or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › [Closed due to flaky BB] Next Powermac 970 with up to 2,5 GHZ ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Closed due to flaky BB] Next Powermac 970 with up to 2,5 GHZ ? - Page 10

post #361 of 477
<a href="http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=6038" target="_blank">http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=6038</a>

Hmmm. Looks like Apple is boosting revenue from Services and more and more software.

Seems to tie in with their hardware...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #362 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>

Kid Red's on the money. Why would you want to kill the codebase for 25 million Macs? And with four million more sold every year, Adobe suddenly kills Photoshop? Macromedia kill Dreamweaver MX? Or Flash? Or M$ killing Office?

Either a market is worth supporting or its not.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Your not getting it. That 4 million figure, in 2 years time, will soon be able to run x86 at great speed (supposedly). However, I agree that the current programs would be mainted (to a point). Why would you throw away years of work? You wouldn't! My point (and I believe others making this argument) is that no NEW softweare would be written for the mac. If you culd write one application (we are talking from scratch), and it would run everywhere, why would you say "Oh, lets throw money away developing a mac version of this even tough they can run the current release RIGHT NOW, at NO PERFORMANCE HIT".

Yes, old codebases would be maintained (Photoshop wouldn't be dropped, Office v.X woudln't, etc) in the immediate time frame. However, given time, less and less applications would be developed specifically for the mac (new apps), and eventually the old guys would say "Well, no one else is developing specifically for the mac, so why bother updating 2 code bases, lets just concentrate all our efforts into one code base".

So say you are a developer 2 years from now, and you were starting a new project and you wanted to do a realsase for Mac and for PC. Now you new that you could take the time to develop two applications (one for mac and one for pc), or you could develop one application and it would run virtually everywhere (98% of the market lets say, the other 2% are still running old Mac boxes with no PC emulation). Honestly what would you choose? Its a no brainer.

But this will never happen. Why? Because emulation will never as good as the real thing (buying a x86 box). Even if in 2 years we were emulating a 4 GHz Pentium 4, the Pentium 5 woudl be out, and running at 7 GHz (lets say), and any new apps woudl be targetting somethign like this. so our emulated system would stil lbe grossly outdated, and run the new software at subpar performance.

So this whole thing is moot, as it is based on the belief that perfect (or very near perfect) emulation speeds were being obtained.

[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
post #363 of 477
For the people using Adobe et al as examples: I'm not worried about the big guys. Not for a while, at least. I'm worried about the little guys.

There are a handful of reasons for some apps to stay native - Quark, for example, could never get away with removing AppleScript support. But in the case of small- to medium-sized shops, the temptation to release a Windows-only version would be great; and any educational or enterprise institutions that used that app would then be faced with the question of why buy a Mac to use as a PC? After all, if necessary you can get all the big apps for Windows, and since the likes of Adobe consider themselves above mere platforms, there's less and less difference with every release. Heck, Adobe reimplemented Quartz for Photoshop so that they could use that kind of engine cross-platform. The big guys will negate any platform specific advantages that they can't ignore outright, except for gewgaws and (in some cases) scripting.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #364 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by kupan787:
<strong>

Your not getting it. That 4 million figure, in 2 years time, will soon be able to run x86 at great speed (supposedly). However, I agree that the current programs would be mainted (to a point). Why would you throw away years of work? You wouldn't! My point (and I believe others making this argument) is that no NEW softweare would be written for the mac. If you culd write one application (we are talking from scratch), and it would run everywhere, why would you say "Oh, lets throw money away developing a mac version of this even tough they can run the current release RIGHT NOW, at NO PERFORMANCE HIT".

Yes, old codebases would be maintained (Photoshop wouldn't be dropped, Office v.X woudln't, etc) in the immediate time frame. However, given time, less and less applications would be developed specifically for the mac (new apps), and eventually the old guys would say "Well, no one else is developing specifically for the mac, so why bother updating 2 code bases, lets just concentrate all our efforts into one code base".

So say you are a developer 2 years from now, and you were starting a new project and you wanted to do a realsase for Mac and for PC. Now you new that you could take the time to develop two applications (one for mac and one for pc), or you could develop one application and it would run virtually everywhere (98% of the market lets say, the other 2% are still running old Mac boxes with no PC emulation). Honestly what would you choose? Its a no brainer.

But this will never happen. Why? Because emulation will never as good as the real thing (buying a x86 box). Even if in 2 years we were emulating a 4 GHz Pentium 4, the Pentium 5 woudl be out, and running at 7 GHz (lets say), and any new apps woudl be targetting somethign like this. so our emulated system would stil lbe grossly outdated, and run the new software at subpar performance.

So this whole thing is moot, as it is based on the belief that perfect (or very near perfect) emulation speeds were being obtained.

[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you are saying that developers of new apps like Adobe iphoto rippoff album think wouldn't come to the mac because 4 million people bought a 970? So that's neglecting the 25 million current users and betting your income that 100% of the 4 million 970 users would buy/run windows to use your 'small' app? Come on, that'
s stupid, bad business and any other adjective/cliche to describe blindly killing production because you 'think' a decent # of users 'may' be able to run windows in emulation? Naw.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #365 of 477
Battling Windows head on in corporations will never work until you can emulate their success. Inexpensive hardware and the ability to use Office.

So far, Apple has only half that picture. No corporation is going to spend $1500+ on a desktop when they can buy a PC for $699 that will do the same thing.

Switchers don't come from end users. Higher ups decide what stays and what goes. There is no reason for them to switch. Do you honestly think just the presence of a 970-based Powermac would do that? Hell no!

They are looking for inexpensive, compatible boxes that work well with their network. Kind of hard to control a Mac using SMS isn't it.

We aren't quite there yet, but it's getting better.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #366 of 477
The issue is those users who would switch to mac but -

1) Too expensive to not only buy the hardware but replakce all thier software.
2) Still need to run a few PC apps and VPC doesn't cut it.

Those are the ones Apple could target as switchers with a 970 and pc emualtion built in.

side note- this is just my theory on one of moki's secrets. I'm not predicting or promoting the idea
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #367 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>The issue is those users who would switch to mac but -

1) Too expensive to not only buy the hardware but replakce all thier software.
2) Still need to run a few PC apps and VPC doesn't cut it.

Those are the ones Apple could target as switchers with a 970 and pc emualtion built in.

side note- this is just my theory on one of moki's secrets. I'm not predicting or promoting the idea </strong><hr></blockquote>

It seams to me that this would most benefit Apple in their consumer marketing, yet their low end computers are topping out at 1 Ghz G4's, and will not likely see a 970 this year. So, will a 1.25-1.5 Ghz G4 iMac run the emulation software with comperable performance to a 2.5-3 Ghz Pentium? I doubt it.
post #368 of 477
I think that Apple could quite easily produce a 970 based headless consumer machine that would sell for ~$500 US, while still maintaining their 30% margins on it. They would also offer a matching screen to purchase separately, if needed.

In some ways this is the sort of thing they need to do with the 970 to get extensive penetration into the consumer market.
post #369 of 477
How far can a discussion go before it's offically OFF TRACK?????
post #370 of 477
A very long way it seems... Goodness, you guys are deluding your selves if you think Apple is going to release a mac that will run windows. Get over it! It won't happen. Now lets get back to what this blade board is supposed to have special on it. Moki, or however it was, can't you just tell us? Goodness!
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #371 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong><a href="http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=6038" target="_blank">http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=6038</a>

Hmmm. Looks like Apple is boosting revenue from Services and more and more software.

Seems to tie in with their hardware...</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is no great surprise. These are both areas with higher margins so the more money they make there the more they can cut hardware prices or the more they can spend on other areas. Most large IT companies are trying to adopt service based and subscription based models so Apple doing it is no great surprise.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #372 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by kupan787:
<strong> Your not getting it...I agree that the current programs would be mainted (to a point). .... My point (and I believe others making this argument) is that no NEW softweare would be written for the mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />

That's just silly. Sorry to be blunt. Who in his right mind would want to run Windows if you had OS X in the same comp?! What YOU don't get is that it would actually be the other way around. The more people using Macs, the more demand for Mac apps. What you don't seem to grasp is that having OS X run windows IS what is needed and wanted by many. The biggest complaint I get from potential switchers is, "I will have to buy all knew software. I really like Macs, but I just don't know." If they could still use their so "loved" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> software with the Mac, the flood gates would open and soon PC users would realize how much Windows sucks compared to OS X and spread the word like wild fire.

If Apple had the ability to run Windows on the Mac out of the box at reasonable speeds... That would be the direction to take, no and or buts about it. Face it, no one is developing for the Mac anymore anyhow, so your point is null and void. The only company I see developing for the Mac is Apple, the rest are long time Mac developers that don't really NEED to develop for the Mac to survive anymore, sad, sad, but true. So let Apple develop interest into OS X by having PC users see the benefits first hand. From there, all will fall into place.

"If you build it, they will come." <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/stormyjohn/art/art.html" target="_blank">Homepage </a>
Reply
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/stormyjohn/art/art.html" target="_blank">Homepage </a>
Reply
post #373 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by PooPooDoctor:
<strong>That's just silly. Sorry to be blunt. Who in his right mind would want to run Windows if you had OS X in the same comp?! What YOU don't get is that it would actually be the other way around.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am silly?!? To think that all the windows users in the world want to give up their machines to run OS X is silly. We are talking (hypothetically) that all new macs could run windows programs at native speeds. So you wouldn't be giving up OS X, it would still run on your machine just fine. What woudl happen is your application choice would be limited, and you would be running more and more windows apps. The thing that you don't get is you would HAVE NO CHOICE! If the application was only written for x86, you would have no choice to run an OS X version, as they WOULDN'T EXIST. My whole point (and a few others on this board) is that if this whole emulation thing happened, why as a developer, would you make a natvie mac version, if the native x86 verison worked just fine? The user (you and me) have no choice, if the developer doens't give it to us.

[quote]<strong>The more people using Macs, the more demand for Mac apps</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bzzzzt...wrong. Try again. Why would suddenly more people be running macs just because we have native x86 emulation? Does the price of a mac suddenly drop? Oh, no it doesn't. Infact it might go up, if all macs were packaged with Windows, and whatever the licensing costs Microsoft decides to charge Apple. Oh, I know. Peoples views about Apple and the mac suddenly change. Oh, wait, no that doesn't happen either.

Re-read what I and some others have said. If this native emulation environment existed, developers would not want to write more OS X apps. They would write once, run everywhere (run on native x86, and emulated x86). So even if 5 million 970 macs were sold, developers would sitll want to write the x86 version, as it would run on every box (x86, native emulation with the 970, and half speed through emulation with older macs). So there would be no incentive to write native OS X apps.

[quote]<strong>The only company I see developing for the Mac is Apple, the rest are long time Mac developers that don't really NEED to develop for the Mac to survive anymore, sad, sad, but true.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Any evidence on this one? I know quite a few shareware guys developing for macs only (Ambrosia comes to mind), and if they stopped developing for the mac would be SOL. But maybe you are only talking about big companies. In which case I think you are wrong again. I am sure you are thinking of Adobe and Microsoft, but there are other companies that are doing quite well with their mac departments.

But I am done with this, as we will never convince each other, the other person is correct. And the whole argument is stupid, as this "dream emulation" will never happen.

[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
post #374 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Anonymous Karma:
<strong>

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TJM:

I'VE GOT IT!!!!

It's not a blade server at all!!!

It's actually a controller for a Fusion Pulse Cannon off of an Auroran Cruiser! Those fiends at IBM are in league with the Aurorans!

[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, actually, their Intel blade servers are Fusion Pulse Cannons. The heat from the Pentium directly powers the weapon.

This one is stolen Polaris technology.

(That whoosh sound was the sound of this going over everyone's heads...) </strong><hr></blockquote>

What game are you guys playing anyway???


:confused: :confused: :confused: <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
post #375 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Derrick 61:
<strong>

What game are you guys playing anyway???


:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

EV Nova
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #376 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Derrick 61:
<strong>

What game are you guys playing anyway???


:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Escape Velocity Nova - published by Ambrosia Software, of whom Andrew Welch is el presidente. Mr. Welch posts under the name "moki" here.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #377 of 477
Could this whole "Windoze emulation" argument be compared to the PSone/PS2?

PS2 runs all PSone software at faster than native speed...Why develop for the relatively few (when first released) PS2s out there, when there are something like 20 million PSones?

But now, there are tons of PS2 games...
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
post #378 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

Escape Velocity Nova - published by Ambrosia Software, of whom Andrew Welch is el presidente. Mr. Welch posts under the name "moki" here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh...I own just about everything Ambrosia has ever released, I just never got into the EV games!
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
post #379 of 477
Somehow, I don't think the benefits of a powerful Win32 emulator outweigh the risks. While this would make it easier to migrate folks to OS X, it might put a stop to native Mac OS development. This is a very real risk and would marginalize Apple. As long as a small or medium developer could write once and run anywhere, there is no incentive to produce a native Mac version, and a big financial reason not to. Unless a true "killer" app. comes out that runs solely on 64 bit PPC chips, Apple will be in trouble. There would essentially be no reason to purchase Apple hardware in such a scenario--especially if a cheaper Pentium based machine would run the code faster than a top of the line 970 based machine. Who would be buying the 970 in such a scenario? As I said before, Apple needs to push Cocoa and push it hard. They need to bring back the development environment for x86. Develop once and run anywhere, only using Apple's development tools. Once the developers are hooked on Cocoa, Apple could perhaps pull the x86 version, albeit with a great deal of consternation. Simply providing a good x86 emulation environment is not enough as it will only bring about Apple's demise. Apple needs to get more developers on board first. And if I were Microsoft, I would do precisely just what they did. Buy Virtual PC, optimize it for the 970 to where it runs decently, then attempt to have the developers drop their Macintosh versions. I hope that Gates get burned by it, but we shall see.
post #380 of 477
On the playstation analogue:

The PS2 does not emulate the PS1 in software. The PS2 actually has a dedicated psone-on-a-chip to do the work. The ps1 hardware was so cheap that the (partial)system on a chip did the trick, and provided a safer, virtually perfect compatibility solution.
post #381 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by occam:
<strong>On the playstation analogue:

The PS2 does not emulate the PS1 in software. The PS2 actually has a dedicated psone-on-a-chip to do the work. The ps1 hardware was so cheap that the (partial)system on a chip did the trick, and provided a safer, virtually perfect compatibility solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I know how it was set up...my point was IF Apple could release a Windows emulation built-in that ran as fast as an actual x86 box, wouldn't that follow the PSone/PS2 model?
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
post #382 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by herbivore:
<strong>As I said before, Apple needs to push Cocoa and push it hard. They need to bring back the development environment for x86. Develop once and run anywhere, only using Apple's development tools.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I totally agree.

If this were the case, and developers could write once, run anywhere, but the apps were native OS X and native x86 at the same time, things would be great! The whole idea about emulation is not a good one, but this stratagy is. It would definatly bring about more OS X apps (as long as developers adopted Cocoa for Windows).

Then Apple could one day decide to no longer support yellow box on windows, and there would be no worries. Since people wouldn't need to buy new apps to switch (assuming that the CDs shipped as fat binaries), they could buy Macs to run their existing apps. And they woudl want to. They would have invested in all these applications that would no longer work on future windows versions (or however Apple worked it), but would work on OS X.
post #383 of 477
No, I'm not suggesting that "all the windows users in the world want to give up their machines to run OS X" that would be silly indeed. But even if 10% did... !!!!!

It may seem that I'm arguing. I'm not, if we where face to face you would see I'm merely playing.

[quote]Originally posted by kupan787:
<strong>My whole point (and a few others on this board) is that if this whole emulation thing happened, why as a developer, would you make a natvie mac version, if the native x86 verison worked just fine?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Because, if you didn't/won't make an OS X version of it, somebody else will and I will get his instead of yours. Besides, what app do you need that isn't already developed for the consumer that the Mac does not have? Well, besides games... The problem is that PC users think they actually need the software they now have because there isn't an equivalent on the Mac. They will never know how wrong they are until they actually use a Mac. Once they use a Mac they will never want to touch Windows. Hence they will only want to buy software for OS X and will only support the developers that do.

You disagree, and that's fine. But I do believe that if the Mac could Emulate Windows natively, it would be the deadliest virus windows ever saw.

[quote]
<strong>Try again. Why would suddenly more people be running macs just because we have native x86 emulation? Does the price of a mac suddenly drop?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Most of my Window user friends would switch to the Mac without any hesitation if they where guaranteed that their existing software would still run. This goes back to my earlier statement, the majority (consumers) don't actually need this said software, but they "think" they do and therefore IS what is STOPPING them from switching.

But, if all this isn't technically possible in the first place, then this scenario will never happen anyway. Unfortunately.

[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: PooPooDoctor ]</p>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/stormyjohn/art/art.html" target="_blank">Homepage </a>
Reply
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/stormyjohn/art/art.html" target="_blank">Homepage </a>
Reply
post #384 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by occam:
<strong>On the playstation analogue:

The PS2 does not emulate the PS1 in software. The PS2 actually has a dedicated psone-on-a-chip to do the work. The ps1 hardware was so cheap that the (partial)system on a chip did the trick, and provided a safer, virtually perfect compatibility solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Completely off topic (but the entire thread is)
Won't it be funny when the PS3 has a PS2-on-a-chip?
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
post #385 of 477
A coupla things here

-- What's all this talk about emulation when we (may) be looking at some absolutely kick-ass new machines from Apple coming down the pike?

-- Apple is serious about expanding their user base; many of the things they are doing are all meant to do that (all of the homebrewed apps, puling out of certain expos and putting their resources to non-Mac users, and so on). It remains to be seen if it'll work, but I think you'll see a rather serious push in the coming years

-- I have to use a Windows machine at home and work now and again, and I'll tell ya, I'm always wanting to slash my wrists using it. I don't think this is bias -- though part of it may be lack of familiarity -- but it just is so much harder to do anything I want to do than on my OS X boxes. The potential for converts is there

-- Back to Apple and the speculation on their new machines... all I have to say is that you're gonna have to fight me for a place in line to buy 'em.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #386 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>A coupla things here

-- What's all this talk about emulation when we (may) be looking at some absolutely kick-ass new machines from Apple coming down the pike?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Touch&eacute;.

[quote]<strong>-- Apple is serious about expanding their user base; many of the things they are doing are all meant to do that (all of the homebrewed apps, puling out of certain expos and putting their resources to non-Mac users, and so on). It remains to be seen if it'll work, but I think you'll see a rather serious push in the coming years</strong><hr></blockquote>

Also, don't forget services and iPod (David's stone indeed!). If Apple can make more iPod like things that are desirable on their own terms but significantly enhanced when coupled with a Mac, then people get a taste of Apple quality and an incentive to switch.

[quote]<strong>-- I have to use a Windows machine at home and work now and again, and I'll tell ya, I'm always wanting to slash my wrists using it. I don't think this is bias -- though part of it may be lack of familiarity -- but it just is so much harder to do anything I want to do than on my OS X boxes. The potential for converts is there</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not bias. I've used Windows every day since 3.1 was new. I can see why people who don't ask much of it can think it's OK when they first run across it, but I've lost count of the number of times I've wanted to pick my Dell up and throw it out the window - and I have a looooooong fuse. I think the only thing that's kept me from doing it is the possibility that I'd hit a coed on the sidewalk below.

[quote]<strong>-- Back to Apple and the speculation on their new machines... all I have to say is that you're gonna have to fight me for a place in line to buy 'em.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nah. I'll let the pioneers take the arrows and buy into rev. 2.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #387 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>A coupla things here

-- What's all this talk about emulation when we (may) be looking at some absolutely kick-ass new machines from Apple coming down the pike?

-- Apple is serious about expanding their user base; many of the things they are doing are all meant to do that (all of the homebrewed apps, puling out of certain expos and putting their resources to non-Mac users, and so on). It remains to be seen if it'll work, but I think you'll see a rather serious push in the coming years

-- I have to use a Windows machine at home and work now and again, and I'll tell ya, I'm always wanting to slash my wrists using it. I don't think this is bias -- though part of it may be lack of familiarity -- but it just is so much harder to do anything I want to do than on my OS X boxes. The potential for converts is there

-- Back to Apple and the speculation on their new machines... all I have to say is that you're gonna have to fight me for a place in line to buy 'em.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I, too, don't quite understand it and unlike most people apparently, hope they don't do any kind of emulation or dual-boot scenario. It has never worked in the past for any company. Look at BeOS as a clear example of why it won't. Wonderful little OS but no one wants to dual boot or run another OS inside an OS to get what they want. Look at Classic - while I still marvel that Apple accomplished that goal, working in an emulated OS just plain sucks!

They have given people the best OS on the planet and once true horsepower is behind it, it will be scary how productive people can become. And how quickly people will convert.

I still say, conversion of masses lies in the corporate world and a lean machine is needed, plus a business push the likes of which Apple has never done. They were the first ones in the niche markets they still dominate in and the first in education. If it weren't for them, they wouldn't be here today. Focus on what businesses want - lean, generic use machines, and a business push. I see the start of something wonderful here as far as that philosophy is concerned.

Licensing is a hands down winner for Apple already. Microsoft is alienating people left and right with their thievery!

Just enjoy the ride. It will prove bumpy for the Wintel crowd, I guarantee it!

As for using Windows - I cannot begin to explain the pain Windows users have using XP! It is a horrible, horrible incarnation and showing the two side by side is a true test of how much better OS X is...honestly, I bought a G4 Powermac for work, just to show users how easy and elegant it is to work in. Well, that and I needed a true *nix station for development and support.

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Rhumgod ]</p>
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #388 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by kupan787:
<strong>

I totally agree.

If this were the case, and developers could write once, run anywhere, but the apps were native OS X and native x86 at the same time, things would be great! The whole idea about emulation is not a good one, but this stratagy is. It would definatly bring about more OS X apps (as long as developers adopted Cocoa for Windows).

Then Apple could one day decide to no longer support yellow box on windows, and there would be no worries. Since people wouldn't need to buy new apps to switch (assuming that the CDs shipped as fat binaries), they could buy Macs to run their existing apps. And they woudl want to. They would have invested in all these applications that would no longer work on future windows versions (or however Apple worked it), but would work on OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Won't happen (well, very unlikely):

1 - Apple's already killed it once, no developer's going to bet 95% of his profits on a system that could easily get killed again. Especially when some still require Preparation H from the OpenDoc fiasco ...

2 - Apple's would have to get Yellow Box to conform to some sort of Windows API ... so all Uncle Bill's gotta do is make an *innocent* change, and oops ... "Apple didn't follow the guidelines again! Why would you want to code in THEIR buggy environment?". Bill will NEVER give away control of Win32 or let any other company set the standard. Abuse of monopoly powers, you bet, is anything going to be done about it? Not in this America ...

3 - Yellow Box on Windows is yet another moving target for Apple to code for, except now, they have to do a least-common-denominator between it and OSX.

Apple's just gotta make their OS the best, and make anybody who codes in it so bloody powerful compared to those who code in Win32, that Mom & Pop shops can whip up software in the Garage that would take a team ten times as large in Win32 ... Obj-C and CORE Foundation does this. [see "The Mythical Man Month" for the explanation as to why]

If Mom & Pop shops can pull of good code, imagine what Apple can do? Safari is probably just the tip of the Iceburg.

Give it a few years guys, pretty soon Apple will be known as THE platform on which all the BEST software runs ... they'll be setting the standard, as those who watch salivate and those behind eat digital dust.

Provide that 970 comes out as planned, minor point I know, but I just thought, well, somebody should mention it ...
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
post #389 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>

Also, don't forget services and iPod (David's stone indeed!). If Apple can make more iPod like things that are desirable on their own terms but significantly enhanced when coupled with a Mac, then people get a taste of Apple quality and an incentive to switch. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeppers. I got a client of mine to switch to mac and he loves it. He had to keep his pc so his wife could do the finances on quickbooks (which doesn;t read mac files!?!?)

Then today he asked about MYOB because there's a pc version that reads mac files. He said his wife wanted to switch to mac so they were switching over from quickbooks to MYOB (QB lost a customer because of the mac/pc file crap) and because his wife wanted an iPod.

So a small white mp3 player which many flamed for being plain and expensive, got another switcher. She's willing to learn a new OS and a completely new fianance program for the iPod. Now that's a switch story there.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #390 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>Now that's a switch story there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Should tell Apple about it.....

Could be another Ellen Feis in the making...
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #391 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Rhumgod:
<strong>


I still say, conversion of masses lies in the corporate world and a lean machine is needed,

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Rhumgod ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Problem ... you're a corporate IT whipping boy, your manager spent years in the trenches just like you and has the scars to show it ... between you, your manager, and your department of fellow punch bags, you've learned - after years on the job - every flavor of Windows there is, enough so that, you only get flogged by some anti-tech shrew with a bad case of intellectual insecurity about once every other day or so ... no problem, the meds handle most suicidal tendencies, so you've got things under control ...

And now, some guy wants to drop a fricken' Unix box on your plate?!?!?!?

DWAH!
:eek:

Welcome to the corporate head space.
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
post #392 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

Yeppers. I got a client of mine to switch to mac and he loves it. He had to keep his pc so his wife could do the finances on quickbooks (which doesn;t read mac files!?!?)

Then today he asked about MYOB because there's a pc version that reads mac files. He said his wife wanted to switch to mac so they were switching over from quickbooks to MYOB (QB lost a customer because of the mac/pc file crap) and because his wife wanted an iPod.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Precisely what I was talking about and why I believe, if it where possible at all, that a native x86 emulation would work to the Mac's advantage and not vice versa. It would be a stepping stone, nothing more with developers joining the party as the Mac gains users.

What is missing from a Mac:

1) A Mac that competes with a "Dell" PC in price and speed.
2) Apps that make Microsoft's apps look and feel outdated and expensive.
3) Convincing corp. heads that the Mac is a better $$$ solution.
4) Apps that work seamlessly with what they now use.

That is the challenge and has always been the challenge. The Mac needs to be able to replace a PC without creating any hiccup once so ever in the production lines of the establishment and work side by side with a PC.

No matter how much faster the Mac is then a PC, if it can't seamlessly work side by side with a PC, it will take a LOT of innovation to increase it's market share and it will never be of any significant value to the consumers. Apple needs to get inside the machine called Windows and gut it once and for all.

One thing's for sure, Apple needs to change their modus operandi and take charge. I do believe we are in for a ride. Microsoft can't do more, there's only so much development a word processor or spread sheet needs and I believe it has reached it's goal. More importantly, Microsoft's fat belly needs a lot of food to keep it going and it's running out of resources to keep it alive. Microsoft has no where to go but down.
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/stormyjohn/art/art.html" target="_blank">Homepage </a>
Reply
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/stormyjohn/art/art.html" target="_blank">Homepage </a>
Reply
post #393 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>I've used Windows every day since 3.1 was new. I can see why people who don't ask much of it can think it's OK when they first run across it, but I've lost count of the number of times I've wanted to pick my Dell up and throw it out the window - and I have a looooooong fuse. I think the only thing that's kept me from doing it is the possibility that I'd hit a coed on the sidewalk below.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Difficult to say it better. It is one of the best incentives to switch.
Yet there's no wild rush of switchers, which, I'm afraid, is insufficiently good marketing. It's easy to place ads in Mac-specific magazines, but their readers, like me, just don't need a switch campaign. I'm also afraid that when a PPC970 comes to Macs to outperform dual Pentiums, nobody in the Wintel world will hear about it.
Maybe, we should start another aggressive 'Apple's marketing sucks' thread.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #394 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by OverToasty:
<strong>


Won't happen (well, very unlikely):

2 - Apple's would have to get Yellow Box to conform to some sort of Windows API ... so all Uncle Bill's gotta do is make an *innocent* change, and oops ... "Apple didn't follow the guidelines again! Why would you want to code in THEIR buggy environment?". Bill will NEVER give away control of Win32 or let any other company set the standard. Abuse of monopoly powers, you bet, is anything going to be done about it? Not in this America ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, just because the Win32API is there doesn't mean Apple has to use all of it. They could use the parts that MS can't change without breaking every other app out there, and roll their own for the rest. It wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world to do, but it is possible.

I question the wisdom of either this or the emulator strategy, but it seems obvious to me that reviving YellowBox is by far the better of the two ideas. It gives both platforms a good, solid API and provides a "write once, run (almost) anywhere" solution that runs at native speeds. I'm just not sure Apple can risk pissing off MS this much right now, or if they can justify paying for it.

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Whisper ]</p>
post #395 of 477
Hmmmmmm.

The whole wintel in a Mac thing is old news here and I am amazed it still gets brought up. Go dust off some of the old yellow box/red box/blue box (I forgot which color was x86 emulation) threads from here a few years ago. Apple branded wintel emulation would kill native OS X development. Plan and Simple. It would be ideologically unsound and an admission of defeat by Apple. It will not happen as long as the leadership of Apple has functional brain cells.

I'll break it down for the clueless:

1) Apple continues to improve and innovate OS X and its own suite of software (this is happening).

2) Apple improves its hardware price/performace ratio (this is happening slowly).

Number 1 is happening and when number 2 (i.e. the 970) speeds up then Apple will increase marketshare, 3rd party development will increase, and we will find something else to whine about like how Apple doesn't make car stereos or home theater stuff.
post #396 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by hegor:
<strong>....we will find something else to whine about like how Apple doesn't make car stereos or home theater stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple, why don't you make toaster?! Curse you! Apple! Curse you!
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #397 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by hegor:
<strong>Hmmmmmm.

The whole wintel in a Mac thing is old news here and I am amazed it still gets brought up. Go dust off some of the old yellow box/red box/blue box (I forgot which color was x86 emulation) threads from here a few years ago. Apple branded wintel emulation would kill native OS X development. Plan and Simple. It would be ideologically unsound and an admission of defeat by Apple. It will not happen as long as the leadership of Apple has functional brain cells.</strong><hr></blockquote>
YellowBox = Cocoa on Windows
RedBox = x86/Win32 emulation in OS X
BlueBox = Classic Mode
post #398 of 477
[quote]If it runs Windows at a very acceptable rate I believe that many developers would stop producing Mac apps.<hr></blockquote>

Except that developing specifically for Apple Hard/Software would give you an advantage in niches where Macs are used almost exclusively. Some opportunities would really pop up for Unix developers to write specifically for Mac OS X.x. Lazy programmers leave rich and fertile ground for small developers to become large developers (who in turn become lazy and inspire more small developers).

Does anyone have accurate numbers about Apple's marketshare and whether it is advancing or declining at the moment?
"There are no honorable bargains involving the exchange of qualitative merchandise, like souls, for quantitative merchandise like time or money." --William S. Burroughs
Reply
"There are no honorable bargains involving the exchange of qualitative merchandise, like souls, for quantitative merchandise like time or money." --William S. Burroughs
Reply
post #399 of 477
[quote]Battling Windows head on in corporations will never work until you can emulate their success. Inexpensive hardware and the ability to use Office.<hr></blockquote>

Why would Apple WANT the corporate user? I think a Mac is a brilliant counterpoint to the corporate PC. Think about it...at work you use the frustrating beige box with the 'Crayon' Windows eXtra Pain that crashes and interferes with your every attempt at productivity.

Then you come home to your oasis, and in the center of it is your Mac. It's completely compatible with everything you use at work, but it's a whole lot easier to use and it allows you to be creative, manage your photos, create home movies, manage your music, and post your important opinions in Mac forums. No spyware, no reporting to the home base, no DLL files, no registry, no hardware/software integration problems, no viruses, no worms.

Okay, so you can't play the latest version of 'Make Believe War is Merely a Contact Sport', but then again, that leaves you with more time for f***ing your girlfriend.

You do have a girlfriend, right?
"There are no honorable bargains involving the exchange of qualitative merchandise, like souls, for quantitative merchandise like time or money." --William S. Burroughs
Reply
"There are no honorable bargains involving the exchange of qualitative merchandise, like souls, for quantitative merchandise like time or money." --William S. Burroughs
Reply
post #400 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong>

Difficult to say it better. It is one of the best incentives to switch.
Yet there's no wild rush of switchers, which, I'm afraid, is insufficiently good marketing. It's easy to place ads in Mac-specific magazines, but their readers, like me, just don't need a switch campaign. I'm also afraid that when a PPC970 comes to Macs to outperform dual Pentiums, nobody in the Wintel world will hear about it.
Maybe, we should start another aggressive 'Apple's marketing sucks' thread. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I often read news.admin.net-abuse.email since the whole spamming thing was pissing me off a couple of years ago and I wanted to do something about it in my own small way.

I see quite a few admins, who admittedly are strongly anti-M$ due to the problems their buggy, insecure software causes, switch from laptops running some flavour of *nix to PowerBooks running X because this is where you get the most elegant, commercial OS which is a *nix to boot in a kick-ass, high quality package.

What holds a lot of people back from switching is also the perception that Apples and X is a toy-like OS meant for doing silly things in a consumer environment. Many Windoze lusers who have never had the X experience prefer the geekiness of installing drivers, debugging fscked up systems and getting things to generally work just a little bit so they can show off to their friends how l33t they are at h4x0r1ng and how savvy they are.

That can all go away with X. It just works. Apple needs to market that.

For enterprise users the cost of buying the hardware is also a perceived headache. Then you have all the NT admins buying into all the M$ hype of integration, ease of setting up services and cheap hardware (which all comes back to haunt them when the el-cheapo server breaks down and the default open Exchange relay is raped by spammers for a week-end). The hard-core *nix admins perceive X and X Server as being unprofessional and not entirely secure - which is partially true. Apple needs to change some things in the way passwords are generally handled and entered, but I digress.

Apple would do good to market the power of the 970, when it comes along, along with the POWER of X (not just the elegance and ease-of-use). Blast the IBM Power4 heritage and the *nix core to gain the respect of the l33t along with the ease of use, iLife, integration etc.

Enterprises should be made aware of the powerful integration of X and X Server (and the hardware it comes with - mmmmh dual 2.5 GHz 970 XServe Raid), the ease and cost effectiveness of maintenance and initialization and the reliability and security of an X based deployment. That's what it is all about these days anyway. Why not sell it and get some big bunches of switchers?

The 970 is the missing key-stone in the bridge and it's coming coming to a Mac near you.


Kroehl
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › [Closed due to flaky BB] Next Powermac 970 with up to 2,5 GHZ ?