ok thx programmer, that was a thorough smackdown of my wrapping idea but yeah, i'll concede at this point, also due to limited knowledge of the area.
1. ms's new bollocks display thingy on vista puts openGL down the toilet and makes it very very different with apple's implementation
2. wrapping a graphics driver causes a whole bunch of issues way more challenging than wrapping a wifi card driver
3. patents etc.
i just hope that that crack team is ready to rock, if not already rockin' at cupertino, and schooling ATi and nVidia appropriately in the art of Pouncing Tiger Hidden Drivers
we will have to assume that the driver writing is aimed at a specific area: [consumer desktop/portable, pro 2d/video graphics]
...[games and pro-3D-creation] would be the icing on the cake but i think they gotta make the cake right first...
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux.
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux
yeah. i'm (very) sad to hear this. http://opengl.org/ has got this issue front and center and top of the page on their website. personally, i think its a silly and desperate move by m$... it would be tragic if in 5 years time there was only direct3D and the remnants of openGL... i doubt this would be the case though, not with the momentum inherent with linux and mac. no doubt the gaming industry will have a strong hand in this, whichever way. speaking of gaming, enough Forum-ing for now, time for some HalfLife2. wait. am i supporting the "death
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux
yeah. i'm (very) sad to hear this. http://opengl.org/ has got this issue front and center and top of the page on their website. personally, i think its a silly and desperate move by m$... it would be tragic if in 5 years time there was only direct3D and the remnants of openGL... i doubt this would be the case though, not with the momentum inherent with linux and mac. no doubt the gaming industry will have a strong hand in this, whichever way. speaking of gaming, enough Forum-ing for now, time for some HalfLife2. wait. am i supporting the "death
of openGL" by playing HL2
the gaming industry will due whatever they have to in order to stay in business.
As Direct X gets better more programmers will move to it. Open GL still has advantages for pro apps, but the truth is that MS is moving very strongly to replace it.
You saw them demonstrate their new graphics framework on the Mac recently (well, maybe not "saw", but read)
Apparently MS is trying to bring gamers back to its PC platform. If they go through with that Designed for Microsoft Windows thingo, what are MAc users gonna do?
Consumers, Apples main market, and potential switchers will go down to local game store and see shelves with Designed for Microsoft Windows on it, and no games for Mac. While games arent Apple's strong point, most people do enjoy being able to play a light game every now and then.]
SOrry, its late, am unsure if I got point across, may edit this post later.
Consumers, Apples main market, and potential switchers will go down to local game store and see shelves with Designed for Microsoft Windows on it, and no games for Mac.
isn't that exactly why Apple is going to "tolerate" the possibility of users installing windows on Mactel hardware???
This way, you get to work in osX and play games and use some legacy software in windows "vistaprice" 8)
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux
yeah. i'm (very) sad to hear this. http://opengl.org/ has got this issue front and center and top of the page on their website. personally, i think its a silly and desperate move by m$... it would be tragic if in 5 years time there was only direct3D and the remnants of openGL... i doubt this would be the case though, not with the momentum inherent with linux and mac. no doubt the gaming industry will have a strong hand in this, whichever way. speaking of gaming, enough Forum-ing for now, time for some HalfLife2. wait. am i supporting the "death
of openGL" by playing HL2
You are also supporting mandatory network authentication for a single-player game, which IMO is much worse.
You are also supporting mandatory network authentication for a single-player game, which IMO is much worse.
well, actually, i *ahem* am not. lets just say Steam ain't installed on my PC and HL2 plays along quite nicely.... except i gotta restart a level because i've badly run out of ammo and can't find the !@##$ rocket box to take out a strider
man HL2 is da bomb. impt lesson i learnt last night: if there are striders, it means that there is a rocket box somewhere. *DO NOT* try to take out the striders BEFORE finding the rocket box. unless you've got 4 or so rocket-equipped squad members... wait for them to die (one guy got distracted in a building by those really really annoying things that blind you with a flash of light and shot a rocket at the wall and killed himself) and then pickup their set of 3 rockets i hope to get into the citadel thingy this afternoon and personally kick dr. breen in the balls.
and man, on the roof, the striders were just nailing the resistance people, yet they kept on coming... wow, tragic. and that strider warp gun thing. bad ass... you can see the wall distorting in front of you, the blue light coming on, then you gotta jump away from that, then you see the actual pieces of the wall flying around.... well, i suppose this is what you get when you mess with inter-demensional travel \
.....After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
......However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
That's an old quote, (from intel announcment) and It was reguarding the developer machines. I think Steve Jobs just recently said that you wouldn't be able to run windows on them. I don't remember where, but I thought I just read that the day after Paris. Maybe it was MacBidouille... maybe. http://www.hardmac.com/
That's an old quote, (from intel announcment) and It was reguarding the developer machines. I think Steve Jobs just recently said that you wouldn't be able to run windows on them. I don't remember where, but I thought I just read that the day after Paris. Maybe it was MacBidouille... maybe. http://www.hardmac.com/
No, he didn't say that. He just reiterated the statement about running OS X on PC's.
Apple is running a dangerous game by having Windows run on their machines. The comparison will be too easy. Developers might figure that if enough people are running it they don't need a Mac version of their software after all.
Apple must believe the benefits are more important than the risks.
I've been saying that from the get go. They should make it impossible to run windows on one,. It might seem unfair to some users, but it could be devastating to Apple, and that would be worse.
Apple is running a dangerous game by having Windows run on their machines. The comparison will be too easy. Developers might figure that if enough people are running it they don't need a Mac version of their software after all.
Dangerous, sure. They don't want app "erosion" to occur. But they can profit from this, too. I use OS X for all my serious work because of reliability, ease-of-use, security and mobility features among others. But all this serious work is relatively light in terms of computing power. iBook has been enough for that, so I can't see myself buying a Mac that is even nearly top of the line. If, on the other hand, I could buy a powerful Apple box and boot it to Windows to play, that could get me to invest much more. I understand most of Apple's profit comes from hardware, so this is a way for them to get twice as much business from me than they can any other way.
"The comparison will be too easy" must be an extended typo of some kind. Apple should welcome any and all comparison, because they win when people actually look around and compare their options! I hope I never see the day Apple must avoid being compared to their competition.
Apple is running a dangerous game by having Windows run on their machines. The comparison will be too easy. Developers might figure that if enough people are running it they don't need a Mac version of their software after all.
It is too dangerous. Or this is how it looks to me.
Quote:
Apple must believe the benefits are more important than the risks.
For the time being, I am pretty much convinced for the opposite.
Dangerous, sure. They don't want app "erosion" to occur. But they can profit from this, too. I use OS X for all my serious work because of reliability, ease-of-use, security and mobility features among others. But all this serious work is relatively light in terms of computing power. iBook has been enough for that, so I can't see myself buying a Mac that is even nearly top of the line. If, on the other hand, I could buy a powerful Apple box and boot it to Windows to play, that could get me to invest much more. I understand most of Apple's profit comes from hardware, so this is a way for them to get twice as much business from me than they can any other way.
"The comparison will be too easy" must be an extended typo of some kind. Apple should welcome any and all comparison, because they win when people actually look around and compare their options! I hope I never see the day Apple must avoid being compared to their competition.
What concerns me here is that many people already have, or can get PC apps without paying for them.
Over the years I've had friends and others sit down at my machines with me for an hour or so. The remarks I've gotten from most of them have been the same:
"I love this! I would buy one if I could get the apps for free like I do with my PC. Would you give them to me?"
No it wasn't a typo. Apple might welcome a comparison between Windows and OS X on different machines. Look at the Mac and look at the PC. It's a matter of Gestalt. THe Mac looks better, so does the OS. The ease of use is better, etc.
But if Vista is on the same Mac, then some of that goes out the Window(sic).
Honestly, it's not like comparing System 7 to Windows 3.1 anymore. The differences these days are more subtle than that. Many people might miss them. Especially those coming over from PC's.
A little tale:
I do work (unpaid) for the NY ED. System in the area of technology. I was one of those writing the five year tech plans.
We have computer trainers. They teach the teachers. However, many come from a PC background, and aren't happy learning and teaching how to use Mac's. Some even hate the Mac. Most can't see any advantage in using a Mac.
I show them how. So I teach the teachers of the teachers, so to speak.
The first thing they dislike is the one button mouse. I get "I wouldn't buy a Mac because it has a one button mouse." more often than you would think.
Remember that these are supposed to be tech people, both hardware and software. You might think that they would WANT to find out more about the machines they are working with. Nope. I have to show them. Then they are startled. This goes back almost ten years.
The other problem with making comparisons is this; These same trainers use the Mac the way they use the PC. Boring down through folders to find something. Never understanding that there are far more efficient ways of doing things. Again, I have to show them.
Why this worries me is because someone coming from PC's having both Windows and X on their machine will tend to use X the same way they use Windows. They won't see that much of a difference. It really is true. Then they will complain about the differences that ARE there because they won't think that learning them is worthwhile since X is so similar anyway. I've seen this as well.
Windows in such close proximity might inhibit the user to learn from X.
Most of this is APPLE's FAULT!
Apple's manuals are crap. Apple is so interested in showing how easy it is that they don't want to present the new user with the information they need to actually MAKE it easy. They don't show or explain the features of the OS other than the most basic. HELP is not useful for this. An old fashioned put in the lap manual is far better. How many people are going to take their iMac into the bathroom or bed with them to read the help manual? They would with a paper one.
Trust me, this isn't so simple. It's not a slam-dunk.
Trust me, this isn't so simple. It's not a slam-dunk.
I never said the decision whether to let Windows run or not was a simple one, only that besides doom and gloom, there are powerful upsides.
The most general and interesting of these is this. A potential new Mac user ponders whether to buy a Mac to replace their trusty Windows. In leaping onto a new system there is a risk of disappointment and subsequent hardware lock-in (you'd like to get rid of OS X but can't since the hardware only supports OS X). These are real risks that in the buyer's mind add to the pricetag to form the real cost. They will consider the possibility that the Mac proves snake oil, and if they do so unconsciously, their unconscious will double the risk in the calculation just to make sure.
So you see, allowing Windows to run on Macs reduces cost of switching from Windows to OS X, even if Windows is never actually ran on those Macs. This is not conjecture, nor arcana. It doesn't take an economist that knows the term "lock-in" - everyone worries about the unknown. When the switcher sees "Worst case, you keep this shiny new computer and use the apps you had before", he has little to worry about.
Actually running Windows on those Macs has the potential to reduce the switching cost even further, since it can smooth the migration. If you only use a certain specialized app once a year to do your taxes, you probably want to boot to Windows once a year to use it. It just isn't important enough to tolerate the hassle of looking for, buying and learning a new app. You might migrate later when you stumble on an OS X app that makes more sense, or want a more integrated experience. The important thing is that this happen at your own pace, not the computer's.
Apple could stop Windows from running in some of their computers, but not others, while not selling or officially supporting Windows. This is not unlike what they do now with their consumer level graphics, where you can use an unofficial hack to achieve almost - but not quite - the features and performance of an uncrippled part. If they were intent on shutting this down, they would have long ago. They want the hack to be out there, performing free product versioning for them. If you've used it, you know it practically has an Apple stamp on it, just no warranty.
For instance, take my particular case where I'd only boot to Windows for games. This places pretty specific demands for the computer hardware. It has to be game-worthy. If past is any guide, this is a small segment of Apple's lineup. Games is also an area where Apple is almost unable to compete at this time, so they have little to lose from opening this segment. Relative to entry level models, gaming hardware is expensive, so they'd surely like to sell it instead of selling the entry-level and watching another vendor get the gaming rig sale. If all this added up made it good business to cater for this type of buyer, Apple could leave this part of lineup unencumbered while some other models were discreetly neutered and unable to run Windows.
Again, not saying they "will" or "should" do this or that. In a free market, long-run success necessarily involves giving good value to customers. The option to dual-boot to Windows has "value" written all over it. That's all.
I never said the decision whether to let Windows run or not was a simple one, only that besides doom and gloom, there are powerful upsides.
The most general and interesting of these is this. A potential new Mac user ponders whether to buy a Mac to replace their trusty Windows. In leaping onto a new system there is a risk of disappointment and subsequent hardware lock-in (you'd like to get rid of OS X but can't since the hardware only supports OS X). These are real risks that in the buyer's mind add to the pricetag to form the real cost. They will consider the possibility that the Mac proves snake oil, and if they do so unconsciously, their unconscious will double the risk in the calculation just to make sure.
So you see, allowing Windows to run on Macs reduces cost of switching from Windows to OS X, even if Windows is never actually ran on those Macs. This is not conjecture, nor arcana. It doesn't take an economist that knows the term "lock-in" - everyone worries about the unknown. When the switcher sees "Worst case, you keep this shiny new computer and use the apps you had before", he has little to worry about.
Actually running Windows on those Macs has the potential to reduce the switching cost even further, since it can smooth the migration. If you only use a certain specialized app once a year to do your taxes, you probably want to boot to Windows once a year to use it. It just isn't important enough to tolerate the hassle of looking for, buying and learning a new app. You might migrate later when you stumble on an OS X app that makes more sense, or want a more integrated experience. The important thing is that this happen at your own pace, not the computer's.
Apple could stop Windows from running in some of their computers, but not others, while not selling or officially supporting Windows. This is not unlike what they do now with their consumer level graphics, where you can use an unofficial hack to achieve almost - but not quite - the features and performance of an uncrippled part. If they were intent on shutting this down, they would have long ago. They want the hack to be out there, performing free product versioning for them. If you've used it, you know it practically has an Apple stamp on it, just no warranty.
For instance, take my particular case where I'd only boot to Windows for games. This places pretty specific demands for the computer hardware. It has to be game-worthy. If past is any guide, this is a small segment of Apple's lineup. Games is also an area where Apple is almost unable to compete at this time, so they have little to lose from opening this segment. Relative to entry level models, gaming hardware is expensive, so they'd surely like to sell it instead of selling the entry-level and watching another vendor get the gaming rig sale. If all this added up made it good business to cater for this type of buyer, Apple could leave this part of lineup unencumbered while some other models were discreetly neutered and unable to run Windows.
Again, not saying they "will" or "should" do this or that. In a free market, long-run success necessarily involves giving good value to customers. The option to dual-boot to Windows has "value" written all over it. That's all.
We know that running Windows might be considered to lower the cost of switching. We know that it might increase the number of switchers. We know that Gamers might do this to have a Mac for general computing and then use Windows to play games.
This is part of what Apple is , no doubt, considering. But it doesn't lessen the importance of what I said. All of that is just as valid now as when I posted it. And I think it's more important than some of the positive issues.
As you said yourself, some of the switchers might prefer to go back to Windows. What you haven't considered is that these Windows users are going to bring their Windows software along with them. They might like using the iApps, but not buy much Mac software.
If the Mac ecosystem is damaged by this, it might not recover.
Apple sells machines, it's true, but it's the OS on those machines, as well as the 3rd party software for that OS that keeps people coming back to buy those machines. If that part of the ecosystem is damaged, people won't find a reason to buy the machine in the first place. They'll just stick with a cheap Dell.
Comments
Originally posted by sunilraman
ok thx programmer, that was a thorough smackdown of my wrapping idea
1. ms's new bollocks display thingy on vista puts openGL down the toilet and makes it very very different with apple's implementation
2. wrapping a graphics driver causes a whole bunch of issues way more challenging than wrapping a wifi card driver
3. patents etc.
i just hope that that crack team is ready to rock, if not already rockin' at cupertino, and schooling ATi and nVidia appropriately in the art of Pouncing Tiger Hidden Drivers
we will have to assume that the driver writing is aimed at a specific area: [consumer desktop/portable, pro 2d/video graphics]
...[games and pro-3D-creation] would be the icing on the cake but i think they gotta make the cake right first...
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux.
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux
yeah. i'm (very) sad to hear this. http://opengl.org/ has got this issue front and center and top of the page on their website. personally, i think its a silly and desperate move by m$... it would be tragic if in 5 years time there was only direct3D and the remnants of openGL... i doubt this would be the case though, not with the momentum inherent with linux and mac. no doubt the gaming industry will have a strong hand in this, whichever way. speaking of gaming, enough Forum-ing for now, time for some HalfLife2. wait. am i supporting the "death
of openGL" by playing HL2
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux
yeah. i'm (very) sad to hear this. http://opengl.org/ has got this issue front and center and top of the page on their website. personally, i think its a silly and desperate move by m$... it would be tragic if in 5 years time there was only direct3D and the remnants of openGL... i doubt this would be the case though, not with the momentum inherent with linux and mac. no doubt the gaming industry will have a strong hand in this, whichever way. speaking of gaming, enough Forum-ing for now, time for some HalfLife2. wait. am i supporting the "death
of openGL" by playing HL2
the gaming industry will due whatever they have to in order to stay in business.
As Direct X gets better more programmers will move to it. Open GL still has advantages for pro apps, but the truth is that MS is moving very strongly to replace it.
You saw them demonstrate their new graphics framework on the Mac recently (well, maybe not "saw", but read)
Apparently MS is trying to bring gamers back to its PC platform. If they go through with that Designed for Microsoft Windows thingo, what are MAc users gonna do?
Consumers, Apples main market, and potential switchers will go down to local game store and see shelves with Designed for Microsoft Windows on it, and no games for Mac. While games arent Apple's strong point, most people do enjoy being able to play a light game every now and then.]
SOrry, its late, am unsure if I got point across, may edit this post later.
Originally posted by pyriX
Consumers, Apples main market, and potential switchers will go down to local game store and see shelves with Designed for Microsoft Windows on it, and no games for Mac.
isn't that exactly why Apple is going to "tolerate" the possibility of users installing windows on Mactel hardware???
This way, you get to work in osX and play games and use some legacy software in windows "vistaprice"
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
also remember that OpenGL is in MS's sights. They would like to kill it off altogether. That would hamper Apple and Linux
yeah. i'm (very) sad to hear this. http://opengl.org/ has got this issue front and center and top of the page on their website. personally, i think its a silly and desperate move by m$... it would be tragic if in 5 years time there was only direct3D and the remnants of openGL... i doubt this would be the case though, not with the momentum inherent with linux and mac. no doubt the gaming industry will have a strong hand in this, whichever way. speaking of gaming, enough Forum-ing for now, time for some HalfLife2. wait. am i supporting the "death
of openGL" by playing HL2
You are also supporting mandatory network authentication for a single-player game, which IMO is much worse.
You are also supporting mandatory network authentication for a single-player game, which IMO is much worse.
well, actually, i *ahem* am not. lets just say Steam ain't installed on my PC and HL2 plays along quite nicely.... except i gotta restart a level because i've badly run out of ammo and can't find the !@##$ rocket box to take out a strider
Originally posted by theapplegenius
Follow Freeman!!
and man, on the roof, the striders were just nailing the resistance people, yet they kept on coming... wow, tragic. and that strider warp gun thing. bad ass... you can see the wall distorting in front of you, the blue light coming on, then you gotta jump away from that, then you see the actual pieces of the wall flying around.... well, i suppose this is what you get when you mess with inter-demensional travel
Originally posted by dutch pear
isn't that exactly why Apple is going to "tolerate" the possibility of users installing windows on Mactel hardware???
This way, you get to work in osX and play games and use some legacy software in windows "vistaprice"
Are they? If so, I'm sold.
Do you have the source for that, i vant to read it.
Originally posted by pyriX
Are they? If so, I'm sold.
Do you have the source for that, i vant to read it.
phatboy phil said that
-Sunman
http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the...5733756-2.html
.....After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
......However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
Originally posted by dutch pear
isn't that exactly why Apple is going to "tolerate" the possibility of users installing windows on Mactel hardware???
This way, you get to work in osX and play games and use some legacy software in windows "vistaprice"
if the darWine project gets off the ground you may not even need to reboot into windows to use certain windows apps...!
Originally posted by onlooker
That's an old quote, (from intel announcment) and It was reguarding the developer machines. I think Steve Jobs just recently said that you wouldn't be able to run windows on them. I don't remember where, but I thought I just read that the day after Paris. Maybe it was MacBidouille... maybe. http://www.hardmac.com/
No, he didn't say that. He just reiterated the statement about running OS X on PC's.
Apple is running a dangerous game by having Windows run on their machines. The comparison will be too easy. Developers might figure that if enough people are running it they don't need a Mac version of their software after all.
Apple must believe the benefits are more important than the risks.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple is running a dangerous game by having Windows run on their machines. The comparison will be too easy. Developers might figure that if enough people are running it they don't need a Mac version of their software after all.
Dangerous, sure. They don't want app "erosion" to occur. But they can profit from this, too. I use OS X for all my serious work because of reliability, ease-of-use, security and mobility features among others. But all this serious work is relatively light in terms of computing power. iBook has been enough for that, so I can't see myself buying a Mac that is even nearly top of the line. If, on the other hand, I could buy a powerful Apple box and boot it to Windows to play, that could get me to invest much more. I understand most of Apple's profit comes from hardware, so this is a way for them to get twice as much business from me than they can any other way.
"The comparison will be too easy" must be an extended typo of some kind. Apple should welcome any and all comparison, because they win when people actually look around and compare their options! I hope I never see the day Apple must avoid being compared to their competition.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple is running a dangerous game by having Windows run on their machines. The comparison will be too easy. Developers might figure that if enough people are running it they don't need a Mac version of their software after all.
It is too dangerous. Or this is how it looks to me.
Apple must believe the benefits are more important than the risks.
For the time being, I am pretty much convinced for the opposite.
Originally posted by Gon
Dangerous, sure. They don't want app "erosion" to occur. But they can profit from this, too. I use OS X for all my serious work because of reliability, ease-of-use, security and mobility features among others. But all this serious work is relatively light in terms of computing power. iBook has been enough for that, so I can't see myself buying a Mac that is even nearly top of the line. If, on the other hand, I could buy a powerful Apple box and boot it to Windows to play, that could get me to invest much more. I understand most of Apple's profit comes from hardware, so this is a way for them to get twice as much business from me than they can any other way.
"The comparison will be too easy" must be an extended typo of some kind. Apple should welcome any and all comparison, because they win when people actually look around and compare their options! I hope I never see the day Apple must avoid being compared to their competition.
What concerns me here is that many people already have, or can get PC apps without paying for them.
Over the years I've had friends and others sit down at my machines with me for an hour or so. The remarks I've gotten from most of them have been the same:
"I love this! I would buy one if I could get the apps for free like I do with my PC. Would you give them to me?"
No it wasn't a typo. Apple might welcome a comparison between Windows and OS X on different machines. Look at the Mac and look at the PC. It's a matter of Gestalt. THe Mac looks better, so does the OS. The ease of use is better, etc.
But if Vista is on the same Mac, then some of that goes out the Window(sic).
Honestly, it's not like comparing System 7 to Windows 3.1 anymore. The differences these days are more subtle than that. Many people might miss them. Especially those coming over from PC's.
A little tale:
I do work (unpaid) for the NY ED. System in the area of technology. I was one of those writing the five year tech plans.
We have computer trainers. They teach the teachers. However, many come from a PC background, and aren't happy learning and teaching how to use Mac's. Some even hate the Mac. Most can't see any advantage in using a Mac.
I show them how. So I teach the teachers of the teachers, so to speak.
The first thing they dislike is the one button mouse. I get "I wouldn't buy a Mac because it has a one button mouse." more often than you would think.
Remember that these are supposed to be tech people, both hardware and software. You might think that they would WANT to find out more about the machines they are working with. Nope. I have to show them. Then they are startled. This goes back almost ten years.
The other problem with making comparisons is this; These same trainers use the Mac the way they use the PC. Boring down through folders to find something. Never understanding that there are far more efficient ways of doing things. Again, I have to show them.
Why this worries me is because someone coming from PC's having both Windows and X on their machine will tend to use X the same way they use Windows. They won't see that much of a difference. It really is true. Then they will complain about the differences that ARE there because they won't think that learning them is worthwhile since X is so similar anyway. I've seen this as well.
Windows in such close proximity might inhibit the user to learn from X.
Most of this is APPLE's FAULT!
Apple's manuals are crap. Apple is so interested in showing how easy it is that they don't want to present the new user with the information they need to actually MAKE it easy. They don't show or explain the features of the OS other than the most basic. HELP is not useful for this. An old fashioned put in the lap manual is far better. How many people are going to take their iMac into the bathroom or bed with them to read the help manual? They would with a paper one.
Trust me, this isn't so simple. It's not a slam-dunk.
Originally posted by melgross
Trust me, this isn't so simple. It's not a slam-dunk.
I never said the decision whether to let Windows run or not was a simple one, only that besides doom and gloom, there are powerful upsides.
The most general and interesting of these is this. A potential new Mac user ponders whether to buy a Mac to replace their trusty Windows. In leaping onto a new system there is a risk of disappointment and subsequent hardware lock-in (you'd like to get rid of OS X but can't since the hardware only supports OS X). These are real risks that in the buyer's mind add to the pricetag to form the real cost. They will consider the possibility that the Mac proves snake oil, and if they do so unconsciously, their unconscious will double the risk in the calculation just to make sure.
So you see, allowing Windows to run on Macs reduces cost of switching from Windows to OS X, even if Windows is never actually ran on those Macs. This is not conjecture, nor arcana. It doesn't take an economist that knows the term "lock-in" - everyone worries about the unknown. When the switcher sees "Worst case, you keep this shiny new computer and use the apps you had before", he has little to worry about.
Actually running Windows on those Macs has the potential to reduce the switching cost even further, since it can smooth the migration. If you only use a certain specialized app once a year to do your taxes, you probably want to boot to Windows once a year to use it. It just isn't important enough to tolerate the hassle of looking for, buying and learning a new app. You might migrate later when you stumble on an OS X app that makes more sense, or want a more integrated experience. The important thing is that this happen at your own pace, not the computer's.
Apple could stop Windows from running in some of their computers, but not others, while not selling or officially supporting Windows. This is not unlike what they do now with their consumer level graphics, where you can use an unofficial hack to achieve almost - but not quite - the features and performance of an uncrippled part. If they were intent on shutting this down, they would have long ago. They want the hack to be out there, performing free product versioning for them. If you've used it, you know it practically has an Apple stamp on it, just no warranty.
For instance, take my particular case where I'd only boot to Windows for games. This places pretty specific demands for the computer hardware. It has to be game-worthy. If past is any guide, this is a small segment of Apple's lineup. Games is also an area where Apple is almost unable to compete at this time, so they have little to lose from opening this segment. Relative to entry level models, gaming hardware is expensive, so they'd surely like to sell it instead of selling the entry-level and watching another vendor get the gaming rig sale. If all this added up made it good business to cater for this type of buyer, Apple could leave this part of lineup unencumbered while some other models were discreetly neutered and unable to run Windows.
Again, not saying they "will" or "should" do this or that. In a free market, long-run success necessarily involves giving good value to customers. The option to dual-boot to Windows has "value" written all over it. That's all.
Originally posted by Gon
I never said the decision whether to let Windows run or not was a simple one, only that besides doom and gloom, there are powerful upsides.
The most general and interesting of these is this. A potential new Mac user ponders whether to buy a Mac to replace their trusty Windows. In leaping onto a new system there is a risk of disappointment and subsequent hardware lock-in (you'd like to get rid of OS X but can't since the hardware only supports OS X). These are real risks that in the buyer's mind add to the pricetag to form the real cost. They will consider the possibility that the Mac proves snake oil, and if they do so unconsciously, their unconscious will double the risk in the calculation just to make sure.
So you see, allowing Windows to run on Macs reduces cost of switching from Windows to OS X, even if Windows is never actually ran on those Macs. This is not conjecture, nor arcana. It doesn't take an economist that knows the term "lock-in" - everyone worries about the unknown. When the switcher sees "Worst case, you keep this shiny new computer and use the apps you had before", he has little to worry about.
Actually running Windows on those Macs has the potential to reduce the switching cost even further, since it can smooth the migration. If you only use a certain specialized app once a year to do your taxes, you probably want to boot to Windows once a year to use it. It just isn't important enough to tolerate the hassle of looking for, buying and learning a new app. You might migrate later when you stumble on an OS X app that makes more sense, or want a more integrated experience. The important thing is that this happen at your own pace, not the computer's.
Apple could stop Windows from running in some of their computers, but not others, while not selling or officially supporting Windows. This is not unlike what they do now with their consumer level graphics, where you can use an unofficial hack to achieve almost - but not quite - the features and performance of an uncrippled part. If they were intent on shutting this down, they would have long ago. They want the hack to be out there, performing free product versioning for them. If you've used it, you know it practically has an Apple stamp on it, just no warranty.
For instance, take my particular case where I'd only boot to Windows for games. This places pretty specific demands for the computer hardware. It has to be game-worthy. If past is any guide, this is a small segment of Apple's lineup. Games is also an area where Apple is almost unable to compete at this time, so they have little to lose from opening this segment. Relative to entry level models, gaming hardware is expensive, so they'd surely like to sell it instead of selling the entry-level and watching another vendor get the gaming rig sale. If all this added up made it good business to cater for this type of buyer, Apple could leave this part of lineup unencumbered while some other models were discreetly neutered and unable to run Windows.
Again, not saying they "will" or "should" do this or that. In a free market, long-run success necessarily involves giving good value to customers. The option to dual-boot to Windows has "value" written all over it. That's all.
We know that running Windows might be considered to lower the cost of switching. We know that it might increase the number of switchers. We know that Gamers might do this to have a Mac for general computing and then use Windows to play games.
This is part of what Apple is , no doubt, considering. But it doesn't lessen the importance of what I said. All of that is just as valid now as when I posted it. And I think it's more important than some of the positive issues.
As you said yourself, some of the switchers might prefer to go back to Windows. What you haven't considered is that these Windows users are going to bring their Windows software along with them. They might like using the iApps, but not buy much Mac software.
If the Mac ecosystem is damaged by this, it might not recover.
Apple sells machines, it's true, but it's the OS on those machines, as well as the 3rd party software for that OS that keeps people coming back to buy those machines. If that part of the ecosystem is damaged, people won't find a reason to buy the machine in the first place. They'll just stick with a cheap Dell.