Interesting Conversation with Apple Store employee

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I was at the mall with some friends tonight so of course I went into the Apple Store for a little while. I asked one of the employees if he knew how long after MWSF the new stuff would be in. He told me he had no idea. Then we got into a conversation about what we thought was going to come out on Monday. He said he was hoping for something new and huge, especially because of all the stuff at apple.com since Monday, but was prepared to be dissapointed (not his exact words, but it's what he meant). Then he mentioned the idea of having a Mac that also ran Windows (instead of OS X on Intel). He said the negative of that would be that customers in the store would see it as a rival OS to the Mac OS but he thinks it'd be a good idea.



What do you guys think?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    Bad idea.
  • Reply 2 of 20
    I think Apple's hiring practices need to be re-examined.



    SdC
  • Reply 3 of 20
    Either that or Apple has told employees to misslead people. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 4 of 20
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Macintosh:

    <strong>Bad idea.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's what I thought too.
  • Reply 5 of 20
    roborobo Posts: 469member
    You started a new thread just to tell us that some Apple store kid doesn't know what will be revealed at MWSF?



    I won't lock it... i imagine it will sink just as fast without being locked....



    -robo
  • Reply 6 of 20
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    I started the thread to see what people had to think about it.
  • Reply 7 of 20
    willoughbywilloughby Posts: 1,457member
    [quote]Originally posted by EmAn:

    <strong>I started the thread to see what people had to think about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Specifically what we think about the kid saying it or the idea at all? I think its a horrible idea.

    Jobs has said many times "we are the only ones left who make the whole widget". Would they develop iTunes, iDVD, iMovie etc etc for Windows? No.



    OS X will not be ported to Windows and Windows will not be ported to the Macintosh. IMHO

    Now....running Windows programs on OS X.....that I'd like to see
  • Reply 8 of 20
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    EmAn,

    What apple store were you at? I went to my first apple store in Albany today. I was impressed. Anyway, I asked what was being released on Monday and they told me (as I expected) that they didn't know. Where is Nanuet?
  • Reply 9 of 20
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    I was at Palisades. Nanuet is in Rockland County.
  • Reply 10 of 20
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    [quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:

    <strong>Now....running Windows programs on OS X.....that I'd like to see </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No you wouldn't. If that happened, why would people develop for OS X when they could just use Windows?? There goes all apps for OSX and you may as well buy a PC..



    -Paul
  • Reply 11 of 20
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by psantora:

    <strong>



    No you wouldn't. If that happened, why would people develop for OS X when they could just use Windows?? There goes all apps for OSX and you may as well buy a PC..



    -Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, the fact that OS X is not Windows is a good reason. It's at least 10x better to use (my own unscientific estimate) and at least as stable and more useful (it's a UNIX, afterall). Would people see that? If Apple did the advertising right, so that would be a no unfortunately.
  • Reply 12 of 20
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    I think he was more suggesting WIndows compatibility, if anything--such as the Red Box, the invisible Win32 API that was at one time slated to be present in Mac OS X. It was taken out because of the obvious flaw, when you think about it logically: Windows support on Macs would make developing for Mac OS (5% of the market) completely pointless, resulting in substandard Windows-esque software and much more "system" to deal with.



    It would be neat if Apple released a Cocoa environment for Windows and/or Linux, though! Carbon would just plain never be possible, but Cocoa would be great! It's a much better API than Windows has ever had, plus it would cause a surge in Cocoa development! However, developers would still have to compile for 2 platforms, and the substandard software thing would still be applicable (especially the interface would suffer)... So then again, maybe not. I digress.



    That guy is what we call "dum."
  • Reply 13 of 20
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    redbox wasn't taken out because of a flaw. It was never IN OS X. It was in Rhapsody but only the X86 version. The Red Box was the X86 classic environment
  • Reply 14 of 20
    [quote]Originally posted by psantora:

    <strong>



    No you wouldn't. If that happened, why would people develop for OS X when they could just use Windows?? There goes all apps for OSX and you may as well buy a PC..



    -Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Using the same logic, why would they port OSX to x86? Apple would lose most of its future hardware sales. Why buy a mac when you can have both on one machine by buying a Dell, Compaq, etc.?
  • Reply 15 of 20
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    indeed developers would stop creating apps for OS X seeing that they could do it once for Windoze. Apple would just become an expensive pretty computer maker... like Sony. Actually PC users seem to think of Sony as the Apple of the PC world *shiver*. They make some nice things... but when you go look at details, they really luck out (computer wise).



    Anyway, this was to say that there was a version of WinNT for PPC many years ago... so the possibility of Windoze on PPC isn't totally far fetched. Especially now that WinXP is based on NT kernel.
  • Reply 16 of 20
    spindlerspindler Posts: 713member
    I don't think Apple would bother with their own technology for running Windows apps in OS X. Right now you can use Virtual PC and maybe it's 20% as fast at windows as it is at OS X. If Apple could get that up to 60%, what would be the difference from a marketing perspective? To the average user it would still be a slow PC.
  • Reply 17 of 20
    willoughbywilloughby Posts: 1,457member
    [quote]Originally posted by psantora:

    <strong>



    No you wouldn't. If that happened, why would people develop for OS X when they could just use Windows?? There goes all apps for OSX and you may as well buy a PC..

    -Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, I would. Why would anyone continue development for classic when it runs like crap in X? I thought the same logic would apply for Windows in X. Windows wouldn't run so great either but it would ease the transition to OS X from Windows for some people.....but whats the point anyway, just get Virtual PC.
  • Reply 18 of 20
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by bradbower:

    <strong>I think he was more suggesting WIndows compatibility</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's what you would think, but he wasn't just talking about compatibility. He said have Windows side by side with either OS 9 or X.
  • Reply 19 of 20
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:

    <strong>

    but whats the point anyway, just get Virtual PC.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    He said that Virtual PC isn't that great. Then he said that they sell it at the Apple Store but they don't really tell people about it.
  • Reply 20 of 20
    willoughbywilloughby Posts: 1,457member
    [quote]Originally posted by EmAn:

    <strong>



    He said that Virtual PC isn't that great. Then he said that they sell it at the Apple Store but they don't really tell people about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Yeah I know, I tried to buy it for my Father-in-law at the Grand Opening but they only had version 4. I asked for 5 and they didn't even know it existed yet.

Sign In or Register to comment.