Originally posted by asdasd
I have to say that the same nonsense is repeated each time this idea is repeated. It will happen and I have been supporting this idea for years.
The transition is a recompile for the vast majority of devlopers it will take a build cycle i.e. less than a hour, or less than a day for Adobe.
I just love how people not affiliated with any of these software houses just 'know' how long a transistion would take. Unless you have access to their source code, you have no idea how long it will take. You can make assumptions, but any large software where speed matters is going to be partially written to use the underlying chip tech. And all of that would have to be re-written.
Apple is not licencing the operating system so noone could legally install it on the dell machine. All they are doing is changing the cpu in Apple boxes.
What does 'legally' mean. Apple would have to do some major voodoo to their OS to keep it from being hacked (remember Darwin already runs on Intel) and runnable on non-Apple macs. Hell, Apple can't even keep people from installing OS X on non-supported Macs now. Unless they're really careful, it will be hacked, and then you've got a huge hole where Apple's hardware sales (their lifeblood) used to be.
That is a problem for the OS team to fix. For historical reasons - the function dispatching in Objective C, and the Mach Kernal - are still more optimised for Intel as it stands. OS X will seem fast enough on the latest cpus, and in any case Apple may not want to put windows on the Mac boxes they release. OSX will not be available elsewhere, but people who are contemplating a switch may well be more likely to switch to an Apple machine which can ( or does) run windows for a transition period.
First, who says it would run Windows? Second, WHY would they switch to OS X, just to pay more for hardware that still will be incompatible with most of their software and devices (Intel support does not majically bring driver support for all those current Windows-only peripherals!). This has been tried by many people before. BeOS, OS/2. No one switched then. What makes you think that OS X will just march on in and people will be clamoring for it? Hell, when OS X came out, most people still booted into OS 9, because that's where the apps were. It took forever to get them to switch to OS X, as they were comfortable where they were. What makes you think Windows users are somehow more likely to switch because its on an Intel chip? Its just plain stupid thinking.
This has nothing to do with cheapness, either. Apple will offer a premium for a dual booting machine, and will do windows better than windows machines ( i.e. by porting the iLife suite to windows)
Yes, that's right, you'll pay a premium for the advantage of booting into windows? I don't think so. And if Apple ports their iLife suite to Windows, what's the point of OS X? Man, that's just a stupid comment. "Hey, I can get all these great apple apps for Windows, but, you know, I'm just going to spend $1500 on an Apple Mac/Windows dual-boot box and get iLife for OS X instead!" [Oh, and iLife will cost a lot more for Windows users than macs, since its used on the Mac to try to sell computers, not to make money]
As a wintel ( with or without dual boot) manufacturer Apple has to chance to massively increase it's sales, as it's product recognition is far greater than it's marketshare as it is.
But in the PC world, people don't spend more than they have to for a computer (with all that competition out there, you know). Macs are not going to sell anymore then they do now just because its got an intel chip on it.
They would keep one track and recompile as a Fat package. The application package would contain a ppc binary and an intel binary. The package is already setup for that. ( It is also set up to allow cocoa based apps - at least - to run on Windows - which is not the same, note, as running on OS X on Intel).
Yeah, but would everyone? Or will they just say "screw it, you buy either the PPC version or an Intel version, you don't get both", like they started to do when we switched 10 years ago.
The only thing that keeps apple afloat is its loyal customers. This move would be just another long series of moves that just drives their loyal fanbase away. How many times do we as computer users need to keep updating our hardware and software because of Apple's transitions? First its System 1-6 to System 7. Then Switchover to PPC. Then switchover to OS X. Its getting expensive.
Meanwhile, PC users are using the same software and hardware platforms for the last 15 years. You don't have to worry that if you get a new computer, you're hardware all of a sudden is useless, you peripherals no longer work, your software needs to be updated. Laugh all you want, but more mac users will say "Enough, I'm switching to a 'stable' platform" rather than those who'll go "Cool, look, I can get a Mac with an intel processor and OS X. Can't do anything with it, but I can get one!"