I'll add this to the list of expectations for Intel Macs. It's being discussed in the IBM 970MP thread on page three.
5) Greater selection of video or graphics cards. Apparently ATI and nVidia are willing to write the drivers for Intel Macs. Also, Intel provides video or graphics solutions from what I hear, which may be a good option for lower cost Macs. ATI and nVidia may be partly motivated by the competition, now that Intel video is available to Apple.
Briefly the first four on the list are:
1) Greater speed running Windows as an Mac OS X process.
2) Potential problem of running Mac OS on generic PC hardware.
3) Likely cheaper Macs, by using standard Intel chip sets and reduced engineering cost.
4) Possibly a better selection of Macs. Lower development costs may prompt Apple to offer more models of the Mac, especially for mid and lower priced Macs.
2. Apple will make it extremely hard to run OS X on a PC, continuously moving the goalposts if required.
3. Careful with this one, Macs have been competitive cost wise with PC's of similar build quality and functionality for some time now. It depends on...
4. Highly likely IMHO, and not just in the low end.
5. Absolutely! This is actually one of the bigger prizes on offer.
haven't given this much thought but it may be possible to have a user that is running XP (at edu prices XP is about $15 and VPC about $200) and a user running OS X- can do this now with X11 to run various UNIX apps without cluttering up the OS X desktop, this would mean having the ugly XP GUI but give full PC compatibility
I'm wondering if Apple shouldn't provide a Wine-like game compatibility layer. Is there a downside? The few developers who actually use Apple technologies in games will probably continue to do so. This could be a key to the switch campaign.
I'm wondering if Apple shouldn't provide a Wine-like game compatibility layer. Is there a downside? The few developers who actually use Apple technologies in games will probably continue to do so. This could be a key to the switch campaign.
I don't think Apple could cherry pick DirectX and not give the rest of Wine with it.
One thing that probably has been brought up before, and sort of goes with dual-booting into Windows...how about dual-booting into Linux (or some other non-Windows, non-Mac OS...not to mention that we'd now be using X86 versions of Linux, which opens up a whole new set of possibilities...hmmm...tri-boot systems...
Comments
5) Greater selection of video or graphics cards. Apparently ATI and nVidia are willing to write the drivers for Intel Macs. Also, Intel provides video or graphics solutions from what I hear, which may be a good option for lower cost Macs. ATI and nVidia may be partly motivated by the competition, now that Intel video is available to Apple.
Briefly the first four on the list are:
1) Greater speed running Windows as an Mac OS X process.
2) Potential problem of running Mac OS on generic PC hardware.
3) Likely cheaper Macs, by using standard Intel chip sets and reduced engineering cost.
4) Possibly a better selection of Macs. Lower development costs may prompt Apple to offer more models of the Mac, especially for mid and lower priced Macs.
2. Apple will make it extremely hard to run OS X on a PC, continuously moving the goalposts if required.
3. Careful with this one, Macs have been competitive cost wise with PC's of similar build quality and functionality for some time now. It depends on...
4. Highly likely IMHO, and not just in the low end.
5. Absolutely! This is actually one of the bigger prizes on offer.
Originally posted by murk
I'm wondering if Apple shouldn't provide a Wine-like game compatibility layer. Is there a downside? The few developers who actually use Apple technologies in games will probably continue to do so. This could be a key to the switch campaign.
I don't think Apple could cherry pick DirectX and not give the rest of Wine with it.