OS X Computer System
So why is Macintosh running OS X? There was the Apple ][ running Basic, the Macintosh running GUI OS "classic"...
...it's not too late for Apple to release an OS X computer system. Maybe the new motherboard-Raycer thing will be the one!
Was an oppurtunity missed here to shift the paradigm? Apple II's didn't run the Mac software...
[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: mugwump ]</p>
...it's not too late for Apple to release an OS X computer system. Maybe the new motherboard-Raycer thing will be the one!
Was an oppurtunity missed here to shift the paradigm? Apple II's didn't run the Mac software...
[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: mugwump ]</p>
Comments
Actually, some PC writer proposed the same thing, a new product from Apple and the end of the Macintosh line of computers. I think the Mac brand is too valuable to give up. Just like Sony and Walkman. When Sony released their first portable CD players years ago, they called them Discman, but no one associated that with Sony, so they switched and now sell then as CD Walkman.
To start, no the Apple IIs couldn't run the Mac OS. They weren't designed to run a GUI (with the exception of the IIgs but it came after the Mac...) Apple was the first to the consumer game with the GUI, and needed a so-called "paradigm shift" in computing, thus the new Macintosh name.
The switch from OS 9 to OS X is a big one indeed, but not as revolutionary as the 1984 switch. Apple isn't the first one to the UNIX game, nor the first to the stability game. OS X is the BEST OS by far, but it lacks the "holy crap!" of the original Mac when compared to a command-line PC. OS X is an evolution more than a revolution, and accordingly, it doesn't shift the paradigm.
OS X runs on Macintoshes. G3s, G4s, etc. If this shift were to come, how logical would it be for this "new" Apple OS to run on "old" Macintoshes? Not very. it would confuse a lot of people who wouldn't know the difference between the Mac OS, the Mac computer, OS X, and this new Apple machine. None of Apple's legendary simplicity in that plan.
There's a lot of market value still in the Macintosh name, despite was John Dvorak might have you believe. Macintosh is associated with Apple, and vice-versa. I've heard people say "What Mac needs to do is..." and such. The Mac isn't a computer. It's a way of life, and it won't change just due to an OS revision. Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was a huge theft....er....change towards a more Mac-like OS, but they still called it Windows. Brand name value is more important than what the product itself is called.
As for your Raycer comment. From what I've been able to figure out from my sources, Apple is at least considering bringing some graphics acceleration in-house, but not to the extent that some people talk about it. An embedded graphics chip in a Pro tower would be a stupid idea, as its one of the more commonly upgraded items. My theory (though based on nothing) is that Raycer chips will find their way onto the motherboard to do Quartz Extreme rendering, but that OpenGL, etc will still rely on an AGP nVidia/ATI card. Added to the fact that even IF the graphics were on-board, it still wouldn't be enough to warrant a name-change (see all above).
More food for thought.