So now it is just an OS system!

lonewolfjujutsu

My take on the transition is that Apple is going to be going head to head with Microsoft. I would of hoped that Apple switched to AMD instead of Intel. But Intel does have some good products in the pipeline.



So what makes Apple special anymore? What is the difference between Dell?



I quess my take on the future it will be a battle of operating systems. Apple seems to be winning in the MS software wars and I expect it to get hotter in the future. The Mac OS X is easier and more stable than Windows. As we all know and the Apple software is getting better and more numerous. Bill Gates has to be worried and Balmer has been unusually quiet. Nervous?



What I would like to see in the future is Apple Mac OSX become the standard OS in Mac and PC alike. They have the same chip. Since Adobe seems to be onboard with CS2, maybe now iWorks can become a better Publisher.



I would like to see iHome (under $500) so I can stream everything in my living room.



And I would like to see Apple overtake Dell in personal computer sales because Dell sucks.



To bad IBM missed the boat. So now that Apple's processor is like everyone elses, let the OS wars begin.



EG

hudson1

Disagree. Apple has stated that they won't be supplying or supporting Windows on Apple computers. More important, Apple has also said that Mac OS X won't run on anything other than a Macintosh computer. Unless OS X can be made to run on a Dell or HP, Apple won't be in any more competition with Microsoft than they have been for the past many years.



Is Intel's new DRM technology the key here? Maybe it's the piece to the puzzle that can prevent migration of OS X to non-Apple machines.

addison

Quote:

Originally posted by lonewolfjujutsu

My take on the transition is that Apple is going to be going head to head with Microsoft. I would of hoped that Apple switched to AMD instead of Intel. But Intel does have some good products in the pipeline.



EG

I don't think that is the plan for phase 1. BUT when the transition is finished it would definitely be an option for Apple, although a very high risk one. Remember Apple has 2% and MS the other 98%, to go head to head would be really sticking their heads out because they could loose most of their hardware sales and income as a result.

tht

The future of operating system software is up for grabs because the Internet has made rich client applications niche products (along with Office applications becoming commodity products or superseded by web apps).



I'll say it a different way. Developers won't be locked into Microsoft APIs (MSFC, .Net) because nearly all of the developers will be developing Internet applications, which for the most part only needs a browser.



And Microsoft already knows they already lost this war (Internet APIs versus MS APIs). Don't you find it odd that Microsoft will be selling a proprietary consumer device that uses a financial model like wireless carriers? If you hate being a Cingular, Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile customer, and I think most everyone does, just imagine what it would be like with Microsoft.



(The telcos and cable companies will be offering converged PC-game-media consoles in the future. It will depend on which company can make a deal with the telcos and cable companies, or become one themselves.)



For the first few years of the transition, Macintels will be no different from Macintoshes. What makes Macs unique will still be there when they come with Intel processors. They still will be a mix of art, design and computing.

lonewolfjujutsu

I hope so because I like the uniqueness of Apple.



Correct me if I am wrong, can't you run Unixs on Intel? So what is the difference?



With iLife 5, I see Apple positioning itself to dump MS products in the future. I think Pages will replace Word, Excel, Publisher and FrontPage with future updates. Keynote is already better than Powerpoint. Safari is much better than Explorer and I like it better than Firefox. So with that it would be a smart move for a PC bulider to switch OSs, dumping Windows. The security is better and although I am new to IT, Apple seems to be making progress marketing their servers. So an Apple revolution over MS...not so far fetch.

Initial Apple will keep its OS to only Macs. But what if Jobs opened it up to PC makers? As he stated OS X has been leading a second hidden life. Mac OS has been designed for the multimedia apps from the begining. MS is playing catch-up. Trying to solve security holes in their system that are part of their OS design.

It just makes sense for Apple in the future to open their system to PCs. Now that they are using Intel chips what is really there to stop them?

EG

onlooker

Quote:

let the OS wars begin.



EG

There is a Mac OS forum that would more appropriate for this.

d.j. adequate

The problem is, to most non-geek consumers operating systems just don't matter. They are just a way to run the application you want. Apple may be beating MS on features and stability, but to most people its good enough. Apple now will not have any great hardware advantage over MS--both will be the same. I don't yet know how this will affect Apple's ability to deliver compelling software, but yesterday's MS appearance doesn't leave me much hope for an iWorks update anymore.



The OS wars were won long ago by Windows. This won't change that.

mark- card carrying fanaticrealist

Quote:

Originally posted by Hudson1

Disagree. Apple has stated that they won't be supplying or supporting Windows on Apple computers. More important, Apple has also said that Mac OS X won't run on anything other than a Macintosh computer. Unless OS X can be made to run on a Dell or HP, Apple won't be in any more competition with Microsoft than they have been for the past many years.



Is Intel's new DRM technology the key here? Maybe it's the piece to the puzzle that can prevent migration of OS X to non-Apple machines.

This isn't a dig, so please don't take it as one…



The first part of that statement means whatever you want it to mean.



Apple won't be supplying Windows - no surprise there, I'd have been more concerned if they were to be honest.



Or supporting Windows - no really (?)



What they don't say (because it's still early days) is: "But we are talking to VMWare (or whomever) who will be providing a virtualisation environment in which Windows and many other operating systems can run at near native speeds".



And the reason they won't say that until the last minute is that, faced with a Wintel box that can only run Longhorn, or a Macintosh that can boot Tiger or Leopard and run Longhorn in a window, which one would you buy and what would it do to the marketshare (and share price) of Dell/HP/etc.

pb

Quote:

Originally posted by lonewolfjujutsu



I quess my take on the future it will be a battle of operating systems. Apple seems to be winning in the MS software wars and I expect it to get hotter in the future.

That remains to be seen. MS has yet to release Longhorn.

onlooker

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist





And the reason they won't say that until the last minute is that, faced with a Wintel box that can only run Longhorn, or a Macintosh that can boot Tiger or Leopard and run Longhorn in a window, which one would you buy and what would it do to the marketshare (and share price) of Dell/HP/etc.

That could lead them straight down the pathway to a Monopoly case which at that point a bunch of non tech people would start listening to competitors plea's (lobbyists / bribery) looking at other Mac products, and take that whole situation into consideration which would take a lifetime, and also cost the company millions, and millions of dollars and shed and the media would shed a bad light on the whole thing.

I don't think that would be an option.

oh_the_humanity

If you think apple is going to turn into dell , your kidding your self. Think about it this way. Ferrari usually build lelts say straight six engines, and they said you know what we are going to start using v6 engines or something becuase they are more fuel effiecnt and provide more power to wait ratio. etc. it doesnt mean the rest of that car isnt a ferrari any more.



Apple will continue to be apple. Makeing a great operating system. Making great iapps, and making inovative hardware. Apple is an innovation company. dell just wants to make the cheapest shit possible, and cram it down peoples throats.

lonewolfjujutsu

I agree about Dell crap. Way behind Apple in design.

EG

hudson1

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist

This isn't a dig, so please don't take it as one…



The first part of that statement means whatever you want it to mean.



Apple won't be supplying Windows - no surprise there, I'd have been more concerned if they were to be honest.



Or supporting Windows - no really (?)



What they don't say (because it's still early days) is: "But we are talking to VMWare (or whomever) who will be providing a virtualisation environment in which Windows and many other operating systems can run at near native speeds".



And the reason they won't say that until the last minute is that, faced with a Wintel box that can only run Longhorn, or a Macintosh that can boot Tiger or Leopard and run Longhorn in a window, which one would you buy and what would it do to the marketshare (and share price) of Dell/HP/etc.

OK, I see your point. My guess is that MS won't worry about this as long as they get to sell a copy of Windows to some poor Mac user for $150 or so (which beats selling it to Dell for $50). Now if it ever becomes viable to run Windows apps on a Mac without Windows, well look out for MS.



As for Dell, HP, etc., they'll be more concerned especially if a copy of Windows isn't needed to run a Windows app on a Mac. As long as Windows is needed, I suspect they feel that they'll beat Apple on price easily.

chris cuilla

Quote:

Originally posted by lonewolfjujutsu

So what makes Apple special anymore? What is the difference between Dell?

Perhaps...OS X?

chris cuilla

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist

a Wintel box that can only run Longhorn

You just said something VERY interesting to me.



I remember some fuss about the DRM stuff in the CPU a while back...and the ability for a machine to be locked down to only run a single OS (i.e. Windows). Now Intel doesn't care what OS runs on their CPU...they just want to sell bazillions of chips.



But, if you are a vendor like Apple, you might like the fact that you could lock a machine down in such a way.



Which leads me to another thought...what about the hardware (becoming such commodity and all that) basically becoming just a "packaging" mechanism for the software/OS (is the Mac mini a first generation example of this?)

lonewolfjujutsu

Yes my point that I was making. It is no longer which hardware is better but which OS is better.



Mac OS? yes as my title states.



I honestly thought by now (2005) that hardware would be secondary and that we would "rent" all of our software online to include storage. So instead of buying the latest fastest chip, the server you were hook up with would update itself. You would just pay a usage fee.



All you need is broadband and a media box like ihome.



EG

oldcodger73

One can also argue that this may be another step in Apple's attempt to reinvent itself. Let's say that OX runs as well as hoped for on an Intel processor. Apple may then decide they can make more money selling the OS for use on any Intel based machine then they would loose in lost sales of their own computers. After all, the present 3% share isn't that great.

carson o'genic

I think the big issue here is that Apple has really opened themselves up to comparison with other computer makers. It will be possible to buy two computers, a Mactel and a Wintel, that have the same chips and run a Photoshop shootout. Any differences will be due to Apple's non-processor hardware and differences in the optimization of the OS and software.



Using the PPC always gave room for some fudge factor: "it is better at this than that"...etc. These excuses won't fly as well in the future.



The OS developers at Apple have their work cut out for them because they not only need to switch to Intel but they have to come out competative. The change to OSX was similar because OS9 was around to compare things to. But the people using OS9 were the mostly loyal customers. When PC magazine does the first review of Mactel, they are not going to be so forgiving if OSX comes across as molasses on a cold day.

vox barbara

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist

(...)

, or a Macintosh that can boot Tiger or Leopard and run Longhorn in a window, which one would you buy and what would it do to the marketshare (and share price) of Dell/HP/etc.

They question is how the intel based Macintosh

will boot into Tiger or Leopard. Will we see

that ugly (intel) BIOS screen? *Cringe*

scooterboy

Well, Apple is hiring "BIOS engineers" or so I read somewhere. They said that Open Firmware is dead, at least for OSX. So, no more Target Firewire mode, no more boot from FW disc, CD, etc? A fair amount of stuff we take for granted may be lost in this "upgrade" to x86.

xool

Quote:

Originally posted by Scooterboy

Well, Apple is hiring "BIOS engineers" or so I read somewhere. They said that Open Firmware is dead, at least for OSX. So, no more Target Firewire mode, no more boot from FW disc, CD, etc? A fair amount of stuff we take for granted may be lost in this "upgrade" to x86.

Not bring in the current BIOS doesn't necessarily exclude these features, at least in some way or another. And besides, PCs boot from CD/DVD.