or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Screw SLI, when do we get this in our Macs...?!?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Screw SLI, when do we get this in our Macs...?!? - Page 4

post #121 of 162
ok thx programmer, that was a thorough smackdown of my wrapping idea but yeah, i'll concede at this point, also due to limited knowledge of the area.

1. ms's new bollocks display thingy on vista puts openGL down the toilet and makes it very very different with apple's implementation
2. wrapping a graphics driver causes a whole bunch of issues way more challenging than wrapping a wifi card driver
3. patents etc.

i just hope that that crack team is ready to rock, if not already rockin' at cupertino, and schooling ATi and nVidia appropriately in the art of Pouncing Tiger Hidden Drivers

we will have to assume that the driver writing is aimed at a specific area: [consumer desktop/portable, pro 2d/video graphics]
...[games and pro-3D-creation] would be the icing on the cake but i think they gotta make the cake right first...
post #122 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
ok thx programmer, that was a thorough smackdown of my wrapping idea but yeah, i'll concede at this point, also due to limited knowledge of the area.

1. ms's new bollocks display thingy on vista puts openGL down the toilet and makes it very very different with apple's implementation
2. wrapping a graphics driver causes a whole bunch of issues way more challenging than wrapping a wifi card driver
3. patents etc.

i just hope that that crack team is ready to rock, if not already rockin' at cupertino, and schooling ATi and nVidia appropriately in the art of Pouncing Tiger Hidden Drivers

we will have to assume that the driver writing is aimed at a specific area: [consumer desktop/portable, pro 2d/video graphics]
...[games and pro-3D-creation] would be the icing on the cake but i think they gotta make the cake right first...

also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux.
post #123 of 162
Originally posted by melgross
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux


yeah. i'm (very) sad to hear this. http://opengl.org/ has got this issue front and center and top of the page on their website. personally, i think its a silly and desperate move by m$... it would be tragic if in 5 years time there was only direct3D and the remnants of openGL... i doubt this would be the case though, not with the momentum inherent with linux and mac. no doubt the gaming industry will have a strong hand in this, whichever way. speaking of gaming, enough Forum-ing for now, time for some HalfLife2. wait. am i supporting the "death
of openGL" by playing HL2
post #124 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux


yeah. i'm (very) sad to hear this. http://opengl.org/ has got this issue front and center and top of the page on their website. personally, i think its a silly and desperate move by m$... it would be tragic if in 5 years time there was only direct3D and the remnants of openGL... i doubt this would be the case though, not with the momentum inherent with linux and mac. no doubt the gaming industry will have a strong hand in this, whichever way. speaking of gaming, enough Forum-ing for now, time for some HalfLife2. wait. am i supporting the "death
of openGL" by playing HL2

the gaming industry will due whatever they have to in order to stay in business.

As Direct X gets better more programmers will move to it. Open GL still has advantages for pro apps, but the truth is that MS is moving very strongly to replace it.

You saw them demonstrate their new graphics framework on the Mac recently (well, maybe not "saw", but read)
post #125 of 162
http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20050924/index.html

Apparently MS is trying to bring gamers back to its PC platform. If they go through with that Designed for Microsoft Windows thingo, what are MAc users gonna do?

Consumers, Apples main market, and potential switchers will go down to local game store and see shelves with Designed for Microsoft Windows on it, and no games for Mac. While games arent Apple's strong point, most people do enjoy being able to play a light game every now and then.]

SOrry, its late, am unsure if I got point across, may edit this post later.
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #126 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Consumers, Apples main market, and potential switchers will go down to local game store and see shelves with Designed for Microsoft Windows on it, and no games for Mac.

isn't that exactly why Apple is going to "tolerate" the possibility of users installing windows on Mactel hardware???
This way, you get to work in osX and play games and use some legacy software in windows "vistaprice" 8)
post #127 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux


yeah. i'm (very) sad to hear this. http://opengl.org/ has got this issue front and center and top of the page on their website. personally, i think its a silly and desperate move by m$... it would be tragic if in 5 years time there was only direct3D and the remnants of openGL... i doubt this would be the case though, not with the momentum inherent with linux and mac. no doubt the gaming industry will have a strong hand in this, whichever way. speaking of gaming, enough Forum-ing for now, time for some HalfLife2. wait. am i supporting the "death
of openGL" by playing HL2

You are also supporting mandatory network authentication for a single-player game, which IMO is much worse.
post #128 of 162
Originally posted by Gon
You are also supporting mandatory network authentication for a single-player game, which IMO is much worse.


well, actually, i *ahem* am not. lets just say Steam ain't installed on my PC and HL2 plays along quite nicely.... except i gotta restart a level because i've badly run out of ammo and can't find the !@##$ rocket box to take out a strider
post #129 of 162
Follow Freeman!!
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
post #130 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by theapplegenius
Follow Freeman!!

man HL2 is da bomb. impt lesson i learnt last night: if there are striders, it means that there is a rocket box somewhere. *DO NOT* try to take out the striders BEFORE finding the rocket box. unless you've got 4 or so rocket-equipped squad members... wait for them to die (one guy got distracted in a building by those really really annoying things that blind you with a flash of light and shot a rocket at the wall and killed himself) and then pickup their set of 3 rockets i hope to get into the citadel thingy this afternoon and personally kick dr. breen in the balls.

and man, on the roof, the striders were just nailing the resistance people, yet they kept on coming... wow, tragic. and that strider warp gun thing. bad ass... you can see the wall distorting in front of you, the blue light coming on, then you gotta jump away from that, then you see the actual pieces of the wall flying around.... well, i suppose this is what you get when you mess with inter-demensional travel \
post #131 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by dutch pear
isn't that exactly why Apple is going to "tolerate" the possibility of users installing windows on Mactel hardware???
This way, you get to work in osX and play games and use some legacy software in windows "vistaprice" 8)

Are they? If so, I'm sold.

Do you have the source for that, i vant to read it.
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #132 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Are they? If so, I'm sold.
Do you have the source for that, i vant to read it.

phatboy phil said that digging the quote now...
-Sunman


http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the...5733756-2.html
.....After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
......However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
post #133 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by dutch pear
isn't that exactly why Apple is going to "tolerate" the possibility of users installing windows on Mactel hardware???
This way, you get to work in osX and play games and use some legacy software in windows "vistaprice" 8)

if the darWine project gets off the ground you may not even need to reboot into windows to use certain windows apps...!
post #134 of 162
That's an old quote, (from intel announcment) and It was reguarding the developer machines. I think Steve Jobs just recently said that you wouldn't be able to run windows on them. I don't remember where, but I thought I just read that the day after Paris. Maybe it was MacBidouille... maybe. http://www.hardmac.com/
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #135 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
That's an old quote, (from intel announcment) and It was reguarding the developer machines. I think Steve Jobs just recently said that you wouldn't be able to run windows on them. I don't remember where, but I thought I just read that the day after Paris. Maybe it was MacBidouille... maybe. http://www.hardmac.com/

No, he didn't say that. He just reiterated the statement about running OS X on PC's.

Apple is running a dangerous game by having Windows run on their machines. The comparison will be too easy. Developers might figure that if enough people are running it they don't need a Mac version of their software after all.

Apple must believe the benefits are more important than the risks.
post #136 of 162
I've been saying that from the get go. They should make it impossible to run windows on one,. It might seem unfair to some users, but it could be devastating to Apple, and that would be worse.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #137 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Apple is running a dangerous game by having Windows run on their machines. The comparison will be too easy. Developers might figure that if enough people are running it they don't need a Mac version of their software after all.

Dangerous, sure. They don't want app "erosion" to occur. But they can profit from this, too. I use OS X for all my serious work because of reliability, ease-of-use, security and mobility features among others. But all this serious work is relatively light in terms of computing power. iBook has been enough for that, so I can't see myself buying a Mac that is even nearly top of the line. If, on the other hand, I could buy a powerful Apple box and boot it to Windows to play, that could get me to invest much more. I understand most of Apple's profit comes from hardware, so this is a way for them to get twice as much business from me than they can any other way.

"The comparison will be too easy" must be an extended typo of some kind. Apple should welcome any and all comparison, because they win when people actually look around and compare their options! I hope I never see the day Apple must avoid being compared to their competition.
post #138 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross

Apple is running a dangerous game by having Windows run on their machines. The comparison will be too easy. Developers might figure that if enough people are running it they don't need a Mac version of their software after all.

It is too dangerous. Or this is how it looks to me.

Quote:

Apple must believe the benefits are more important than the risks.

For the time being, I am pretty much convinced for the opposite.
post #139 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Dangerous, sure. They don't want app "erosion" to occur. But they can profit from this, too. I use OS X for all my serious work because of reliability, ease-of-use, security and mobility features among others. But all this serious work is relatively light in terms of computing power. iBook has been enough for that, so I can't see myself buying a Mac that is even nearly top of the line. If, on the other hand, I could buy a powerful Apple box and boot it to Windows to play, that could get me to invest much more. I understand most of Apple's profit comes from hardware, so this is a way for them to get twice as much business from me than they can any other way.

"The comparison will be too easy" must be an extended typo of some kind. Apple should welcome any and all comparison, because they win when people actually look around and compare their options! I hope I never see the day Apple must avoid being compared to their competition.

What concerns me here is that many people already have, or can get PC apps without paying for them.

Over the years I've had friends and others sit down at my machines with me for an hour or so. The remarks I've gotten from most of them have been the same:

"I love this! I would buy one if I could get the apps for free like I do with my PC. Would you give them to me?"

No it wasn't a typo. Apple might welcome a comparison between Windows and OS X on different machines. Look at the Mac and look at the PC. It's a matter of Gestalt. THe Mac looks better, so does the OS. The ease of use is better, etc.

But if Vista is on the same Mac, then some of that goes out the Window(sic).

Honestly, it's not like comparing System 7 to Windows 3.1 anymore. The differences these days are more subtle than that. Many people might miss them. Especially those coming over from PC's.

A little tale:

I do work (unpaid) for the NY ED. System in the area of technology. I was one of those writing the five year tech plans.

We have computer trainers. They teach the teachers. However, many come from a PC background, and aren't happy learning and teaching how to use Mac's. Some even hate the Mac. Most can't see any advantage in using a Mac.

I show them how. So I teach the teachers of the teachers, so to speak.

The first thing they dislike is the one button mouse. I get "I wouldn't buy a Mac because it has a one button mouse." more often than you would think.

Remember that these are supposed to be tech people, both hardware and software. You might think that they would WANT to find out more about the machines they are working with. Nope. I have to show them. Then they are startled. This goes back almost ten years.

The other problem with making comparisons is this; These same trainers use the Mac the way they use the PC. Boring down through folders to find something. Never understanding that there are far more efficient ways of doing things. Again, I have to show them.

Why this worries me is because someone coming from PC's having both Windows and X on their machine will tend to use X the same way they use Windows. They won't see that much of a difference. It really is true. Then they will complain about the differences that ARE there because they won't think that learning them is worthwhile since X is so similar anyway. I've seen this as well.

Windows in such close proximity might inhibit the user to learn from X.

Most of this is APPLE's FAULT!

Apple's manuals are crap. Apple is so interested in showing how easy it is that they don't want to present the new user with the information they need to actually MAKE it easy. They don't show or explain the features of the OS other than the most basic. HELP is not useful for this. An old fashioned put in the lap manual is far better. How many people are going to take their iMac into the bathroom or bed with them to read the help manual? They would with a paper one.

Trust me, this isn't so simple. It's not a slam-dunk.
post #140 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Trust me, this isn't so simple. It's not a slam-dunk.

I never said the decision whether to let Windows run or not was a simple one, only that besides doom and gloom, there are powerful upsides.

The most general and interesting of these is this. A potential new Mac user ponders whether to buy a Mac to replace their trusty Windows. In leaping onto a new system there is a risk of disappointment and subsequent hardware lock-in (you'd like to get rid of OS X but can't since the hardware only supports OS X). These are real risks that in the buyer's mind add to the pricetag to form the real cost. They will consider the possibility that the Mac proves snake oil, and if they do so unconsciously, their unconscious will double the risk in the calculation just to make sure.

So you see, allowing Windows to run on Macs reduces cost of switching from Windows to OS X, even if Windows is never actually ran on those Macs. This is not conjecture, nor arcana. It doesn't take an economist that knows the term "lock-in" - everyone worries about the unknown. When the switcher sees "Worst case, you keep this shiny new computer and use the apps you had before", he has little to worry about.

Actually running Windows on those Macs has the potential to reduce the switching cost even further, since it can smooth the migration. If you only use a certain specialized app once a year to do your taxes, you probably want to boot to Windows once a year to use it. It just isn't important enough to tolerate the hassle of looking for, buying and learning a new app. You might migrate later when you stumble on an OS X app that makes more sense, or want a more integrated experience. The important thing is that this happen at your own pace, not the computer's.

Apple could stop Windows from running in some of their computers, but not others, while not selling or officially supporting Windows. This is not unlike what they do now with their consumer level graphics, where you can use an unofficial hack to achieve almost - but not quite - the features and performance of an uncrippled part. If they were intent on shutting this down, they would have long ago. They want the hack to be out there, performing free product versioning for them. If you've used it, you know it practically has an Apple stamp on it, just no warranty.

For instance, take my particular case where I'd only boot to Windows for games. This places pretty specific demands for the computer hardware. It has to be game-worthy. If past is any guide, this is a small segment of Apple's lineup. Games is also an area where Apple is almost unable to compete at this time, so they have little to lose from opening this segment. Relative to entry level models, gaming hardware is expensive, so they'd surely like to sell it instead of selling the entry-level and watching another vendor get the gaming rig sale. If all this added up made it good business to cater for this type of buyer, Apple could leave this part of lineup unencumbered while some other models were discreetly neutered and unable to run Windows.

Again, not saying they "will" or "should" do this or that. In a free market, long-run success necessarily involves giving good value to customers. The option to dual-boot to Windows has "value" written all over it. That's all.
post #141 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
I never said the decision whether to let Windows run or not was a simple one, only that besides doom and gloom, there are powerful upsides.

The most general and interesting of these is this. A potential new Mac user ponders whether to buy a Mac to replace their trusty Windows. In leaping onto a new system there is a risk of disappointment and subsequent hardware lock-in (you'd like to get rid of OS X but can't since the hardware only supports OS X). These are real risks that in the buyer's mind add to the pricetag to form the real cost. They will consider the possibility that the Mac proves snake oil, and if they do so unconsciously, their unconscious will double the risk in the calculation just to make sure.

So you see, allowing Windows to run on Macs reduces cost of switching from Windows to OS X, even if Windows is never actually ran on those Macs. This is not conjecture, nor arcana. It doesn't take an economist that knows the term "lock-in" - everyone worries about the unknown. When the switcher sees "Worst case, you keep this shiny new computer and use the apps you had before", he has little to worry about.

Actually running Windows on those Macs has the potential to reduce the switching cost even further, since it can smooth the migration. If you only use a certain specialized app once a year to do your taxes, you probably want to boot to Windows once a year to use it. It just isn't important enough to tolerate the hassle of looking for, buying and learning a new app. You might migrate later when you stumble on an OS X app that makes more sense, or want a more integrated experience. The important thing is that this happen at your own pace, not the computer's.

Apple could stop Windows from running in some of their computers, but not others, while not selling or officially supporting Windows. This is not unlike what they do now with their consumer level graphics, where you can use an unofficial hack to achieve almost - but not quite - the features and performance of an uncrippled part. If they were intent on shutting this down, they would have long ago. They want the hack to be out there, performing free product versioning for them. If you've used it, you know it practically has an Apple stamp on it, just no warranty.

For instance, take my particular case where I'd only boot to Windows for games. This places pretty specific demands for the computer hardware. It has to be game-worthy. If past is any guide, this is a small segment of Apple's lineup. Games is also an area where Apple is almost unable to compete at this time, so they have little to lose from opening this segment. Relative to entry level models, gaming hardware is expensive, so they'd surely like to sell it instead of selling the entry-level and watching another vendor get the gaming rig sale. If all this added up made it good business to cater for this type of buyer, Apple could leave this part of lineup unencumbered while some other models were discreetly neutered and unable to run Windows.

Again, not saying they "will" or "should" do this or that. In a free market, long-run success necessarily involves giving good value to customers. The option to dual-boot to Windows has "value" written all over it. That's all.

We know that running Windows might be considered to lower the cost of switching. We know that it might increase the number of switchers. We know that Gamers might do this to have a Mac for general computing and then use Windows to play games.

This is part of what Apple is , no doubt, considering. But it doesn't lessen the importance of what I said. All of that is just as valid now as when I posted it. And I think it's more important than some of the positive issues.

As you said yourself, some of the switchers might prefer to go back to Windows. What you haven't considered is that these Windows users are going to bring their Windows software along with them. They might like using the iApps, but not buy much Mac software.

If the Mac ecosystem is damaged by this, it might not recover.

Apple sells machines, it's true, but it's the OS on those machines, as well as the 3rd party software for that OS that keeps people coming back to buy those machines. If that part of the ecosystem is damaged, people won't find a reason to buy the machine in the first place. They'll just stick with a cheap Dell.
post #142 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
What you haven't considered is that these Windows users are going to bring their Windows software along with them. They might like using the iApps, but not buy much Mac software.

Of course I have considered that. It's in my post you quoted - the tax example.

Another example, then. Consider a person with 10 pieces of Windows software, most of which work too well and/or cost too much to give up. Which is better for the OS X platform:

- this guy buys a computer and OS X from Apple, just two apps from Mac developers, and continues using 8 apps on Windows
- this guy continues using 10 apps on Windows?
post #143 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
Of course I have considered that. It's in my post you quoted - the tax example.

Another example, then. Consider a person with 10 pieces of Windows software, most of which work too well and/or cost too much to give up. Which is better for the OS X platform:

- this guy buys a computer and OS X from Apple, just two apps from Mac developers, and continues using 8 apps on Windows
- this guy continues using 10 apps on Windows?

I do understand what you're saying there. But it isn't necessarily enough.

People have to buy more than two pieces of software. They have to buy something every so often to help the developers out. If they bring ten pieces of software over and update them rather than replacing most of them, they aren't helping as much as you think.

Over the years I listen to people bitch about a developer who left the platform. But they never bought that program themselves.

We need people to come over and be so impressed with the system that they will WANT to discard most of their Windows stuff.

Apple isn't making that happen as much as they should. Having both OS's on the same machine will make it harder.
post #144 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Apple isn't making that happen as much as they should. Having both OS's on the same machine will make it harder.

That's a copout. The machine will be transparent to the user because the OS will still be seperated from the user and software. What I mean is this transition will appear as nothing has happened.

Sure they might be able to run windows on it... but why would you unless you have some $$$$$$$$$$$ piece of windows software on it that you CAN NOT give up. If anything having both OS's on the same machine will give users more reason to switch. Now there isn't any more PPC bog down with drivers and out dated technology. What do you mean apple isn't doing as much as they should? Are you kidding me?! Look at their OS updates in the last 4 years. Ok now look at Microsofts. Apple has had 4 MAJOR updates in the last 4 years. Microsoft *counts* .... 1 or 2 (depends if you count sp1 and sp2 as major updates).

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this on these forums but Windows Longhorn was scrapped. It was impossible to build the OS. So now they are looking at a 2007 release date because they had to start all over with design. So 7 years to release an update... and we're bitching about apple not doing everything they can? They are miles ahead of their competitors.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #145 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
....Sure they might be able to run windows on it... but why would you .....

Half Life 2. And other good games not available on mac. or those which require much more expensive PPC Macs to run those games which tend to come out much slower than PC games anyway.
post #146 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
That's a copout. The machine will be transparent to the user because the OS will still be seperated from the user and software. What I mean is this transition will appear as nothing has happened.

Sure they might be able to run windows on it... but why would you unless you have some $$$$$$$$$$$ piece of windows software on it that you CAN NOT give up. If anything having both OS's on the same machine will give users more reason to switch. Now there isn't any more PPC bog down with drivers and out dated technology. What do you mean apple isn't doing as much as they should? Are you kidding me?! Look at their OS updates in the last 4 years. Ok now look at Microsofts. Apple has had 4 MAJOR updates in the last 4 years. Microsoft *counts* .... 1 or 2 (depends if you count sp1 and sp2 as major updates).

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this on these forums but Windows Longhorn was scrapped. It was impossible to build the OS. So now they are looking at a 2007 release date because they had to start all over with design. So 7 years to release an update... and we're bitching about apple not doing everything they can? They are miles ahead of their competitors.

Boy, are you out of touch!

Have you actually read my posts? Have you read them and thought about what was being said, or is your response just a knee jerk?

Those are all relevent issues.

I'm not a fanboy, even though I've been responsable for at least a couple of million in Apple sales over the past few years. The issues I brought up are being discussed throught the indusrty. You can be sure that Jobs and his people have been discussing them as well.

You're wrong about what you've said. I don't even know what your first paragraph is referring to. I never said the transition wouldn't be transparent.

I wouldn't be surprised if many coming over from Windows will put it right back on the Mac they get.

This has nothing to do with how mant updated Apple has. Again, you might not have noticed, but many people - Mac users COMPLAIN about having to pay for all of those. In the PC world they call it the "Mac Tax".

And what the hell are you talking about regarding Longhorn? It wasn't discontinued. MS changes the NAME. It's the same OS. JUst now it's called Vista.

You really are out in left field. Come on in. The inning is over.
post #147 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I do understand what you're saying there. But it isn't necessarily enough.

What do you want, then? People mailing money to Apple as charity? We're running out of options here.
Quote:
People have to buy more than two pieces of software. They have to buy something every so often to help the developers out. If they bring ten pieces of software over and update them rather than replacing most of them, they aren't helping as much as you think.

Over the years I listen to people bitch about a developer who left the platform. But they never bought that program themselves.

We need people to come over and be so impressed with the system that they will WANT to discard most of their Windows stuff.

Apple isn't making that happen as much as they should. Having both OS's on the same machine will make it harder.

I guess I'm harming the platform, having only bought two pieces of software despite buying two Macs? Maybe I should just pack my stuff and move back on Windows to stop my horrible abuse of Apple and the OS X platform?

People will be impressed with the system when the system is good enough to impress them.

I'm thinking that a person that even dips a toe on the OS X platform is better than one that never even looks that way since he is bound to Windows by his software. Consider the extreme case of every Windows user making a "half-hearted switch". The final numbers are: ~100% of computers made by Apple, ~25% OS X user share, ~75% Windows user share.

A single "half-hearted switch" is a step to that direction from status quo. How could that be a bad thing?
post #148 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
[B]What do you want, then? People mailing money to Apple as charity? We're running out of options here.I guess I'm harming the platform, having only bought two pieces of software despite buying two Macs? Maybe I should just pack my stuff and move back on Windows to stop my horrible abuse of Apple and the OS X platform?

People will be impressed with the system when the system is good enough to impress them.

I'm thinking that a person that even dips a toe on the OS X platform is better than one that never even looks that way since he is bound to Windows by his software. Consider the extreme case of every Windows user making a "half-hearted switch". The final numbers are: ~100% of computers made by Apple, ~25% OS X user share, ~75% Windows user share.

A single "half-hearted switch" is a step to that direction from status quo. How could that be a bad thing?

If what you were saying is correct, it would be wonderful.

I'm not saying that it would would be worse if someone buys a Mac and virtually no Mac software then simply staying on the PC. I'm saying that it might not be enough.

Don't you people understand that software companies don't want to make a Mac version of their software as well as a Windows version? Is this so difficult an idea that you don't get it?

Why do we have developers leaving the platform on a regular basic? Do you simply find it to be easier to ignore that than to think about why it happens?

The fear, and it is real, is that with Windows running at full speed on Macs, even more developers will find an excuse to discontinue Mac software as long as they have the product for their Windows customers. The excuse is simple. Why develop for the Mac when customers are most all Windows users anyway, and even Mac users can run their Windows software?

The point I'm making about buying more than two pieces of Mac software over the time someone has their machine is to show these queasy developers that we DO want Mac software, not just Windows software running on Windows on our Macs.

While it's true that Apple makes most of it's money in the computer business from sales of machines rather than from the OS, it's the OS that makes a Mac what it is, not the hardware. If anything, it's the hardware that's been holding Mac sales down. If Apple had cheaper hardware, Apple might have double the marketshare it has now.

If the OS becomes less important because people are bringing Windows over, and continuing to use it, that would not be a good thing.

Apple might get a short term boost in sales, but when those people tell their friends and colleagues that they don't find much of a difference between the OS's, people will think again.

And don't give me that "The Mac OS is soooo much better" crap. Because it isn't obvious to most people. Apple hasn't made the effort. And whether you want to believe it or not, it takes some proactive effort to find out that it is.
post #149 of 162
Having thought this over at an hour other than 11 - 9:30 but oh well. My thoughts are this:

Yes - it would be nice to be able to run windows on the Mac for games etc. However, as people are saying, developers will not compile for the platform if you can run windows on it anyways. It would be apple making the hardware and the ALL the software, which, needless to say: this is bad.

However, if Windblows was running in a window, INSIDE OSX, in a similar way that VirtualPC does now, people would realise that they are using a Mac, even if they are playing DOom 3 on it. The OSX environment is just a click to minimize away, so why use XP when you dont have to?

This only works however, if OSX is better than Windows. At the moment, that's a definite yes, but once Longh- i mean, uh, Vista gets released, that gap will shorten, Apple needs to come out with something.

Hopefully this will encourage users to actaully use Macs as Macs, not an OSx86 type thing reversed. If users are using the platform, developers will code for it, and we all get to play Half Life 2 happily.
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #150 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Having thought this over at an hour other than 11 - 9:30 but oh well. My thoughts are this:

Yes - it would be nice to be able to run windows on the Mac for games etc. However, as people are saying, developers will not compile for the platform if you can run windows on it anyways.

That is assuming
- that a dominant part of OS X population had Macs that can run Windows
- that those people actually had Windows installed
- that those people are not deterred by the necessity of *booting the machine* while switching from one productivity app to another

None of those assumptions looks very solid.

Platform = OS X / Windows, not the box with the parts.

Simply put, dual booting blows for productive work. Very few people will bother to do it. Those who do, probably have such investment in software that they would not have switched otherwise. Games, though, are a totally different mode of using the computer and booting at start and end of gaming session would work decently for most gamers.

If this was the doomsday scenario you guys are making it out to be, wouldn't the existence of VirtualPC have brought down OS X long ago?
post #151 of 162
fair points Gon, but dual booting for games is not that fun. i am enjoying my winxp64bit at the moment, especially now that i am not using those garbage dlink wifi drivers... say i'm downloading something in firefox, flip over to a bit of online UT2004, flip back out, check some mail, back to the gaming...

a cohesive package has a lot of advantages... now an updated mac mini kvm'ed to my stuff would be perfect.

in fact, this multi-os stuff would only be a threat, along the lines you are mentioning, if switching between the apps and platforms is as easy as the KVM-with-another-machine experience

this would be possible if say [darwine] takes off. imagine just opening a windows app within mac os x as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app. then things might be dangerous for developers making for mac specifically.

too early to say, at this stage, i think people have brought up interesting points. but we're talking more about business desktop/ enlightened user type market......

(KVM = that box that allows you to flip your keyboard and monitor connection between different distinct beigeboxes/macs/etc)


edit: *sigh* another post of mine that seems a bit garbled. but whatever. i used to be really anal about stuff when writin. the web changed all that. plus a lot of other schmoes (coworkers, friends, family, etc) not understanding me anyway 'coz i used to use a lot 'fancy' words
post #152 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman


this would be possible if say [darwine] takes off. imagine just opening a windows app within mac os x as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app. then things might be dangerous for developers making for mac specifically.

If you could open a app as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app when it wasn't, there would be no point in dual coding anyway, as both applications would be exactly the same.
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #153 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
If you could open a app as seamlessly as if it were a native mac app when it wasn't, there would be no point in dual coding anyway, as both applications would be exactly the same.

The point is that they aren't exactly the same. It's been pretty much agreed upon that Office for the Mac is better these days than Office for Windows. Photoshop has subtle differences that make its use on the Mac easier and more pleasant. There are others as well of course.

It may be the same program but it's not exactly the same program.
post #154 of 162
well, you saw it here, 4 (that's right, FOUR) 7800GTX cards SLI'ed up:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=475438
WHY? WTF?
post #155 of 162
Interesting. Dual SLI, but it doesn''t look like a proper setup. 2 cards are SLI bridge linked together twice right. Wouldn't you SLI bridge the 2 other Bridges for it work properly?
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #156 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The point is that they aren't exactly the same. It's been pretty much agreed upon that Office for the Mac is better these days than Office for Windows. Photoshop has subtle differences that make its use on the Mac easier and more pleasant. There are others as well of course.

It may be the same program but it's not exactly the same program.

Companies can improve their standards, with careful nudging from Apple's side of the fence
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
I DONT trust your haircut.

MBP 13"/22" 2.26ghz/2gb/160gb/7400M.
Windows 7 24"/2.00ghz/2.5gb/250gb/9800GT.
Ubuntu 10.04 Dell Latitude D620.
Xbox 360 Projector
WHS 2.5tb.
Reply
post #157 of 162
Originally posted by onlooker
Interesting. Dual SLI, but it doesn''t look like a proper setup. 2 cards are SLI bridge linked together twice right. Wouldn't you SLI bridge the 2 other Bridges for it work properly?


yeah its weird. i guess maybe each dvi output for each pair is "blended" at the end or something. whatever. i'm surprised the damn thing doesn't catch on fire with the powersupply exploding into a million pieces.
post #158 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by pyriX
Companies can improve their standards, with careful nudging from Apple's side of the fence

They could. But when you are talking about Windows programs, sold to Windows users who either are happy with them because they don't know better, or are just used to the way they work, it's difficult to tell those companies to change them because 2% of those Windows versions of their programs are now going to be used on a Mac under Windows. You see what I'm saying?

If these people had a program developed for both platforms that actually used all of the features of those platforms they were developed under, and one person had both versions on his(her) machine, then they could compare directly. Most of the time that would be good.

But the problem is that they still need someone to show them how the Mac version differs. I find that, in general, a Mac version of a PC program, even if developed completely on the Mac platform, can be used as the Windows version on Windows can. The Windows person coming over and using that Mac version usually uses the program EXACTLY the same way they used it under Windows. They then wonder what the fuss is all about.
post #159 of 162
i used to be quite arrogant and say, well, hell, learn a new app yourself. who needs training? but certainly in the pressures and annoyances of IT in the workplace from my few years in the 'industry', certainly staff training is a big big deal for (a) being able to sell your transition to a new platform/ app/ whatever, (b) making staff and management feel happy that things are being done right and that they are not peons at the mercy of IT whims and fancies... \

edit: hmm... also if we are talking about trying to get more pc users onto macs, then part (C) with a capital C is assuading fears
post #160 of 162
Originally posted by pyriX
Companies can improve their standards, with careful nudging from Apple's side of the fence


the thing that's been blowing my mind is the tons and tons of rubbish tweakware that you can install for windows, all with even more horrible "skins" for the ultimate in UI grotesqueness (ooh, i'm particularly virtriolic tonight....)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Screw SLI, when do we get this in our Macs...?!?