But then they wouldn't be escaping any of the things they are switching for and they also would need to restart it constantly (if it's dual-boot).
You're missing the point. It's a "just in case" I can't do it on the Mac I can fall back to Windows if I need to. It's a safety net. It makes a Windows user not feel like he has to dump his PC apps.
You're missing the point. It's a "just in case" I can't do it on the Mac I can fall back to Windows if I need to. It's a safety net. It makes a Windows user not feel like he has to dump his PC apps.
It's a bad idea, if a user spends more time on Windows and less on OS X, next time he buys a computer he'll say, I spend more time on Windows anyway, why not buy a DELL, what's worse it could cause developers not to develop for OS X anymore, cause they'll say Mac Users can install Windows on their machine, let them buy the Windows version, Apple should change their decision about being able to install Windows on MacIntels it could be the end of Apple as we know it, and it might cause them to eventually become another Windows OEM
It's a bad idea, if a user spends more time on Windows and less on OS X, next time he buys a computer he'll say, I spend more time on Windows anyway, why not buy a DELL, what's worse it could cause developers not to develop for OS X anymore, cause they'll say Mac Users can install Windows on their machine, let them buy the Windows version, Apple should change their decision about being able to install Windows on MacIntels it could be the end of Apple as we know it, and it might cause them to eventually become another Windows OEM
This was my thinking as well and I think that was wrong because, it is the software. People use the Mac because it works, that will still be true on Intel and PC users will have a safety net that they will use less and less of. Everything is easier on the Mac and that will remain true. More importantly there is no comparison between PPC 2006 / 2007 and Intel. It was either get on board or get left behind.
It's a bad idea, if a user spends more time on Windows and less on OS X, next time he buys a computer he'll say, I spend more time on Windows anyway, why not buy a DELL, what's worse it could cause developers not to develop for OS X anymore, cause they'll say Mac Users can install Windows on their machine, let them buy the Windows version, Apple should change their decision about being able to install Windows on MacIntels it could be the end of Apple as we know it, and it might cause them to eventually become another Windows OEM
And who is to say they would spend more time in Windows?
The average user spends a lot of time in Mail and on the internet. Both places that provide trouble in the forms of viruses, spyware, adware, etc in the Windows world. The time they are in the safer haven of OS X and using Mail and Safari (or Firefox, or Omniweb, et al), they will surely take a peak at Addressbook, (makes using mail easier), iCal, etc.
They probably know and use iTunes which is the Mac interface. This could lead to peaking at iPhoto. Which leads to peaking at iMovie. Which leads to peaking at iDVD and so on.
Without the real instantaneous pressure of learning or using a new OS, my experience has seen that the user using both selects OSX whenever possible. Being able to have Windows around aids that transition. Of course now this happens with 2 machines. Maybe in the future it will be possible on one machine.
For me, it is a crazy idea to introduce the problems of Windows onto my machine. But that is because I have a lot of experience using both. I only use Windows at work because I have to.
Here is my take on the whole processor switch. What it basically boils down to is Apple got backed into a corner and had no choice. The Xbox 360 has the new triple core power pc chip from IBM. My guess is Micro$oft got some sort of exclusive deal for all of these chips for say a year's time. Similarly, the PS3 probably got an exclusive deal with IBM et al for the Cell chip for a year's time. This left Apple with what they have now, the 7450s and 970s, for the forseeable future. With no real upward mobility as things sit today, Apple was almost forced to switch to Intel. I am a believer in Apple and I know that in the long run this will prove to be a wise move. Necessity breeds adaptation.
Okay, some questions for my more learned fellow AI members...
1. Is Tiger for x86 done?
2. Are we just waiting for the hardware and the apps?
3. How will Apple ensure that we won't be able to run OS X on a homebrew PC? Will they plant a ROM on the board, or will the new Macs feature a tweaked CPU?
4. Will Apple attempt to stop us from upgrading the CPU on the new Macs? Will the CPU be soldered on etc.?
Okay, some questions for my more learned fellow AI members...
1. Is Tiger for x86 done?
2. Are we just waiting for the hardware and the apps?
3. How will Apple ensure that we won't be able to run OS X on a homebrew PC? Will they plant a ROM on the board, or will the new Macs feature a tweaked CPU?
4. Will Apple attempt to stop us from upgrading the CPU on the new Macs? Will the CPU be soldered on etc.?
#4 No I think that Apple will stick with the standard MBs and chipset, read socket-xxx, for desktop, and standard laptop MBs and chipset, I don't kow if those are soldered in, my guess is no.
It's a bad idea, if a user spends more time on Windows and less on OS X, next time he buys a computer he'll say, I spend more time on Windows anyway, why not buy a DELL, what's worse it could cause developers not to develop for OS X anymore, cause they'll say Mac Users can install Windows on their machine, let them buy the Windows version, Apple should change their decision about being able to install Windows on MacIntels it could be the end of Apple as we know it, and it might cause them to eventually become another Windows OEM
If this is the way people think everyone would still be using OS 9 as their primary OS and only booting into OS X once in awhile.
And Mac software developers would say "why develop for OS X when everyone can use their software in OS 9"...OMG, IT WOULD BE THE END OF OS X!!!!
Sorry but the hard statistics will come from Mac hardware being bought. A Mac sale will count as mac_marketshare++ even if everyone knows it can boot into Windows.
Developers could assume everyone will learn the Jedi tricks to boot into Windows, but they'd be better off and feel safer simply developping for Mac than taking the risk or bluff that people will boot into Windows to use "The App That Was Never Ported".
Every company that has a working codebase on Mac would be extremly foolish to abandon their Mac version especially if they're using Xcode. Abandonning something and risking that people won't boot into Windows and simply use Rosetta or (if they have a PPC Mac still lying around) keep using the existing version on their old computer, would be financial suicide. And companies that haven't even thought of porting to OS X should seriously consider now that it could be easier. If they still don't want to, no big loss. Everything remains the same it ever was.
Steve said in the Keynote that they are along a far way, but not quite done. I imagine most of all, more thorough testing is needed, something apple labs can't do completely.
Since the announcement, I've started reading up on Intel's new desktop boards and the new P4. I've never really paid much attention to Intel's offerings, as whenever I've priced anything in the past, AMD appears to have offerec much better value for money.
The new 915 chipset and Intel's own desktop boards appear to be quite impressive (at least on paper). Support for x1 & x16 PCI Express, four independent SATA channels and support for 'Matrix RAID', dual channel memory addressing (does the G5 currently do this, is that why you have to fit DIMMs in pairs?). There's also support for DDR2 memory modules. The 900 series graphics card sound a bit poor, but you can already see the implications in the Mac mini, eMac, iBook and maybe even the iMac families.
Basically, there's a whole lot of stuff on there that even the flagship G5 doesn't have. I also read something about HyperThreading allowing the OS to create two virtual processors? WTF is that all about?
From the pictures I've seen of the insides of the Transition Kit, and from what the developers who have been using them have been saying, the motherboard in the kit appears to be a plain vanilla Intel i915 desktop board that's been lifted right of the shelf.
This was my thinking as well and I think that was wrong because, it is the software. People use the Mac because it works, that will still be true on Intel and PC users will have a safety net that they will use less and less of. Everything is easier on the Mac and that will remain true. More importantly there is no comparison between PPC 2006 / 2007 and Intel. It was either get on board or get left behind.
I agree. I bought my first Mac to use for video only. I fully intended to do most everything else on my Windows box. Today I have 2 Macs and no Windows boxes. It died and I hardly noticed. The only thing I miss about having Windows is buying computer games at Wal-Mart for next to nothing.
Dual-booting will be a user's safety net and before long they'll realize it's just taking up space.
I fairly certain they're all developed using Xcode. I know the Delicious Library is a Cocoa app, I think Merlin is too. I think the others are Carbon apps.
Comments
on your Mac would be by some kind of program that makes use of any shared
e-mail between the two platforms.
The only solution I could see here would be to exclude any use of an e-mail client when booted into Windows.
Essentially, these users would have to learn to keep ALL internet based
work confined to OS X and use Windows only for dedicated apps unless
they were connected to a trusted secure server.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
But then they wouldn't be escaping any of the things they are switching for and they also would need to restart it constantly (if it's dual-boot).
You're missing the point. It's a "just in case" I can't do it on the Mac I can fall back to Windows if I need to. It's a safety net. It makes a Windows user not feel like he has to dump his PC apps.
Originally posted by iPeon
You're missing the point. It's a "just in case" I can't do it on the Mac I can fall back to Windows if I need to. It's a safety net. It makes a Windows user not feel like he has to dump his PC apps.
It's a bad idea, if a user spends more time on Windows and less on OS X, next time he buys a computer he'll say, I spend more time on Windows anyway, why not buy a DELL, what's worse it could cause developers not to develop for OS X anymore, cause they'll say Mac Users can install Windows on their machine, let them buy the Windows version, Apple should change their decision about being able to install Windows on MacIntels it could be the end of Apple as we know it, and it might cause them to eventually become another Windows OEM
Originally posted by Odedh
It's a bad idea, if a user spends more time on Windows and less on OS X, next time he buys a computer he'll say, I spend more time on Windows anyway, why not buy a DELL, what's worse it could cause developers not to develop for OS X anymore, cause they'll say Mac Users can install Windows on their machine, let them buy the Windows version, Apple should change their decision about being able to install Windows on MacIntels it could be the end of Apple as we know it, and it might cause them to eventually become another Windows OEM
This was my thinking as well and I think that was wrong because, it is the software. People use the Mac because it works, that will still be true on Intel and PC users will have a safety net that they will use less and less of. Everything is easier on the Mac and that will remain true. More importantly there is no comparison between PPC 2006 / 2007 and Intel. It was either get on board or get left behind.
Originally posted by Odedh
It's a bad idea, if a user spends more time on Windows and less on OS X, next time he buys a computer he'll say, I spend more time on Windows anyway, why not buy a DELL, what's worse it could cause developers not to develop for OS X anymore, cause they'll say Mac Users can install Windows on their machine, let them buy the Windows version, Apple should change their decision about being able to install Windows on MacIntels it could be the end of Apple as we know it, and it might cause them to eventually become another Windows OEM
And who is to say they would spend more time in Windows?
The average user spends a lot of time in Mail and on the internet. Both places that provide trouble in the forms of viruses, spyware, adware, etc in the Windows world. The time they are in the safer haven of OS X and using Mail and Safari (or Firefox, or Omniweb, et al), they will surely take a peak at Addressbook, (makes using mail easier), iCal, etc.
They probably know and use iTunes which is the Mac interface. This could lead to peaking at iPhoto. Which leads to peaking at iMovie. Which leads to peaking at iDVD and so on.
Without the real instantaneous pressure of learning or using a new OS, my experience has seen that the user using both selects OSX whenever possible. Being able to have Windows around aids that transition. Of course now this happens with 2 machines. Maybe in the future it will be possible on one machine.
For me, it is a crazy idea to introduce the problems of Windows onto my machine. But that is because I have a lot of experience using both. I only use Windows at work because I have to.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Speaking of hands on..................
The beta kits are released to developpers. Maybe one of the future PPC announcements is about 970mp.
Just guessing.
modo ready for Intel switch
1. Is Tiger for x86 done?
2. Are we just waiting for the hardware and the apps?
3. How will Apple ensure that we won't be able to run OS X on a homebrew PC? Will they plant a ROM on the board, or will the new Macs feature a tweaked CPU?
4. Will Apple attempt to stop us from upgrading the CPU on the new Macs? Will the CPU be soldered on etc.?
Cheers guys!
Originally posted by Messiah
Okay, some questions for my more learned fellow AI members...
1. Is Tiger for x86 done?
2. Are we just waiting for the hardware and the apps?
3. How will Apple ensure that we won't be able to run OS X on a homebrew PC? Will they plant a ROM on the board, or will the new Macs feature a tweaked CPU?
4. Will Apple attempt to stop us from upgrading the CPU on the new Macs? Will the CPU be soldered on etc.?
Cheers guys!
Here are my answers / guesses
#1 Yes it is done
#2 Yes Yohna and Conroe CPUs/support chips and apps
#3 Slightly altered boot ROM is my guess
#4 No I think that Apple will stick with the standard MBs and chipset, read socket-xxx, for desktop, and standard laptop MBs and chipset, I don't kow if those are soldered in, my guess is no.
Originally posted by Odedh
It's a bad idea, if a user spends more time on Windows and less on OS X, next time he buys a computer he'll say, I spend more time on Windows anyway, why not buy a DELL, what's worse it could cause developers not to develop for OS X anymore, cause they'll say Mac Users can install Windows on their machine, let them buy the Windows version, Apple should change their decision about being able to install Windows on MacIntels it could be the end of Apple as we know it, and it might cause them to eventually become another Windows OEM
If this is the way people think everyone would still be using OS 9 as their primary OS and only booting into OS X once in awhile.
And Mac software developers would say "why develop for OS X when everyone can use their software in OS 9"...OMG, IT WOULD BE THE END OF OS X!!!!
Sorry but the hard statistics will come from Mac hardware being bought. A Mac sale will count as mac_marketshare++ even if everyone knows it can boot into Windows.
Developers could assume everyone will learn the Jedi tricks to boot into Windows, but they'd be better off and feel safer simply developping for Mac than taking the risk or bluff that people will boot into Windows to use "The App That Was Never Ported".
Every company that has a working codebase on Mac would be extremly foolish to abandon their Mac version especially if they're using Xcode. Abandonning something and risking that people won't boot into Windows and simply use Rosetta or (if they have a PPC Mac still lying around) keep using the existing version on their old computer, would be financial suicide. And companies that haven't even thought of porting to OS X should seriously consider now that it could be easier. If they still don't want to, no big loss. Everything remains the same it ever was.
Originally posted by Brendon
#1 Yes it is done
Steve said in the Keynote that they are along a far way, but not quite done. I imagine most of all, more thorough testing is needed, something apple labs can't do completely.
The new 915 chipset and Intel's own desktop boards appear to be quite impressive (at least on paper). Support for x1 & x16 PCI Express, four independent SATA channels and support for 'Matrix RAID', dual channel memory addressing (does the G5 currently do this, is that why you have to fit DIMMs in pairs?). There's also support for DDR2 memory modules. The 900 series graphics card sound a bit poor, but you can already see the implications in the Mac mini, eMac, iBook and maybe even the iMac families.
Basically, there's a whole lot of stuff on there that even the flagship G5 doesn't have. I also read something about HyperThreading allowing the OS to create two virtual processors? WTF is that all about?
From the pictures I've seen of the insides of the Transition Kit, and from what the developers who have been using them have been saying, the motherboard in the kit appears to be a plain vanilla Intel i915 desktop board that's been lifted right of the shelf.
It all looks promising...
Somebody should start keeping a list of apps that are known to have been compiled for universal binary support.
Originally posted by Brendon
This was my thinking as well and I think that was wrong because, it is the software. People use the Mac because it works, that will still be true on Intel and PC users will have a safety net that they will use less and less of. Everything is easier on the Mac and that will remain true. More importantly there is no comparison between PPC 2006 / 2007 and Intel. It was either get on board or get left behind.
I agree. I bought my first Mac to use for video only. I fully intended to do most everything else on my Windows box. Today I have 2 Macs and no Windows boxes. It died and I hardly noticed. The only thing I miss about having Windows is buying computer games at Wal-Mart for next to nothing.
Dual-booting will be a user's safety net and before long they'll realize it's just taking up space.
Originally posted by off/lang
Delicious Monster has also been ported. (http://wilshipley.com/blog/2005/06/a...for-intel.html)
Somebody should start keeping a list of apps that are known to have been compiled for universal binary support.
Well, I figured what the heck, why not do it myself? http://unibin.blogspot.com/
Originally posted by off/lang
Well, I figured what the heck, why not do it myself? http://unibin.blogspot.com/
Neat, are all those apps Carbon / Xcode?
Originally posted by the cool gut
Neat, are all those apps Carbon / Xcode?
I fairly certain they're all developed using Xcode. I know the Delicious Library is a Cocoa app, I think Merlin is too. I think the others are Carbon apps.