Idealistic answer: To bring the power of Mac OS X to the masses.
Cynical answer: To make more money. That's what business is all about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you are saying 2 differnt working versions of OS X that are compatible. Possible, a good idea even, but right now they should be worried about making OS X as good as possible for the PPC platform first.
But, if os X doesnt work as well on x86, people will get the wrong impression of Apple and never switch.
Also, what about the major support Apple would need to dole out to poeople who have problems on the many flavors of x86 out there?
To me it seems like the cost of development and support would far outweigh any profit that they would see. Like I said before, the money isnt in the OS its in the Apps...
So you are saying 2 differnt working versions of OS X that are compatible. Possible, a good idea even, but right now they should be worried about making OS X as good as possible for the PPC platform first.
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm a PC user. Like every other PC user, I don't care about PPC. I don't know if OS X is stable, good, bad, or sky-blue pink.
iMacs sold because they look nice and the marketing was spot on, and they turned out to be rather super so they carried on selling. OS X for Intel could sell because it looks nice and everyone know about Apple via the iMac, and hey, according to you guys it's rather super. So it should carry on selling, right?
As for apps, you can't get apps until you have an OS. First things first, I feel.
[quote] Fran441 said: I guess the better question is what does Apple do if they don't break the 1 GHz mark at MWSF? <hr></blockquote>
I guess the only thing they would do is bring out a slew of consumer orientated stuff to hide that fact. If the processor speeds arent up to a gig then they must do a demonstration of a machine with a radically optimised motherboard and OSX kernel that will blow us away...
Porting OS X to Intel compatible hardware would not bring it to the masses any more than the PPC has already. Prices would be marginally cheaper probably. That's it. Too much work for too little impact. Unless the PPC is EOL or obviously at the end of its life, it won't happen. Besides if Apple is looking forward and the G5 is dead in the water, then they would rather move to Xeons or Itaniums or whatever isn't a Pentium.
[added:] Carbon apps (compiled in Mach-O anyway) are not affected by a move to Intel hardware sine it runs over the kernel, correct?
1.4 Ghz G4's would be very good, but since we've built up 2.6 Ghz G5's with full speed caches and DDR and all that, yes, according to that framework it comes up short. That's the wrong frame of reference though. The frame of reference is the current Apple offerings: 733, 800, 867 MHz. 1Ghz is good. 1.4 is very good. Second frame of reference is Intel Ghz speeds, another issue altogether.
<strong>Unless the PPC is EOL or obviously at the end of its life, it won't happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry for my ignorance, but what's the difference between "EOL" and "at the end of its life"? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
This is not possible from Apple to be stopped at 933 Mhz. I remember to have read an article about overclocking a 867 to 1000 (back i july)... so in 7 months Apple & Mot must have found a way to break the gigahertz at minimum 1000 and maximum 1400 (for a G4).
And for you all people saying that they will switch to PC or whatever.
Just imagine the speed of a Dual 1.0 Ghz with a new 400 Mhz MB, DDR and ATA 100. (realistic for Apple, no?). I think it will be twice as fast as the current Dual 800 (the G4 is not in a great speed territory with a 133 Mhz MB).
So according to the hype we will normally have: a new iMac (hoping G4) with 133 MB AND minimum a new PowerMac @ 1.0 Ghz with 400 MB and One more thing?.
a dual 1.4 ghz g4 wouldn't be THAT bad, it would satisfy my carving for a bitching computer, though it would be bad for apple....in the sense that itsnot a g5 and alot of people want a g5...oh well.
I don't really believe these stats, I wouldn't be surprised if apple deliberatly let these stats leak, becasue they are fake, that would be cool, but it doesn't seem to likely
And for you all people saying that they will switch to PC or whatever.
Just imagine the speed of a Dual 1.0 Ghz with a new 400 Mhz MB, DDR and ATA 100. (realistic for Apple, no?). I think it will be twice as fast as the current Dual 800 (the G4 is not in a great speed territory with a 133 Mhz MB).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hate to be a party-pooper, but I thought I should just point out that sticking an extra CPU in a computer doesn't instantly make it twice as fast.
Not that I thought anybody *does* think that or anything. Just, you know, making the point.
Each copy sold would just about match the margins made on the iMac/iBook, 3 copies for the PowerBook/Power Mac.
*Would increase Mac OS user base.
Cons:
*No major incentive to spend the extra money to buy a Mac.
*If you can buy Windows and Mac OS X for Intel, but not Windows and Mac OS X for PPC, then why buy a PPC computer at all?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You missed one big con. How many companies do you know who tried to muscle into Microsoft's core market and are still successful? If they wanted to they could buy Apple out of petty cash and kill this, and that would be the nice way out!
Hate to be a party-pooper, but I thought I should just point out that sticking an extra CPU in a computer doesn't instantly make it twice as fast.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you don't use Mac OS X or photoshop or any apps MP aware, don't you ?
Comments
<strong>
Good point, didnt think of it that way. But why would apple bother if the PPC was still viable?
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
Idealistic answer: To bring the power of Mac OS X to the masses.
Cynical answer: To make more money. That's what business is all about.
<strong>
Idealistic answer: To bring the power of Mac OS X to the masses.
Cynical answer: To make more money. That's what business is all about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you are saying 2 differnt working versions of OS X that are compatible. Possible, a good idea even, but right now they should be worried about making OS X as good as possible for the PPC platform first.
But, if os X doesnt work as well on x86, people will get the wrong impression of Apple and never switch.
Also, what about the major support Apple would need to dole out to poeople who have problems on the many flavors of x86 out there?
To me it seems like the cost of development and support would far outweigh any profit that they would see. Like I said before, the money isnt in the OS its in the Apps...
-Paul
I'll shoot myself twice, just to make sure that i don't see any pc (yuk, dirty word) out there running our thing .
Never gonna happen !
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: iCom ]</p>
<strong>
So you are saying 2 differnt working versions of OS X that are compatible. Possible, a good idea even, but right now they should be worried about making OS X as good as possible for the PPC platform first.
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm a PC user. Like every other PC user, I don't care about PPC. I don't know if OS X is stable, good, bad, or sky-blue pink.
iMacs sold because they look nice and the marketing was spot on, and they turned out to be rather super so they carried on selling. OS X for Intel could sell because it looks nice and everyone know about Apple via the iMac, and hey, according to you guys it's rather super. So it should carry on selling, right?
As for apps, you can't get apps until you have an OS. First things first, I feel.
<strong>
Four steps to a better tomorrow:
1. Go Apple Store.
2. Order OSX 10.1.
3. Check Apple Product Code number.
4. Realize you are victim of hoax.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here with a pic:
What if Apple release the news iMac G3 @ 1Ghz and PowerMac G4 @ 1.4 Ghz (dual)
with their 'forever' 20% margin... BUT
they also introduce a new Apple Branded PC with OS X for PC (cocoa only... but what about the carbon finder ???
at a loooooooow price to compete in the prosumer market and webserver of wintel.
Please realize that in this case there is no carbon apps, no win32 apps... only cocoa.
This will blow us away, will be big where no PC has gone before (Aqua & Unix for all)...
I guess the only thing they would do is bring out a slew of consumer orientated stuff to hide that fact. If the processor speeds arent up to a gig then they must do a demonstration of a machine with a radically optimised motherboard and OSX kernel that will blow us away...
[added:] Carbon apps (compiled in Mach-O anyway) are not affected by a move to Intel hardware sine it runs over the kernel, correct?
1.4 Ghz G4's would be very good, but since we've built up 2.6 Ghz G5's with full speed caches and DDR and all that, yes, according to that framework it comes up short. That's the wrong frame of reference though. The frame of reference is the current Apple offerings: 733, 800, 867 MHz. 1Ghz is good. 1.4 is very good. Second frame of reference is Intel Ghz speeds, another issue altogether.
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>i will be flame for that i know but...
What if Apple release the news iMac G3 @ 1Ghz and PowerMac G4 @ 1.4 Ghz (dual)
with their 'forever' 20% margin... BUT
they also introduce a new Apple Branded PC with OS X for PC (cocoa only... but what about the carbon finder ???
at a loooooooow price to compete in the prosumer market and webserver of wintel.
Please realize that in this case there is no carbon apps, no win32 apps... only cocoa.
This will blow us away, will be big where no PC has gone before (Aqua & Unix for all)...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, I will bring my riot gun to MWSF and shoot the first Apple branded PC .
No, they wont do such a thing .
First, there would be no market for it
Second, Steve can't live with plain grey boxes
Third, If it would be a design computer an it has the Apple logo on it, price would be the same as the real stuff from Apple
Just my opinion
<strong>Unless the PPC is EOL or obviously at the end of its life, it won't happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry for my ignorance, but what's the difference between "EOL" and "at the end of its life"? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
No problem. I'm cool.
Why the attack? Do you own a copy of Maya 4? If so, what are the improvements? If not, why the tone?<hr></blockquote>
just because..
oh and i forgot, i don't like belgian waffle (too sweet), maybe that's why the tone :cool:
and i certainly won't talk about maya 4
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Strangelove ]</p>
Pros:
*Sell Mac OS X for x86 for $200 per copy.
Each copy sold would just about match the margins made on the iMac/iBook, 3 copies for the PowerBook/Power Mac.
*Would increase Mac OS user base.
Cons:
*No major incentive to spend the extra money to buy a Mac.
*If you can buy Windows and Mac OS X for Intel, but not Windows and Mac OS X for PPC, then why buy a PPC computer at all?
And for you all people saying that they will switch to PC or whatever.
Just imagine the speed of a Dual 1.0 Ghz with a new 400 Mhz MB, DDR and ATA 100. (realistic for Apple, no?). I think it will be twice as fast as the current Dual 800 (the G4 is not in a great speed territory with a 133 Mhz MB).
So according to the hype we will normally have: a new iMac (hoping G4) with 133 MB AND minimum a new PowerMac @ 1.0 Ghz with 400 MB and One more thing?.
Have faith my friends
I don't really believe these stats, I wouldn't be surprised if apple deliberatly let these stats leak, becasue they are fake, that would be cool, but it doesn't seem to likely
<strong>Pros/Cons of OS X for x86:
Cons:
1/ No major incentive to spend the extra money to buy a Mac
2/ If you can buy Windows and Mac OS X for Intel, but not Windows and Mac OS X for PPC, then why buy a PPC computer at all?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1/ Yes you have : iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, Final Cut, AppleScript, ColorSync, Carbon, etc.
2/ All creative people will always by Mac they HATE PC really...
<strong>
And for you all people saying that they will switch to PC or whatever.
Just imagine the speed of a Dual 1.0 Ghz with a new 400 Mhz MB, DDR and ATA 100. (realistic for Apple, no?). I think it will be twice as fast as the current Dual 800 (the G4 is not in a great speed territory with a 133 Mhz MB).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hate to be a party-pooper, but I thought I should just point out that sticking an extra CPU in a computer doesn't instantly make it twice as fast.
Not that I thought anybody *does* think that or anything. Just, you know, making the point.
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: CrableyG ]</p>
<strong>Pros/Cons of OS X for x86:
Pros:
*Sell Mac OS X for x86 for $200 per copy.
Each copy sold would just about match the margins made on the iMac/iBook, 3 copies for the PowerBook/Power Mac.
*Would increase Mac OS user base.
Cons:
*No major incentive to spend the extra money to buy a Mac.
*If you can buy Windows and Mac OS X for Intel, but not Windows and Mac OS X for PPC, then why buy a PPC computer at all?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You missed one big con. How many companies do you know who tried to muscle into Microsoft's core market and are still successful? If they wanted to they could buy Apple out of petty cash and kill this, and that would be the nice way out!
Michael
<strong>
just because..
oh and i forgot, i don't like belgian waffle (too sweet), maybe that's why the tone :cool:
and i certainly won't talk about maya 4
[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Strangelove ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
't Is okay.
'De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum est' or something like that IIRC
<strong>
Hate to be a party-pooper, but I thought I should just point out that sticking an extra CPU in a computer doesn't instantly make it twice as fast.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you don't use Mac OS X or photoshop or any apps MP aware, don't you ?