I have dealt with those, you just don't acknowledge it.
I am merely pointing out a trend of your posts which directly indicates a mindset, not a comment on your personal worth. It's unfortunate you are unable to decouple the two.
If people want to run bent copies of 'X'. Let them.
But that won't stop Apple breaking it with updates to 'X'. The big PC companies won't sell it unless Apple let's them and that's the only thing that counts.
It's Apple's Intellectual Property. It's up to them what they do with it.
Maybe they'll use DRM...maybe they won't. Maybe they'll put encryption tech' or security in there etc to stop pirates at intervals.
It will still be out before Vista. The ultimate slap in the face to M$.
It will still be heaps better than the XP it will compete with.
And, if you can get a mac mini with a Yonah chip in it...for £299, you have to ask yourself it is really worth it. Running a norty 'X' copy and your Beige Frankenstein.
Some people will because they can and it's a tech' challenge.
But in the grand scheme, I can't seeing the 'hacks' having much of an impact with the iPod Halo crowd, the Apple Retail crowd...the people who buy from the big five PC crowd...
Wouldn't Apple have also tried to negotiate with AMD in the earlier stages, if they had the idea of using x86 chips? It seems to me that there were absolutely no talks with AMD. This is one of the most telling things about this switch in my opinion.
Wouldn't Apple have also tried to negotiate with AMD in the earlier stages, if they had the idea of using x86 chips? It seems to me that there were absolutely no talks with AMD. This is one of the most telling things about this switch in my opinion.
performance per watt, if Apple wanted lots of heat they would have gone with AMD, or even used the P4. Apple wants low heat high performance. Also, going with AMD would have soured any relationship that Apple may have had with Intel. The future chip offerings of Intel were also much, much better than AMD. AMD had nothing to compete with Dothan, currently, Yohna will only cement that lead.
The bottom line is simple ... For a long time Apple tried to make the arguement that Macs were better from both a hardware and software standpoint. Unfortunately for Apple, reality sank in and Apple realized that they LOST the "hardware war."
Now that OSX is running on Intel machines the only real "point of difference" that Apple can use to stand out in the market is that OSX is MUCH better than XP. Unfortunately, too many Apple execs are reluctant to risk becoming a "software company" so they're insisting on OSX only running on Intel Macs (which are just regular PCs inside cool cases/enclosures with a pointless chip that identifies the PC as "manufactured by Apple."
There are already a ton of software hacks online that allow people to use the new Intel-friendly version of OSX to run on standard Intel-based PCs. Apple is taking legal action to stop it, but the reality is that now that the hardware barrier is gone, it's obvious to everyone that the OS is the only advantage of Apple vs. Microsuck.
Apple has a choice: Face reality and market OSX to all PC users (regardless of where the PC is made) or go crazy trying to stop all the OSX x86 hacks that are flooding the market. Apple can still keep the hardware divisions alive ... if Apple makes a kick-@ss PC at a competitive price point I'll buy it over an eMachines or Dell PC ANYTIME. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Apple is overlooking a HUGE opportunity to become THE major player in the computer world and CRUSH Microsoft. I know a ton of people who would be more than happy to switch to OSX on their PCs if it meant better security from viruses and spyware, and an overall superior user interface. Add in compatibility with Windows-based apps and OSX would KILL XP within two or three years.
Gundeep's opinions are interesting and reasonable enough even though I didn't get any new insights from them. I wonder what else he might have to say now, almost three months later.
I noticed some possible ambiguity. The second to last paragraph starts off with:
The solution is apparent; Apple must make its OS X compatible with non-proprietary PC hardware and market it as such.
And the last paragraph with:
Since Apple is pretty well painted into a corner, it?s reasonable to assume that they will never offer or allow driver support, or willingly let Mac OS run on standard PC setups.
FIrst he proposes an apparent solution (and identifies some significant problems with it that we've discussed in this thread), then negates it with the assumption that Apple "will never offer or allow driver support", etc. The two statements seem contradictory to me, muddling any final opinion he might have wanted to make. Is he implying he favors Apple making OS X officially compatible with non-proprietary PC hardware while believing they won't actually do that?
Maybe Apple won't attempt anything too heavy-handed to keep OS X for Intel processors (whichever they may be) from being hacked (and inevitably pirated) for other PC hardware. Their attention may be more focused on DRM-related issues for multimedia content, especially in light of what Microsoft apparently wants to do with Vista. Let's hope Apple can find a more "agreeable" way to handle it.
Comments
I am merely pointing out a trend of your posts which directly indicates a mindset, not a comment on your personal worth. It's unfortunate you are unable to decouple the two.
But that won't stop Apple breaking it with updates to 'X'. The big PC companies won't sell it unless Apple let's them and that's the only thing that counts.
It's Apple's Intellectual Property. It's up to them what they do with it.
Maybe they'll use DRM...maybe they won't. Maybe they'll put encryption tech' or security in there etc to stop pirates at intervals.
It will still be out before Vista. The ultimate slap in the face to M$.
It will still be heaps better than the XP it will compete with.
And, if you can get a mac mini with a Yonah chip in it...for £299, you have to ask yourself it is really worth it. Running a norty 'X' copy and your Beige Frankenstein.
Some people will because they can and it's a tech' challenge.
But in the grand scheme, I can't seeing the 'hacks' having much of an impact with the iPod Halo crowd, the Apple Retail crowd...the people who buy from the big five PC crowd...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Shaine_Michael
Wouldn't Apple have also tried to negotiate with AMD in the earlier stages, if they had the idea of using x86 chips? It seems to me that there were absolutely no talks with AMD. This is one of the most telling things about this switch in my opinion.
performance per watt, if Apple wanted lots of heat they would have gone with AMD, or even used the P4. Apple wants low heat high performance. Also, going with AMD would have soured any relationship that Apple may have had with Intel. The future chip offerings of Intel were also much, much better than AMD. AMD had nothing to compete with Dothan, currently, Yohna will only cement that lead.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I'm sure though.
Those who hold out any hope of running OS X on generic PC's. Will stick to the notion no matter what that Apple has to run OS X on x86.
Inspite of the fact Apple has said OS X will not run on anything but a Mac.
I found this editorial online to be the most honest and realistic opinion I've read about the OSX x86 issue:
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1386
The bottom line is simple ... For a long time Apple tried to make the arguement that Macs were better from both a hardware and software standpoint. Unfortunately for Apple, reality sank in and Apple realized that they LOST the "hardware war."
Now that OSX is running on Intel machines the only real "point of difference" that Apple can use to stand out in the market is that OSX is MUCH better than XP. Unfortunately, too many Apple execs are reluctant to risk becoming a "software company" so they're insisting on OSX only running on Intel Macs (which are just regular PCs inside cool cases/enclosures with a pointless chip that identifies the PC as "manufactured by Apple."
There are already a ton of software hacks online that allow people to use the new Intel-friendly version of OSX to run on standard Intel-based PCs. Apple is taking legal action to stop it, but the reality is that now that the hardware barrier is gone, it's obvious to everyone that the OS is the only advantage of Apple vs. Microsuck.
Apple has a choice: Face reality and market OSX to all PC users (regardless of where the PC is made) or go crazy trying to stop all the OSX x86 hacks that are flooding the market. Apple can still keep the hardware divisions alive ... if Apple makes a kick-@ss PC at a competitive price point I'll buy it over an eMachines or Dell PC ANYTIME. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Apple is overlooking a HUGE opportunity to become THE major player in the computer world and CRUSH Microsoft. I know a ton of people who would be more than happy to switch to OSX on their PCs if it meant better security from viruses and spyware, and an overall superior user interface. Add in compatibility with Windows-based apps and OSX would KILL XP within two or three years.
Originally posted by rustedborg
I found this editorial online to be the most honest and realistic opinion I've read about the OSX x86 issue:
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1386
Gundeep's opinions are interesting and reasonable enough even though I didn't get any new insights from them. I wonder what else he might have to say now, almost three months later.
I noticed some possible ambiguity. The second to last paragraph starts off with:
The solution is apparent; Apple must make its OS X compatible with non-proprietary PC hardware and market it as such.
And the last paragraph with:
Since Apple is pretty well painted into a corner, it?s reasonable to assume that they will never offer or allow driver support, or willingly let Mac OS run on standard PC setups.
FIrst he proposes an apparent solution (and identifies some significant problems with it that we've discussed in this thread), then negates it with the assumption that Apple "will never offer or allow driver support", etc. The two statements seem contradictory to me, muddling any final opinion he might have wanted to make. Is he implying he favors Apple making OS X officially compatible with non-proprietary PC hardware while believing they won't actually do that?
Maybe Apple won't attempt anything too heavy-handed to keep OS X for Intel processors (whichever they may be) from being hacked (and inevitably pirated) for other PC hardware. Their attention may be more focused on DRM-related issues for multimedia content, especially in light of what Microsoft apparently wants to do with Vista. Let's hope Apple can find a more "agreeable" way to handle it.