Kid Red's on the money. Why would you want to kill the codebase for 25 million Macs? And with four million more sold every year, Adobe suddenly kills Photoshop? Macromedia kill Dreamweaver MX? Or Flash? Or M$ killing Office?
Either a market is worth supporting or its not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your not getting it. That 4 million figure, in 2 years time, will soon be able to run x86 at great speed (supposedly). However, I agree that the current programs would be mainted (to a point). Why would you throw away years of work? You wouldn't! My point (and I believe others making this argument) is that no NEW softweare would be written for the mac. If you culd write one application (we are talking from scratch), and it would run everywhere, why would you say "Oh, lets throw money away developing a mac version of this even tough they can run the current release RIGHT NOW, at NO PERFORMANCE HIT".
Yes, old codebases would be maintained (Photoshop wouldn't be dropped, Office v.X woudln't, etc) in the immediate time frame. However, given time, less and less applications would be developed specifically for the mac (new apps), and eventually the old guys would say "Well, no one else is developing specifically for the mac, so why bother updating 2 code bases, lets just concentrate all our efforts into one code base".
So say you are a developer 2 years from now, and you were starting a new project and you wanted to do a realsase for Mac and for PC. Now you new that you could take the time to develop two applications (one for mac and one for pc), or you could develop one application and it would run virtually everywhere (98% of the market lets say, the other 2% are still running old Mac boxes with no PC emulation). Honestly what would you choose? Its a no brainer.
But this will never happen. Why? Because emulation will never as good as the real thing (buying a x86 box). Even if in 2 years we were emulating a 4 GHz Pentium 4, the Pentium 5 woudl be out, and running at 7 GHz (lets say), and any new apps woudl be targetting somethign like this. so our emulated system would stil lbe grossly outdated, and run the new software at subpar performance.
So this whole thing is moot, as it is based on the belief that perfect (or very near perfect) emulation speeds were being obtained.
For the people using Adobe et al as examples: I'm not worried about the big guys. Not for a while, at least. I'm worried about the little guys.
There are a handful of reasons for some apps to stay native - Quark, for example, could never get away with removing AppleScript support. But in the case of small- to medium-sized shops, the temptation to release a Windows-only version would be great; and any educational or enterprise institutions that used that app would then be faced with the question of why buy a Mac to use as a PC? After all, if necessary you can get all the big apps for Windows, and since the likes of Adobe consider themselves above mere platforms, there's less and less difference with every release. Heck, Adobe reimplemented Quartz for Photoshop so that they could use that kind of engine cross-platform. The big guys will negate any platform specific advantages that they can't ignore outright, except for gewgaws and (in some cases) scripting.
Your not getting it. That 4 million figure, in 2 years time, will soon be able to run x86 at great speed (supposedly). However, I agree that the current programs would be mainted (to a point). Why would you throw away years of work? You wouldn't! My point (and I believe others making this argument) is that no NEW softweare would be written for the mac. If you culd write one application (we are talking from scratch), and it would run everywhere, why would you say "Oh, lets throw money away developing a mac version of this even tough they can run the current release RIGHT NOW, at NO PERFORMANCE HIT".
Yes, old codebases would be maintained (Photoshop wouldn't be dropped, Office v.X woudln't, etc) in the immediate time frame. However, given time, less and less applications would be developed specifically for the mac (new apps), and eventually the old guys would say "Well, no one else is developing specifically for the mac, so why bother updating 2 code bases, lets just concentrate all our efforts into one code base".
So say you are a developer 2 years from now, and you were starting a new project and you wanted to do a realsase for Mac and for PC. Now you new that you could take the time to develop two applications (one for mac and one for pc), or you could develop one application and it would run virtually everywhere (98% of the market lets say, the other 2% are still running old Mac boxes with no PC emulation). Honestly what would you choose? Its a no brainer.
But this will never happen. Why? Because emulation will never as good as the real thing (buying a x86 box). Even if in 2 years we were emulating a 4 GHz Pentium 4, the Pentium 5 woudl be out, and running at 7 GHz (lets say), and any new apps woudl be targetting somethign like this. so our emulated system would stil lbe grossly outdated, and run the new software at subpar performance.
So this whole thing is moot, as it is based on the belief that perfect (or very near perfect) emulation speeds were being obtained.
So you are saying that developers of new apps like Adobe iphoto rippoff album think wouldn't come to the mac because 4 million people bought a 970? So that's neglecting the 25 million current users and betting your income that 100% of the 4 million 970 users would buy/run windows to use your 'small' app? Come on, that'
s stupid, bad business and any other adjective/cliche to describe blindly killing production because you 'think' a decent # of users 'may' be able to run windows in emulation? Naw.
Battling Windows head on in corporations will never work until you can emulate their success. Inexpensive hardware and the ability to use Office.
So far, Apple has only half that picture. No corporation is going to spend $1500+ on a desktop when they can buy a PC for $699 that will do the same thing.
Switchers don't come from end users. Higher ups decide what stays and what goes. There is no reason for them to switch. Do you honestly think just the presence of a 970-based Powermac would do that? Hell no!
They are looking for inexpensive, compatible boxes that work well with their network. Kind of hard to control a Mac using SMS isn't it.
We aren't quite there yet, but it's getting better.
<strong>The issue is those users who would switch to mac but -
1) Too expensive to not only buy the hardware but replakce all thier software.
2) Still need to run a few PC apps and VPC doesn't cut it.
Those are the ones Apple could target as switchers with a 970 and pc emualtion built in.
side note- this is just my theory on one of moki's secrets. I'm not predicting or promoting the idea </strong><hr></blockquote>
It seams to me that this would most benefit Apple in their consumer marketing, yet their low end computers are topping out at 1 Ghz G4's, and will not likely see a 970 this year. So, will a 1.25-1.5 Ghz G4 iMac run the emulation software with comperable performance to a 2.5-3 Ghz Pentium? I doubt it.
I think that Apple could quite easily produce a 970 based headless consumer machine that would sell for ~$500 US, while still maintaining their 30% margins on it. They would also offer a matching screen to purchase separately, if needed.
In some ways this is the sort of thing they need to do with the 970 to get extensive penetration into the consumer market.
A very long way it seems... Goodness, you guys are deluding your selves if you think Apple is going to release a mac that will run windows. Get over it! It won't happen. Now lets get back to what this blade board is supposed to have special on it. Moki, or however it was, can't you just tell us? Goodness!
Hmmm. Looks like Apple is boosting revenue from Services and more and more software.
Seems to tie in with their hardware...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is no great surprise. These are both areas with higher margins so the more money they make there the more they can cut hardware prices or the more they can spend on other areas. Most large IT companies are trying to adopt service based and subscription based models so Apple doing it is no great surprise.
<strong> Your not getting it...I agree that the current programs would be mainted (to a point). .... My point (and I believe others making this argument) is that no NEW softweare would be written for the mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just silly. Sorry to be blunt. Who in his right mind would want to run Windows if you had OS X in the same comp?! What YOU don't get is that it would actually be the other way around. The more people using Macs, the more demand for Mac apps. What you don't seem to grasp is that having OS X run windows IS what is needed and wanted by many. The biggest complaint I get from potential switchers is, "I will have to buy all knew software. I really like Macs, but I just don't know." If they could still use their so "loved" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> software with the Mac, the flood gates would open and soon PC users would realize how much Windows sucks compared to OS X and spread the word like wild fire.
If Apple had the ability to run Windows on the Mac out of the box at reasonable speeds... That would be the direction to take, no and or buts about it. Face it, no one is developing for the Mac anymore anyhow, so your point is null and void. The only company I see developing for the Mac is Apple, the rest are long time Mac developers that don't really NEED to develop for the Mac to survive anymore, sad, sad, but true. So let Apple develop interest into OS X by having PC users see the benefits first hand. From there, all will fall into place.
"If you build it, they will come." <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>That's just silly. Sorry to be blunt. Who in his right mind would want to run Windows if you had OS X in the same comp?! What YOU don't get is that it would actually be the other way around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am silly?!? To think that all the windows users in the world want to give up their machines to run OS X is silly. We are talking (hypothetically) that all new macs could run windows programs at native speeds. So you wouldn't be giving up OS X, it would still run on your machine just fine. What woudl happen is your application choice would be limited, and you would be running more and more windows apps. The thing that you don't get is you would HAVE NO CHOICE! If the application was only written for x86, you would have no choice to run an OS X version, as they WOULDN'T EXIST. My whole point (and a few others on this board) is that if this whole emulation thing happened, why as a developer, would you make a natvie mac version, if the native x86 verison worked just fine? The user (you and me) have no choice, if the developer doens't give it to us.
[quote]<strong>The more people using Macs, the more demand for Mac apps</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bzzzzt...wrong. Try again. Why would suddenly more people be running macs just because we have native x86 emulation? Does the price of a mac suddenly drop? Oh, no it doesn't. Infact it might go up, if all macs were packaged with Windows, and whatever the licensing costs Microsoft decides to charge Apple. Oh, I know. Peoples views about Apple and the mac suddenly change. Oh, wait, no that doesn't happen either.
Re-read what I and some others have said. If this native emulation environment existed, developers would not want to write more OS X apps. They would write once, run everywhere (run on native x86, and emulated x86). So even if 5 million 970 macs were sold, developers would sitll want to write the x86 version, as it would run on every box (x86, native emulation with the 970, and half speed through emulation with older macs). So there would be no incentive to write native OS X apps.
[quote]<strong>The only company I see developing for the Mac is Apple, the rest are long time Mac developers that don't really NEED to develop for the Mac to survive anymore, sad, sad, but true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any evidence on this one? I know quite a few shareware guys developing for macs only (Ambrosia comes to mind), and if they stopped developing for the mac would be SOL. But maybe you are only talking about big companies. In which case I think you are wrong again. I am sure you are thinking of Adobe and Microsoft, but there are other companies that are doing quite well with their mac departments.
But I am done with this, as we will never convince each other, the other person is correct. And the whole argument is stupid, as this "dream emulation" will never happen.
Could this whole "Windoze emulation" argument be compared to the PSone/PS2?
PS2 runs all PSone software at faster than native speed...Why develop for the relatively few (when first released) PS2s out there, when there are something like 20 million PSones?
Escape Velocity Nova - published by Ambrosia Software, of whom Andrew Welch is el presidente. Mr. Welch posts under the name "moki" here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh...I own just about everything Ambrosia has ever released, I just never got into the EV games!
Somehow, I don't think the benefits of a powerful Win32 emulator outweigh the risks. While this would make it easier to migrate folks to OS X, it might put a stop to native Mac OS development. This is a very real risk and would marginalize Apple. As long as a small or medium developer could write once and run anywhere, there is no incentive to produce a native Mac version, and a big financial reason not to. Unless a true "killer" app. comes out that runs solely on 64 bit PPC chips, Apple will be in trouble. There would essentially be no reason to purchase Apple hardware in such a scenario--especially if a cheaper Pentium based machine would run the code faster than a top of the line 970 based machine. Who would be buying the 970 in such a scenario? As I said before, Apple needs to push Cocoa and push it hard. They need to bring back the development environment for x86. Develop once and run anywhere, only using Apple's development tools. Once the developers are hooked on Cocoa, Apple could perhaps pull the x86 version, albeit with a great deal of consternation. Simply providing a good x86 emulation environment is not enough as it will only bring about Apple's demise. Apple needs to get more developers on board first. And if I were Microsoft, I would do precisely just what they did. Buy Virtual PC, optimize it for the 970 to where it runs decently, then attempt to have the developers drop their Macintosh versions. I hope that Gates get burned by it, but we shall see.
The PS2 does not emulate the PS1 in software. The PS2 actually has a dedicated psone-on-a-chip to do the work. The ps1 hardware was so cheap that the (partial)system on a chip did the trick, and provided a safer, virtually perfect compatibility solution.
The PS2 does not emulate the PS1 in software. The PS2 actually has a dedicated psone-on-a-chip to do the work. The ps1 hardware was so cheap that the (partial)system on a chip did the trick, and provided a safer, virtually perfect compatibility solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know how it was set up...my point was IF Apple could release a Windows emulation built-in that ran as fast as an actual x86 box, wouldn't that follow the PSone/PS2 model?
Comments
<strong>
Kid Red's on the money. Why would you want to kill the codebase for 25 million Macs? And with four million more sold every year, Adobe suddenly kills Photoshop? Macromedia kill Dreamweaver MX? Or Flash? Or M$ killing Office?
Either a market is worth supporting or its not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your not getting it. That 4 million figure, in 2 years time, will soon be able to run x86 at great speed (supposedly). However, I agree that the current programs would be mainted (to a point). Why would you throw away years of work? You wouldn't! My point (and I believe others making this argument) is that no NEW softweare would be written for the mac. If you culd write one application (we are talking from scratch), and it would run everywhere, why would you say "Oh, lets throw money away developing a mac version of this even tough they can run the current release RIGHT NOW, at NO PERFORMANCE HIT".
Yes, old codebases would be maintained (Photoshop wouldn't be dropped, Office v.X woudln't, etc) in the immediate time frame. However, given time, less and less applications would be developed specifically for the mac (new apps), and eventually the old guys would say "Well, no one else is developing specifically for the mac, so why bother updating 2 code bases, lets just concentrate all our efforts into one code base".
So say you are a developer 2 years from now, and you were starting a new project and you wanted to do a realsase for Mac and for PC. Now you new that you could take the time to develop two applications (one for mac and one for pc), or you could develop one application and it would run virtually everywhere (98% of the market lets say, the other 2% are still running old Mac boxes with no PC emulation). Honestly what would you choose? Its a no brainer.
But this will never happen. Why? Because emulation will never as good as the real thing (buying a x86 box). Even if in 2 years we were emulating a 4 GHz Pentium 4, the Pentium 5 woudl be out, and running at 7 GHz (lets say), and any new apps woudl be targetting somethign like this. so our emulated system would stil lbe grossly outdated, and run the new software at subpar performance.
So this whole thing is moot, as it is based on the belief that perfect (or very near perfect) emulation speeds were being obtained.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
There are a handful of reasons for some apps to stay native - Quark, for example, could never get away with removing AppleScript support. But in the case of small- to medium-sized shops, the temptation to release a Windows-only version would be great; and any educational or enterprise institutions that used that app would then be faced with the question of why buy a Mac to use as a PC? After all, if necessary you can get all the big apps for Windows, and since the likes of Adobe consider themselves above mere platforms, there's less and less difference with every release. Heck, Adobe reimplemented Quartz for Photoshop so that they could use that kind of engine cross-platform. The big guys will negate any platform specific advantages that they can't ignore outright, except for gewgaws and (in some cases) scripting.
<strong>
Your not getting it. That 4 million figure, in 2 years time, will soon be able to run x86 at great speed (supposedly). However, I agree that the current programs would be mainted (to a point). Why would you throw away years of work? You wouldn't! My point (and I believe others making this argument) is that no NEW softweare would be written for the mac. If you culd write one application (we are talking from scratch), and it would run everywhere, why would you say "Oh, lets throw money away developing a mac version of this even tough they can run the current release RIGHT NOW, at NO PERFORMANCE HIT".
Yes, old codebases would be maintained (Photoshop wouldn't be dropped, Office v.X woudln't, etc) in the immediate time frame. However, given time, less and less applications would be developed specifically for the mac (new apps), and eventually the old guys would say "Well, no one else is developing specifically for the mac, so why bother updating 2 code bases, lets just concentrate all our efforts into one code base".
So say you are a developer 2 years from now, and you were starting a new project and you wanted to do a realsase for Mac and for PC. Now you new that you could take the time to develop two applications (one for mac and one for pc), or you could develop one application and it would run virtually everywhere (98% of the market lets say, the other 2% are still running old Mac boxes with no PC emulation). Honestly what would you choose? Its a no brainer.
But this will never happen. Why? Because emulation will never as good as the real thing (buying a x86 box). Even if in 2 years we were emulating a 4 GHz Pentium 4, the Pentium 5 woudl be out, and running at 7 GHz (lets say), and any new apps woudl be targetting somethign like this. so our emulated system would stil lbe grossly outdated, and run the new software at subpar performance.
So this whole thing is moot, as it is based on the belief that perfect (or very near perfect) emulation speeds were being obtained.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you are saying that developers of new apps like Adobe iphoto rippoff album think wouldn't come to the mac because 4 million people bought a 970? So that's neglecting the 25 million current users and betting your income that 100% of the 4 million 970 users would buy/run windows to use your 'small' app? Come on, that'
s stupid, bad business and any other adjective/cliche to describe blindly killing production because you 'think' a decent # of users 'may' be able to run windows in emulation? Naw.
So far, Apple has only half that picture. No corporation is going to spend $1500+ on a desktop when they can buy a PC for $699 that will do the same thing.
Switchers don't come from end users. Higher ups decide what stays and what goes. There is no reason for them to switch. Do you honestly think just the presence of a 970-based Powermac would do that? Hell no!
They are looking for inexpensive, compatible boxes that work well with their network. Kind of hard to control a Mac using SMS isn't it.
We aren't quite there yet, but it's getting better.
1) Too expensive to not only buy the hardware but replakce all thier software.
2) Still need to run a few PC apps and VPC doesn't cut it.
Those are the ones Apple could target as switchers with a 970 and pc emualtion built in.
side note- this is just my theory on one of moki's secrets. I'm not predicting or promoting the idea
<strong>The issue is those users who would switch to mac but -
1) Too expensive to not only buy the hardware but replakce all thier software.
2) Still need to run a few PC apps and VPC doesn't cut it.
Those are the ones Apple could target as switchers with a 970 and pc emualtion built in.
side note- this is just my theory on one of moki's secrets. I'm not predicting or promoting the idea
It seams to me that this would most benefit Apple in their consumer marketing, yet their low end computers are topping out at 1 Ghz G4's, and will not likely see a 970 this year. So, will a 1.25-1.5 Ghz G4 iMac run the emulation software with comperable performance to a 2.5-3 Ghz Pentium? I doubt it.
In some ways this is the sort of thing they need to do with the 970 to get extensive penetration into the consumer market.
<strong><a href="http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=6038"; target="_blank">http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=6038</a>;
Hmmm. Looks like Apple is boosting revenue from Services and more and more software.
Seems to tie in with their hardware...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is no great surprise. These are both areas with higher margins so the more money they make there the more they can cut hardware prices or the more they can spend on other areas. Most large IT companies are trying to adopt service based and subscription based models so Apple doing it is no great surprise.
<strong> Your not getting it...I agree that the current programs would be mainted (to a point). .... My point (and I believe others making this argument) is that no NEW softweare would be written for the mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
That's just silly. Sorry to be blunt. Who in his right mind would want to run Windows if you had OS X in the same comp?! What YOU don't get is that it would actually be the other way around. The more people using Macs, the more demand for Mac apps. What you don't seem to grasp is that having OS X run windows IS what is needed and wanted by many. The biggest complaint I get from potential switchers is, "I will have to buy all knew software. I really like Macs, but I just don't know." If they could still use their so "loved" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> software with the Mac, the flood gates would open and soon PC users would realize how much Windows sucks compared to OS X and spread the word like wild fire.
If Apple had the ability to run Windows on the Mac out of the box at reasonable speeds... That would be the direction to take, no and or buts about it. Face it, no one is developing for the Mac anymore anyhow, so your point is null and void. The only company I see developing for the Mac is Apple, the rest are long time Mac developers that don't really NEED to develop for the Mac to survive anymore, sad, sad, but true. So let Apple develop interest into OS X by having PC users see the benefits first hand. From there, all will fall into place.
"If you build it, they will come." <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>That's just silly. Sorry to be blunt. Who in his right mind would want to run Windows if you had OS X in the same comp?! What YOU don't get is that it would actually be the other way around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am silly?!? To think that all the windows users in the world want to give up their machines to run OS X is silly. We are talking (hypothetically) that all new macs could run windows programs at native speeds. So you wouldn't be giving up OS X, it would still run on your machine just fine. What woudl happen is your application choice would be limited, and you would be running more and more windows apps. The thing that you don't get is you would HAVE NO CHOICE! If the application was only written for x86, you would have no choice to run an OS X version, as they WOULDN'T EXIST. My whole point (and a few others on this board) is that if this whole emulation thing happened, why as a developer, would you make a natvie mac version, if the native x86 verison worked just fine? The user (you and me) have no choice, if the developer doens't give it to us.
[quote]<strong>The more people using Macs, the more demand for Mac apps</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bzzzzt...wrong. Try again. Why would suddenly more people be running macs just because we have native x86 emulation? Does the price of a mac suddenly drop? Oh, no it doesn't. Infact it might go up, if all macs were packaged with Windows, and whatever the licensing costs Microsoft decides to charge Apple. Oh, I know. Peoples views about Apple and the mac suddenly change. Oh, wait, no that doesn't happen either.
Re-read what I and some others have said. If this native emulation environment existed, developers would not want to write more OS X apps. They would write once, run everywhere (run on native x86, and emulated x86). So even if 5 million 970 macs were sold, developers would sitll want to write the x86 version, as it would run on every box (x86, native emulation with the 970, and half speed through emulation with older macs). So there would be no incentive to write native OS X apps.
[quote]<strong>The only company I see developing for the Mac is Apple, the rest are long time Mac developers that don't really NEED to develop for the Mac to survive anymore, sad, sad, but true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any evidence on this one? I know quite a few shareware guys developing for macs only (Ambrosia comes to mind), and if they stopped developing for the mac would be SOL. But maybe you are only talking about big companies. In which case I think you are wrong again. I am sure you are thinking of Adobe and Microsoft, but there are other companies that are doing quite well with their mac departments.
But I am done with this, as we will never convince each other, the other person is correct. And the whole argument is stupid, as this "dream emulation" will never happen.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
<strong>
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TJM:
I'VE GOT IT!!!!
It's not a blade server at all!!!
It's actually a controller for a Fusion Pulse Cannon off of an Auroran Cruiser! Those fiends at IBM are in league with the Aurorans!
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, actually, their Intel blade servers are Fusion Pulse Cannons. The heat from the Pentium directly powers the weapon.
This one is stolen Polaris technology.
(That whoosh sound was the sound of this going over everyone's heads...) </strong><hr></blockquote>
What game are you guys playing anyway???
<strong>
What game are you guys playing anyway???
EV Nova
<strong>
What game are you guys playing anyway???
Escape Velocity Nova - published by Ambrosia Software, of whom Andrew Welch is el presidente. Mr. Welch posts under the name "moki" here.
PS2 runs all PSone software at faster than native speed...Why develop for the relatively few (when first released) PS2s out there, when there are something like 20 million PSones?
But now, there are tons of PS2 games...
<strong>
Escape Velocity Nova - published by Ambrosia Software, of whom Andrew Welch is el presidente. Mr. Welch posts under the name "moki" here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh...I own just about everything Ambrosia has ever released, I just never got into the EV games!
The PS2 does not emulate the PS1 in software. The PS2 actually has a dedicated psone-on-a-chip to do the work. The ps1 hardware was so cheap that the (partial)system on a chip did the trick, and provided a safer, virtually perfect compatibility solution.
<strong>On the playstation analogue:
The PS2 does not emulate the PS1 in software. The PS2 actually has a dedicated psone-on-a-chip to do the work. The ps1 hardware was so cheap that the (partial)system on a chip did the trick, and provided a safer, virtually perfect compatibility solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know how it was set up...my point was IF Apple could release a Windows emulation built-in that ran as fast as an actual x86 box, wouldn't that follow the PSone/PS2 model?