production Macs will have custom Apple parts.

Allowing Windows to boot does not mean supporting it, which also means some Macs might not boot it. People will whine if, say, Minis can't but iMacs can but it's not upto Apple to make it possible.

I like the idea of VPC on Intel Macs as it means no rebooting. Windows sits in its own window while OS X carries on doing its thing, both at full speed.

ThinkingDifferent

07-10-2005, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by mynamehere
IBM's OS/2 as well...just couldn't compete with Windows.

Didn't IBM market OS2 as being able to run Windows programs better than Windows? I do miss OS2:(

ThinkingDifferent

07-10-2005, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Sceptic
Pear PC type "sand box" emulation is next to impossible to prevent. While you may not be able to run OSX standalone on a Dell, you will almost certainly be able to run it in a sandbox.

The sandbox of choice would be VMWare. Although, it seems like somebody will have to produce a hack to have the sandbox look like a Mac. Isn't Apple going to use some type of DRM to prevent OSX from running on non-Apple hardware?

BRussell

07-10-2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Sceptic
The doomsday scenario for Apple is Pear PC type emulation running Mac OSX within WINDOWS on non-Apple machines.

Pear PC type "sand box" emulation is next to impossible to prevent. While you may not be able to run OSX standalone on a Dell, you will almost certainly be able to run it in a sandbox.

Picture this.

$999 3.5 ghz Dell P4, running OSX in a sandbox at 90% speed

OR

$999 2.5 ghz Mac P4, running OSX natively

This is what Apple should be concerned about. I don't think it's doomsday because virtually no one will do it. Apple will make sure of that by putting up some roadblocks. The roadblocks will be bypassed, but only by the l33t hax0rs, who make up exactly .0035% of all Windows users. The other 99.9965% of Windows users won't even know it's possible, let alone bother to do it.

Blackcat

07-10-2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think it's doomsday because virtually no one will do it. Apple will make sure of that by putting up some roadblocks. The roadblocks will be bypassed, but only by the l33t hax0rs, who make up exactly .0035% of all Windows users. The other 99.9965% of Windows users won't even know it's possible, let alone bother to do it.

You might like to check out the vast PC warez scene. Only 1 ISO of a hacked OS X needs to escape.

snoopy

07-10-2005, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Sceptic
The doomsday scenario for Apple is Pear PC type emulation running Mac OSX within WINDOWS on non-Apple machines. . .

I'll admit your comments seemed pretty gloomy when I first read them, but I've thought more about it. If it becomes possible to run Mac OS X in Windows it could help Apple sales as much as hurt them. Here are a few thoughts.

1) The main appeal of things like Classic mode and VPC is to run legacy software in your possession that will not run on your current computer. Few would be satisfied to operate like this with most all applications and for a long time. This is a minor point.

2) The initial attraction would likely be running Mac OS X on someone's current computer, to try it out. So it starts out being a $130 investment, plus whatever the "sandbox" costs. However, about all someone could do at this point is surf the web and get mail, which actually may be worth the investment for security reasons. At this point, the user must decide whether he or she likes OS X enough to invest more and start buying Mac applications. Let's assume someone begins to convert to Mac software and can proudly show friends how Mac OS X is running on their Dell. It's possible this intermediate set up will satisfy for a year or two, but it can't be very satisfying to always boot into Windows and then switch over to Mac OS for normal operation.

3) Sooner or later it will be time to move on and get a new computer. Does someone buy another Dell and continue this scenario? More than likely someone would look at the new Macs at this point and do some figuring. By this time there is likely a new version of Mac OS out. So, to the price of a Dell our sandboxer must add $130 plus the cost of iLife he or she may have been longing for. The Mac will look better and better. Consider too that Intel Macs could cost less than PPC Macs because Apple has less engineering and possibly no custom ASIC chips. (Application specific integrated circuit.)

I believe Apple will be able to compete in the market place better using Intel's standard chip sets. The high end Macs may be a little different story, but the sandbox approach wouldn't be attractive in this market.

BRussell

07-10-2005, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat
You might like to check out the vast PC warez scene. Only 1 ISO of a hacked OS X needs to escape. There is a vast PC warez scene, and yet Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Apple execs have said they will make it difficult for people to do this, so I doubt it will be a major problem for them. It's not like every secretary and suburbanite family with a Dell box is going to be downloading and installing a torrent of a hacked OS X.

Programmer

07-10-2005, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat
You might like to check out the vast PC warez scene. Only 1 ISO of a hacked OS X needs to escape.

This is pretty much irrelevant -- Apple (or MS or any other developer, for that matter) isn't going to make any money off of the people who will run warez anyhow so there is no loss there. If those people are running a hacked OSX and they buy Mac software (why when you can just steal it?) then they increase the sales to Mac developers and strengthen the Mac community. If people are using warez as a try-before-you-buy mechanism then Apple's exposure is increased, which is good for them.

People who understand the importance of buying their software, and the value of quality hardware, are the market and have always been the market. Thieves never constitute a market.

Blackcat

07-10-2005, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
There is a vast PC warez scene, and yet Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Apple execs have said they will make it difficult for people to do this, so I doubt it will be a major problem for them. It's not like every secretary and suburbanite family with a Dell box is going to be downloading and installing a torrent of a hacked OS X.

Actually, you make an interesting point. A large reason for the 'popularity' of PCs is the relative ease of obtaining copied software. If OS X on Intel creates a larger Mac warez scene it might actually increase the popularity in the same way.

Interesting times...

snoopy

07-10-2005, 07:17 PM

1) Well, we discussed the greater speed of Windows running as an Mac OS X process, and how this task might be accomplished on Intel Macs, hopefully more easily.

2) We also discussed new and/or supposed dangers of running the Mac OS on generic PC hardware.

3) I mentioned how Intel Macs could well be cheaper, by using standard Intel chip sets, and nobody challenged this possibility . . . yet!

These are all things related to the CPU change and going with Intel. That makes three; I'm sure there must be many more. I'll throw out one more for critiquing, the Macs limited product offerings.

4) Going with Intel may mean we will see a better selection of Macs. As I mentioned regarding price, going with Intel will mean much lower engineering and development expenses for new models of the Mac. I feel certain Apple will take full advantage of this situation, especially for mid and lower priced Macs.

I don't believe it will mean blah Macs with no style or class. But even here, Apple may spend less time trying to make each new model a splash sensation. New models may barrow more from previous models that have been successful. I sure hope this is true, that we have more models to choose from. It will never be like the Windows PC side, but I for one am very weary of not having reasonable selection, or buying on eBay because some old stuff is better suited for what I want than new models of the Mac.

Sceptic

07-10-2005, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by snoopy

4) Going with Intel may mean we will see a better selection of Macs. As I mentioned regarding price, going with Intel will mean much lower engineering and development expenses for new models of the Mac. I feel certain Apple will take full advantage of this situation, especially for mid and lower priced Macs.

I don't believe it will mean blah Macs with no style or class. But even here, Apple may spend less time trying to make each new model a splash sensation. New models may barrow more from previous models that have been successful. I sure hope this is true, that we have more models to choose from. It will never be like the Windows PC side, but I for one am very weary of not having reasonable selection, or buying on eBay because some old stuff is better suited for what I want than new models of the Mac. [/B]

In the long run I hope Apple will license Mac OSX. Hardware is commodity stuff, that is hard to make money off. Apple can still make its own UBER HIGH MARGIN gear (iMac, Powerbooks etc), because these products are sufficiently differentiated. Meanwhile, license Mac OSX to HP, Dell etc to cover the other hardware bases (generic towers, servers), which are typically hard to make money off (because they are commodities).

For the first time in a long time, I can envision Apple making serious inroads in Microsoft's market share. Mac OSX on Intel is Apple's best chance to break out of computing nichedom.

mynamehere

07-10-2005, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Didn't IBM market OS2 as being able to run Windows programs better than Windows? I do miss OS2:(

Yep...then people stopped developing for OS/2, which then died. That's one of the reasons why WINE for OSX (or something like it) is so scary to me.

snoopy

07-10-2005, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by mynamehere
Yep...then people stopped developing for OS/2, which then died. That's one of the reasons why WINE for OSX (or something like it) is so scary to me.

And what is WINE beside something you might drink with dinner? :???:

Gene Clean

07-10-2005, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by snoopy
And what is WINE beside something you might drink with dinner? :???:

http://www.winehq.com/

snoopy

07-10-2005, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
http://www.winehq.com/

Thanks. WINE sounds pretty good to me -- a free applications that will run the occasional Window application we may run into. Many places do not support a Mac, or claim support by telling customers to buy VPC and run the Windows software. WINE may work fine for these situations. There is no way some places will ever support the Mac properly.

Personally, I don't see this eliminating any Mac developers. I don't know your opinion on it. OS2 didn't have a solid foundation of applications and developers when it collapsed. It was relatively new, and just getting started really. I bought a copy to play with, but there really were no applications from what I remember. I still thought it was very sad, because I like selection and competition -- one reason I stay away from MS as much as possible. I needed a PC for my CS classes, however. I live in Intel land. Their plants are just down the road and Intel supports the Universities around here, especially engineering and computer science. I switched to the Mac shortly after graduating and never looked back. Now that Macs will use Intel I may even take the company tour at their next annual open house in Hillsboro, Oregon. :)

kresh

07-11-2005, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by snoopy
OS2 didn't have a solid foundation of applications and developers when it collapsed. It was relatively new, and just getting started really.

It was hardly new, it was written for the 80286. It collapsed because you could almost not buy a computer that did not have Windows pre-installed. If you did buy a computer with OS/2 pre-installed the vendor still had to pay MS as if it had MsDos/Windows. Since MS had this huge base of pre-installed boxes out developers dropped what they were doing and started writing apps for Windows.

OS/2 History Source 1 (http://www.linuxandmain.com/features/os2retro.html) OS/2 History Source 2 (http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html)

Man I really loved OS/2 Warped

The only reason I bring this up is because no one can ruin a wet dream like IBM can! They lost the desktop hardware wars, the OS wars and the Processor war.

snoopy

07-11-2005, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by kresh
It was hardly new, it was written for the 80286. It collapsed because you could almost not buy a computer that did not have Windows pre-installed. If you did buy a computer with OS/2 pre-installed the vendor still had to pay MS as if it had MsDos/Windows. Since MS had this huge base of pre-installed boxes out developers dropped what they were doing and started writing apps for Windows.

OS/2 History Source 1 (http://www.linuxandmain.com/features/os2retro.html) OS/2 History Source 2 (http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2History.html)

Man I really loved OS/2 Warped

The only reason I bring this up is because no one can ruin a wet dream like IBM can! They lost the desktop hardware wars, the OS wars and the Processor war.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't pay too much attention as IBM was developing OS2. Yes, it was the Warped version I finally picked up to play with.

vinney57

07-11-2005, 06:32 AM

This has been discused to death in other threads.

Yes you will be able to run windows on a Macintel, its a win-win situation for Apple. No, Apple will not licence OS X. No, existing developers will not stop Mac development. Developers who had no plans to develop for the Mac will still have no plans to develop for the Mac.

mynamehere

07-11-2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by vinney57
This has been discused to death in other threads.

Yes you will be able to run windows on a Macintel, its a win-win situation for Apple. No, Apple will not licence OS X. No, existing developers will not stop Mac development. Developers who had no plans to develop for the Mac will still have no plans to develop for the Mac.

It's not being able to run Windows (dual boot or VPC). A WINE-type application provides an invisible compatability layer (ie: You wouldn't even know it's a Windows App because there's no booting into Windows, it just runs as an OSX application)

snoopy

07-11-2005, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by mynamehere
. . . A WINE-type application provides an invisible compatability layer (ie: You wouldn't even know it's a Windows App because there's no booting into Windows, it just runs as an OSX application)

It's sounding better all the time. :)

Blackcat

07-11-2005, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by mynamehere
It's not being able to run Windows (dual boot or VPC). A WINE-type application provides an invisible compatability layer (ie: You wouldn't even know it's a Windows App because there's no booting into Windows, it just runs as an OSX application)

With a native OS X GUI?

cdoverlaw

07-12-2005, 06:33 AM

a native gui could be posssible, but its unlikely, the windows window will possibly run inside a mac os x window and the dock icon will probably be the wine icon, this is like running X to run the gimp, or classic mode.

Jonathan

Blackcat

07-12-2005, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by cdoverlaw
a native gui could be posssible, but its unlikely, the windows window will possibly run inside a mac os x window and the dock icon will probably be the wine icon, this is like running X to run the gimp, or classic mode.

Jonathan

May I be the first to say

Ew!

:)

snoopy

07-12-2005, 07:30 PM

I'll add this to the list of expectations for Intel Macs. It's being discussed in the IBM 970MP thread on page three.

5) Greater selection of video or graphics cards. Apparently ATI and nVidia are willing to write the drivers for Intel Macs. Also, Intel provides video or graphics solutions from what I hear, which may be a good option for lower cost Macs. ATI and nVidia may be partly motivated by the competition, now that Intel video is available to Apple.

Briefly the first four on the list are:

1) Greater speed running Windows as an Mac OS X process.

2) Potential problem of running Mac OS on generic PC hardware.

3) Likely cheaper Macs, by using standard Intel chip sets and reduced engineering cost.

4) Possibly a better selection of Macs. Lower development costs may prompt Apple to offer more models of the Mac, especially for mid and lower priced Macs.