[quote] You'd still have the hardware and OS integration that Apple is famed for. <hr></blockquote>
no that's incorrect. below is a portion of an artical on <a href="http://www.arstechnica.com"; target="_blank">Ars Technica</a> that is about clustering.
[quote] If the LANL really wanted to create a super-dense cluster, they could have checked out these nice little PCs from Stealth computers. The base system starts at $895 and comes with a 1.2 GHz PIII, 20GB HD, CD-ROM and 256MB RAM...all packaged small enough to fit in a 5.25" drive bay.<hr></blockquote>
What do you want to bet that that enclosure is roughly the same size internally as the iMac dome? I'm also betting that a 1Ghz G4 can whip the stuffing out of a 1.2Ghz PIII. So no, a switch to x86 would not mean the same good old Apple hardware equal to or better in performance than the PPC hardware. Especially for the iMac and the portables. They would be no better than all the WinTel offerings.
Also schools do not have an "x86 only" policy. The schools that have resisted Macs have had a "Windows only" policy. In your scenario that would do Apple no good at all.
<strong>Right now, Apple sells an OS that runs only on Apple's machines. They happen to have PPC chips in them.
If in the future, Apple sold an OS that runs only on Apple's machines, but those machines happened to have Opteron chips in them... what would the difference be to the average Mac buyer?
...and Apple is also exploring the x86 world as well. Should be a fun ride.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For this to work timing is everything.
Wasn't it Clint Eastwood who said,"You've got to know your limitations."
I have invested heavily in the pc sector...and we have to come to the realization of (current) market saturation...how fast a computer do you need to run word? Surf the web? So I believe the future trend will be emerging markets such as China (1.3 billion people) and goverments who are not standardized on Microsoft and want a cheaper more secure solution and one that has opensource elements....
Also if you look at Microsoft's Sec filing they make money from office and their operating system liscensees but much of their other areas are loss makers...if they loose these to they just become a bank (($40 + billion + interest)
Apple needs to offer complete software solution from Office applications to media for much less than microsoft and even linux companies charge something for support (redhat)
They also need to sure up the high end audio/visual and creation markets by buying Adobe/Macromedia and a 3D app and telling microsoft if they don't upgrade office for Os X then they loose Adobe/macromedia products for windows...
Apple only needs 2.5% (or so) of the world wide market to be profitable..and these highend customers who do 3d/audio/content creation will be the ones who need to update their computers for the forseable future...So apple can remain profitable while being a pain in the ass to microsoft in emerging countries by offering them an even cheaper solution than Microsoft and a more intergrated and elegant solution than linux...and yes this could be x86 for these markets...
Also Apple could offer a PC kit for the Playstation 3 that will let it function as a basic PC...for say an extra $80...this would include a version of OS X and a bunch of iApps....the playstation sells 10's of millions per year...even if a few percent upgraded to the pc kit Apple could make tons of money because it would vertually be all profit...(minus porting cost) and would get them hooked on the Apple way of things...also the playstations start out subsidized so they would be the best value proposition and these future playstations may be even more subsidized because the could be included in satellite or cable contracts or broadband contracts....
Dog Gammit Moki, if you know something spill it! It's not like Apple's pushing for criminal charges or anything? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Many arguments in favor of OS X running on the x86 processor have an undercurrent suggesting that people will then look more favorably on the Mac and switch. This kind of thinking can get companies in trouble, when they attempt to imitate a competitor in some way to make up for lagging sales. It seldom works, and often the company is hurt by it. This doesn't mean it cannot work, but it is dangerous territory. Many times an end-run is a better strategy.
People will switch to the Mac when they have a compelling reason to do so. Having an x86 chip in a Mac is not a compelling reason. If a business has an x86 only policy now and they want a Mac, they will change their policy. Simply removing a roadblock does not motivate anyone to buy. Often the roadblock is just an excuse to not buy, when they do not want it anyway.
The real thing hurting Apple is the lack of a high performance processor. I happen to think the IBM 970 is more than just a custom processor IBM is doing for Apple. IBM sees the handwriting on the wall regarding their own server and workstation business. I think they have a new commitment to making the PPC not only successful, but a winner.
Comments
<strong>Ah, the prosaic and clincally soothing tones of Moki. Ah. Like Guiness to an Irish mans velment throat box.</strong><hr></blockquote>
mmmmmmmm... Guinness. Don't tease me, pass it along, I'm thirsty.
no that's incorrect. below is a portion of an artical on <a href="http://www.arstechnica.com"; target="_blank">Ars Technica</a> that is about clustering.
[quote] If the LANL really wanted to create a super-dense cluster, they could have checked out these nice little PCs from Stealth computers. The base system starts at $895 and comes with a 1.2 GHz PIII, 20GB HD, CD-ROM and 256MB RAM...all packaged small enough to fit in a 5.25" drive bay.<hr></blockquote>
What do you want to bet that that enclosure is roughly the same size internally as the iMac dome? I'm also betting that a 1Ghz G4 can whip the stuffing out of a 1.2Ghz PIII. So no, a switch to x86 would not mean the same good old Apple hardware equal to or better in performance than the PPC hardware. Especially for the iMac and the portables. They would be no better than all the WinTel offerings.
Also schools do not have an "x86 only" policy. The schools that have resisted Macs have had a "Windows only" policy. In your scenario that would do Apple no good at all.
<strong>Apple would also gain a processor architecture that is being actively pushed by market forces..</strong><hr></blockquote>
For IBM, the 970 is desperately needed because of market forces. The chip is more important to IBM than it is to Apple.
<strong>Right now, Apple sells an OS that runs only on Apple's machines. They happen to have PPC chips in them.
If in the future, Apple sold an OS that runs only on Apple's machines, but those machines happened to have Opteron chips in them... what would the difference be to the average Mac buyer?
...and Apple is also exploring the x86 world as well. Should be a fun ride.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For this to work timing is everything.
Wasn't it Clint Eastwood who said,"You've got to know your limitations."
[ 12-14-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
good cause I got more ideas
I have invested heavily in the pc sector...and we have to come to the realization of (current) market saturation...how fast a computer do you need to run word? Surf the web? So I believe the future trend will be emerging markets such as China (1.3 billion people) and goverments who are not standardized on Microsoft and want a cheaper more secure solution and one that has opensource elements....
Also if you look at Microsoft's Sec filing they make money from office and their operating system liscensees but much of their other areas are loss makers...if they loose these to they just become a bank (($40 + billion + interest)
Apple needs to offer complete software solution from Office applications to media for much less than microsoft and even linux companies charge something for support (redhat)
They also need to sure up the high end audio/visual and creation markets by buying Adobe/Macromedia and a 3D app and telling microsoft if they don't upgrade office for Os X then they loose Adobe/macromedia products for windows...
Apple only needs 2.5% (or so) of the world wide market to be profitable..and these highend customers who do 3d/audio/content creation will be the ones who need to update their computers for the forseable future...So apple can remain profitable while being a pain in the ass to microsoft in emerging countries by offering them an even cheaper solution than Microsoft and a more intergrated and elegant solution than linux...and yes this could be x86 for these markets...
Also Apple could offer a PC kit for the Playstation 3 that will let it function as a basic PC...for say an extra $80...this would include a version of OS X and a bunch of iApps....the playstation sells 10's of millions per year...even if a few percent upgraded to the pc kit Apple could make tons of money because it would vertually be all profit...(minus porting cost) and would get them hooked on the Apple way of things...also the playstations start out subsidized so they would be the best value proposition and these future playstations may be even more subsidized because the could be included in satellite or cable contracts or broadband contracts....
ok I need a breath...
People will switch to the Mac when they have a compelling reason to do so. Having an x86 chip in a Mac is not a compelling reason. If a business has an x86 only policy now and they want a Mac, they will change their policy. Simply removing a roadblock does not motivate anyone to buy. Often the roadblock is just an excuse to not buy, when they do not want it anyway.
The real thing hurting Apple is the lack of a high performance processor. I happen to think the IBM 970 is more than just a custom processor IBM is doing for Apple. IBM sees the handwriting on the wall regarding their own server and workstation business. I think they have a new commitment to making the PPC not only successful, but a winner.
<strong>
And every night her soft woolen coat helps you feel loved.
!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />