The doomsday scenario for Apple is Pear PC type emulation running Mac OSX within WINDOWS on non-Apple machines.
Pear PC type "sand box" emulation is next to impossible to prevent. While you may not be able to run OSX standalone on a Dell, you will almost certainly be able to run it in a sandbox.
Picture this.
$999 3.5 ghz Dell P4, running OSX in a sandbox at 90% speed
OR
$999 2.5 ghz Mac P4, running OSX natively
This is what Apple should be concerned about.
I don't think it's doomsday because virtually no one will do it. Apple will make sure of that by putting up some roadblocks. The roadblocks will be bypassed, but only by the l33t hax0rs, who make up exactly .0035% of all Windows users. The other 99.9965% of Windows users won't even know it's possible, let alone bother to do it.
I don't think it's doomsday because virtually no one will do it. Apple will make sure of that by putting up some roadblocks. The roadblocks will be bypassed, but only by the l33t hax0rs, who make up exactly .0035% of all Windows users. The other 99.9965% of Windows users won't even know it's possible, let alone bother to do it.
You might like to check out the vast PC warez scene. Only 1 ISO of a hacked OS X needs to escape.
The doomsday scenario for Apple is Pear PC type emulation running Mac OSX within WINDOWS on non-Apple machines. . .
I'll admit your comments seemed pretty gloomy when I first read them, but I've thought more about it. If it becomes possible to run Mac OS X in Windows it could help Apple sales as much as hurt them. Here are a few thoughts.
1) The main appeal of things like Classic mode and VPC is to run legacy software in your possession that will not run on your current computer. Few would be satisfied to operate like this with most all applications and for a long time. This is a minor point.
2) The initial attraction would likely be running Mac OS X on someone's current computer, to try it out. So it starts out being a $130 investment, plus whatever the "sandbox" costs. However, about all someone could do at this point is surf the web and get mail, which actually may be worth the investment for security reasons. At this point, the user must decide whether he or she likes OS X enough to invest more and start buying Mac applications. Let's assume someone begins to convert to Mac software and can proudly show friends how Mac OS X is running on their Dell. It's possible this intermediate set up will satisfy for a year or two, but it can't be very satisfying to always boot into Windows and then switch over to Mac OS for normal operation.
3) Sooner or later it will be time to move on and get a new computer. Does someone buy another Dell and continue this scenario? More than likely someone would look at the new Macs at this point and do some figuring. By this time there is likely a new version of Mac OS out. So, to the price of a Dell our sandboxer must add $130 plus the cost of iLife he or she may have been longing for. The Mac will look better and better. Consider too that Intel Macs could cost less than PPC Macs because Apple has less engineering and possibly no custom ASIC chips. (Application specific integrated circuit.)
I believe Apple will be able to compete in the market place better using Intel's standard chip sets. The high end Macs may be a little different story, but the sandbox approach wouldn't be attractive in this market.
You might like to check out the vast PC warez scene. Only 1 ISO of a hacked OS X needs to escape.
There is a vast PC warez scene, and yet Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Apple execs have said they will make it difficult for people to do this, so I doubt it will be a major problem for them. It's not like every secretary and suburbanite family with a Dell box is going to be downloading and installing a torrent of a hacked OS X.
You might like to check out the vast PC warez scene. Only 1 ISO of a hacked OS X needs to escape.
This is pretty much irrelevant -- Apple (or MS or any other developer, for that matter) isn't going to make any money off of the people who will run warez anyhow so there is no loss there. If those people are running a hacked OSX and they buy Mac software (why when you can just steal it?) then they increase the sales to Mac developers and strengthen the Mac community. If people are using warez as a try-before-you-buy mechanism then Apple's exposure is increased, which is good for them.
People who understand the importance of buying their software, and the value of quality hardware, are the market and have always been the market. Thieves never constitute a market.
There is a vast PC warez scene, and yet Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Apple execs have said they will make it difficult for people to do this, so I doubt it will be a major problem for them. It's not like every secretary and suburbanite family with a Dell box is going to be downloading and installing a torrent of a hacked OS X.
Actually, you make an interesting point. A large reason for the 'popularity' of PCs is the relative ease of obtaining copied software. If OS X on Intel creates a larger Mac warez scene it might actually increase the popularity in the same way.
1) Well, we discussed the greater speed of Windows running as an Mac OS X process, and how this task might be accomplished on Intel Macs, hopefully more easily.
2) We also discussed new and/or supposed dangers of running the Mac OS on generic PC hardware.
3) I mentioned how Intel Macs could well be cheaper, by using standard Intel chip sets, and nobody challenged this possibility . . . yet!
These are all things related to the CPU change and going with Intel. That makes three; I'm sure there must be many more. I'll throw out one more for critiquing, the Macs limited product offerings.
4) Going with Intel may mean we will see a better selection of Macs. As I mentioned regarding price, going with Intel will mean much lower engineering and development expenses for new models of the Mac. I feel certain Apple will take full advantage of this situation, especially for mid and lower priced Macs.
I don't believe it will mean blah Macs with no style or class. But even here, Apple may spend less time trying to make each new model a splash sensation. New models may barrow more from previous models that have been successful. I sure hope this is true, that we have more models to choose from. It will never be like the Windows PC side, but I for one am very weary of not having reasonable selection, or buying on eBay because some old stuff is better suited for what I want than new models of the Mac.
4) Going with Intel may mean we will see a better selection of Macs. As I mentioned regarding price, going with Intel will mean much lower engineering and development expenses for new models of the Mac. I feel certain Apple will take full advantage of this situation, especially for mid and lower priced Macs.
I don't believe it will mean blah Macs with no style or class. But even here, Apple may spend less time trying to make each new model a splash sensation. New models may barrow more from previous models that have been successful. I sure hope this is true, that we have more models to choose from. It will never be like the Windows PC side, but I for one am very weary of not having reasonable selection, or buying on eBay because some old stuff is better suited for what I want than new models of the Mac. [/B]
In the long run I hope Apple will license Mac OSX. Hardware is commodity stuff, that is hard to make money off. Apple can still make its own UBER HIGH MARGIN gear (iMac, Powerbooks etc), because these products are sufficiently differentiated. Meanwhile, license Mac OSX to HP, Dell etc to cover the other hardware bases (generic towers, servers), which are typically hard to make money off (because they are commodities).
For the first time in a long time, I can envision Apple making serious inroads in Microsoft's market share. Mac OSX on Intel is Apple's best chance to break out of computing nichedom.
Thanks. WINE sounds pretty good to me -- a free applications that will run the occasional Window application we may run into. Many places do not support a Mac, or claim support by telling customers to buy VPC and run the Windows software. WINE may work fine for these situations. There is no way some places will ever support the Mac properly.
Personally, I don't see this eliminating any Mac developers. I don't know your opinion on it. OS2 didn't have a solid foundation of applications and developers when it collapsed. It was relatively new, and just getting started really. I bought a copy to play with, but there really were no applications from what I remember. I still thought it was very sad, because I like selection and competition -- one reason I stay away from MS as much as possible. I needed a PC for my CS classes, however. I live in Intel land. Their plants are just down the road and Intel supports the Universities around here, especially engineering and computer science. I switched to the Mac shortly after graduating and never looked back. Now that Macs will use Intel I may even take the company tour at their next annual open house in Hillsboro, Oregon.
OS2 didn't have a solid foundation of applications and developers when it collapsed. It was relatively new, and just getting started really.
It was hardly new, it was written for the 80286. It collapsed because you could almost not buy a computer that did not have Windows pre-installed. If you did buy a computer with OS/2 pre-installed the vendor still had to pay MS as if it had MsDos/Windows. Since MS had this huge base of pre-installed boxes out developers dropped what they were doing and started writing apps for Windows.
The only reason I bring this up is because no one can ruin a wet dream like IBM can! They lost the desktop hardware wars, the OS wars and the Processor war.
It was hardly new, it was written for the 80286. It collapsed because you could almost not buy a computer that did not have Windows pre-installed. If you did buy a computer with OS/2 pre-installed the vendor still had to pay MS as if it had MsDos/Windows. Since MS had this huge base of pre-installed boxes out developers dropped what they were doing and started writing apps for Windows.
The only reason I bring this up is because no one can ruin a wet dream like IBM can! They lost the desktop hardware wars, the OS wars and the Processor war.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't pay too much attention as IBM was developing OS2. Yes, it was the Warped version I finally picked up to play with.
Yes you will be able to run windows on a Macintel, its a win-win situation for Apple. No, Apple will not licence OS X. No, existing developers will not stop Mac development. Developers who had no plans to develop for the Mac will still have no plans to develop for the Mac.
Yes you will be able to run windows on a Macintel, its a win-win situation for Apple. No, Apple will not licence OS X. No, existing developers will not stop Mac development. Developers who had no plans to develop for the Mac will still have no plans to develop for the Mac.
It's not being able to run Windows (dual boot or VPC). A WINE-type application provides an invisible compatability layer (ie: You wouldn't even know it's a Windows App because there's no booting into Windows, it just runs as an OSX application)
. . . A WINE-type application provides an invisible compatability layer (ie: You wouldn't even know it's a Windows App because there's no booting into Windows, it just runs as an OSX application)
It's not being able to run Windows (dual boot or VPC). A WINE-type application provides an invisible compatability layer (ie: You wouldn't even know it's a Windows App because there's no booting into Windows, it just runs as an OSX application)
a native gui could be posssible, but its unlikely, the windows window will possibly run inside a mac os x window and the dock icon will probably be the wine icon, this is like running X to run the gimp, or classic mode.
a native gui could be posssible, but its unlikely, the windows window will possibly run inside a mac os x window and the dock icon will probably be the wine icon, this is like running X to run the gimp, or classic mode.
Comments
Originally posted by Sceptic
The doomsday scenario for Apple is Pear PC type emulation running Mac OSX within WINDOWS on non-Apple machines.
Pear PC type "sand box" emulation is next to impossible to prevent. While you may not be able to run OSX standalone on a Dell, you will almost certainly be able to run it in a sandbox.
Picture this.
$999 3.5 ghz Dell P4, running OSX in a sandbox at 90% speed
OR
$999 2.5 ghz Mac P4, running OSX natively
This is what Apple should be concerned about.
I don't think it's doomsday because virtually no one will do it. Apple will make sure of that by putting up some roadblocks. The roadblocks will be bypassed, but only by the l33t hax0rs, who make up exactly .0035% of all Windows users. The other 99.9965% of Windows users won't even know it's possible, let alone bother to do it.
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think it's doomsday because virtually no one will do it. Apple will make sure of that by putting up some roadblocks. The roadblocks will be bypassed, but only by the l33t hax0rs, who make up exactly .0035% of all Windows users. The other 99.9965% of Windows users won't even know it's possible, let alone bother to do it.
You might like to check out the vast PC warez scene. Only 1 ISO of a hacked OS X needs to escape.
Originally posted by Sceptic
The doomsday scenario for Apple is Pear PC type emulation running Mac OSX within WINDOWS on non-Apple machines. . .
I'll admit your comments seemed pretty gloomy when I first read them, but I've thought more about it. If it becomes possible to run Mac OS X in Windows it could help Apple sales as much as hurt them. Here are a few thoughts.
1) The main appeal of things like Classic mode and VPC is to run legacy software in your possession that will not run on your current computer. Few would be satisfied to operate like this with most all applications and for a long time. This is a minor point.
2) The initial attraction would likely be running Mac OS X on someone's current computer, to try it out. So it starts out being a $130 investment, plus whatever the "sandbox" costs. However, about all someone could do at this point is surf the web and get mail, which actually may be worth the investment for security reasons. At this point, the user must decide whether he or she likes OS X enough to invest more and start buying Mac applications. Let's assume someone begins to convert to Mac software and can proudly show friends how Mac OS X is running on their Dell. It's possible this intermediate set up will satisfy for a year or two, but it can't be very satisfying to always boot into Windows and then switch over to Mac OS for normal operation.
3) Sooner or later it will be time to move on and get a new computer. Does someone buy another Dell and continue this scenario? More than likely someone would look at the new Macs at this point and do some figuring. By this time there is likely a new version of Mac OS out. So, to the price of a Dell our sandboxer must add $130 plus the cost of iLife he or she may have been longing for. The Mac will look better and better. Consider too that Intel Macs could cost less than PPC Macs because Apple has less engineering and possibly no custom ASIC chips. (Application specific integrated circuit.)
I believe Apple will be able to compete in the market place better using Intel's standard chip sets. The high end Macs may be a little different story, but the sandbox approach wouldn't be attractive in this market.
Originally posted by Blackcat
You might like to check out the vast PC warez scene. Only 1 ISO of a hacked OS X needs to escape.
There is a vast PC warez scene, and yet Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Apple execs have said they will make it difficult for people to do this, so I doubt it will be a major problem for them. It's not like every secretary and suburbanite family with a Dell box is going to be downloading and installing a torrent of a hacked OS X.
Originally posted by Blackcat
You might like to check out the vast PC warez scene. Only 1 ISO of a hacked OS X needs to escape.
This is pretty much irrelevant -- Apple (or MS or any other developer, for that matter) isn't going to make any money off of the people who will run warez anyhow so there is no loss there. If those people are running a hacked OSX and they buy Mac software (why when you can just steal it?) then they increase the sales to Mac developers and strengthen the Mac community. If people are using warez as a try-before-you-buy mechanism then Apple's exposure is increased, which is good for them.
People who understand the importance of buying their software, and the value of quality hardware, are the market and have always been the market. Thieves never constitute a market.
Originally posted by BRussell
There is a vast PC warez scene, and yet Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Apple execs have said they will make it difficult for people to do this, so I doubt it will be a major problem for them. It's not like every secretary and suburbanite family with a Dell box is going to be downloading and installing a torrent of a hacked OS X.
Actually, you make an interesting point. A large reason for the 'popularity' of PCs is the relative ease of obtaining copied software. If OS X on Intel creates a larger Mac warez scene it might actually increase the popularity in the same way.
Interesting times...
2) We also discussed new and/or supposed dangers of running the Mac OS on generic PC hardware.
3) I mentioned how Intel Macs could well be cheaper, by using standard Intel chip sets, and nobody challenged this possibility . . . yet!
These are all things related to the CPU change and going with Intel. That makes three; I'm sure there must be many more. I'll throw out one more for critiquing, the Macs limited product offerings.
4) Going with Intel may mean we will see a better selection of Macs. As I mentioned regarding price, going with Intel will mean much lower engineering and development expenses for new models of the Mac. I feel certain Apple will take full advantage of this situation, especially for mid and lower priced Macs.
I don't believe it will mean blah Macs with no style or class. But even here, Apple may spend less time trying to make each new model a splash sensation. New models may barrow more from previous models that have been successful. I sure hope this is true, that we have more models to choose from. It will never be like the Windows PC side, but I for one am very weary of not having reasonable selection, or buying on eBay because some old stuff is better suited for what I want than new models of the Mac.
Originally posted by snoopy
4) Going with Intel may mean we will see a better selection of Macs. As I mentioned regarding price, going with Intel will mean much lower engineering and development expenses for new models of the Mac. I feel certain Apple will take full advantage of this situation, especially for mid and lower priced Macs.
I don't believe it will mean blah Macs with no style or class. But even here, Apple may spend less time trying to make each new model a splash sensation. New models may barrow more from previous models that have been successful. I sure hope this is true, that we have more models to choose from. It will never be like the Windows PC side, but I for one am very weary of not having reasonable selection, or buying on eBay because some old stuff is better suited for what I want than new models of the Mac. [/B]
In the long run I hope Apple will license Mac OSX. Hardware is commodity stuff, that is hard to make money off. Apple can still make its own UBER HIGH MARGIN gear (iMac, Powerbooks etc), because these products are sufficiently differentiated. Meanwhile, license Mac OSX to HP, Dell etc to cover the other hardware bases (generic towers, servers), which are typically hard to make money off (because they are commodities).
For the first time in a long time, I can envision Apple making serious inroads in Microsoft's market share. Mac OSX on Intel is Apple's best chance to break out of computing nichedom.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Didn't IBM market OS2 as being able to run Windows programs better than Windows? I do miss OS2
Yep...then people stopped developing for OS/2, which then died. That's one of the reasons why WINE for OSX (or something like it) is so scary to me.
Originally posted by mynamehere
Yep...then people stopped developing for OS/2, which then died. That's one of the reasons why WINE for OSX (or something like it) is so scary to me.
And what is WINE beside something you might drink with dinner?
Originally posted by snoopy
And what is WINE beside something you might drink with dinner?
http://www.winehq.com/
Originally posted by Gene Clean
http://www.winehq.com/
Thanks. WINE sounds pretty good to me -- a free applications that will run the occasional Window application we may run into. Many places do not support a Mac, or claim support by telling customers to buy VPC and run the Windows software. WINE may work fine for these situations. There is no way some places will ever support the Mac properly.
Personally, I don't see this eliminating any Mac developers. I don't know your opinion on it. OS2 didn't have a solid foundation of applications and developers when it collapsed. It was relatively new, and just getting started really. I bought a copy to play with, but there really were no applications from what I remember. I still thought it was very sad, because I like selection and competition -- one reason I stay away from MS as much as possible. I needed a PC for my CS classes, however. I live in Intel land. Their plants are just down the road and Intel supports the Universities around here, especially engineering and computer science. I switched to the Mac shortly after graduating and never looked back. Now that Macs will use Intel I may even take the company tour at their next annual open house in Hillsboro, Oregon.
Originally posted by snoopy
OS2 didn't have a solid foundation of applications and developers when it collapsed. It was relatively new, and just getting started really.
It was hardly new, it was written for the 80286. It collapsed because you could almost not buy a computer that did not have Windows pre-installed. If you did buy a computer with OS/2 pre-installed the vendor still had to pay MS as if it had MsDos/Windows. Since MS had this huge base of pre-installed boxes out developers dropped what they were doing and started writing apps for Windows.
OS/2 History Source 1 OS/2 History Source 2
Man I really loved OS/2 Warped
The only reason I bring this up is because no one can ruin a wet dream like IBM can! They lost the desktop hardware wars, the OS wars and the Processor war.
Originally posted by kresh
It was hardly new, it was written for the 80286. It collapsed because you could almost not buy a computer that did not have Windows pre-installed. If you did buy a computer with OS/2 pre-installed the vendor still had to pay MS as if it had MsDos/Windows. Since MS had this huge base of pre-installed boxes out developers dropped what they were doing and started writing apps for Windows.
OS/2 History Source 1 OS/2 History Source 2
Man I really loved OS/2 Warped
The only reason I bring this up is because no one can ruin a wet dream like IBM can! They lost the desktop hardware wars, the OS wars and the Processor war.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't pay too much attention as IBM was developing OS2. Yes, it was the Warped version I finally picked up to play with.
Yes you will be able to run windows on a Macintel, its a win-win situation for Apple. No, Apple will not licence OS X. No, existing developers will not stop Mac development. Developers who had no plans to develop for the Mac will still have no plans to develop for the Mac.
Originally posted by vinney57
This has been discused to death in other threads.
Yes you will be able to run windows on a Macintel, its a win-win situation for Apple. No, Apple will not licence OS X. No, existing developers will not stop Mac development. Developers who had no plans to develop for the Mac will still have no plans to develop for the Mac.
It's not being able to run Windows (dual boot or VPC). A WINE-type application provides an invisible compatability layer (ie: You wouldn't even know it's a Windows App because there's no booting into Windows, it just runs as an OSX application)
Originally posted by mynamehere
. . . A WINE-type application provides an invisible compatability layer (ie: You wouldn't even know it's a Windows App because there's no booting into Windows, it just runs as an OSX application)
It's sounding better all the time.
Originally posted by mynamehere
It's not being able to run Windows (dual boot or VPC). A WINE-type application provides an invisible compatability layer (ie: You wouldn't even know it's a Windows App because there's no booting into Windows, it just runs as an OSX application)
With a native OS X GUI?
Jonathan
Originally posted by cdoverlaw
a native gui could be posssible, but its unlikely, the windows window will possibly run inside a mac os x window and the dock icon will probably be the wine icon, this is like running X to run the gimp, or classic mode.
Jonathan
May I be the first to say
Ew!