why not run windows native on intel macs??? i'm sure someone will figure it out. i also use just one program from work that requires windows and IE. i read somewhere that you can "spoof" sites to think you are running IE i'd like to know so i can use netscape or firefox with my windows machine. i''m looking to get a intel pb or ibook hoping to run that windows program --am i naive to think i can replace my dell 8100 with a intelmac?? 8)
sorry for all the smilies my 4 yr old likes to click and watch
I wonder if it will be the otherway around...meaning 17-inch PowerBook first, then the 15-inch PowerBook. If the 15-inch PB is the most popular of the 3 models, it's money in the bank, and a safe bet for conservative customers. Sort of like what Apple did in 2003 when they kept offering the Titanium alongside the new aluminized 12- and 17-inch models, because the Titanium booted OS 9. That is, of course, if the Intel 15-inch PB is so much faster that it runs Rosetta apps as fast or nearly as fast as they ran on the model it replaces. Could that could be?
I wonder if it will be the otherway around...meaning 17-inch PowerBook first, then the 15-inch PowerBook. [...] Sort of like what Apple did in 2003 when they kept offering the Titanium alongside the new aluminized 12- and 17-inch models, because the Titanium booted OS 9.
DHagan4755, that's possible. But tied together with reports that the 12" PowerBook will be phased out, I think it's less likely.
When the 17" and 12" came out, users had a choice: old OS9 compatibility with the Titanium or OSX only with the new PowerBooks. But a 17" is not for everyone. Many think it's too big and/or too expensive. But that wasn't a big problem then as the 12" PowerBook provided the lower end option.
With the 12" gone things will be different this time. As the 15" model is the most popular one I cannot see Apple forcing all those users to upgrade to a 17" model if they want to go Intel. A lot of people would be angry about this. Although it might make short-term business sense for Apple (forcing users to shell out more money for the 17") it is short sighted in the long run. Especially if they introduce iBooks at the same time, because then people not willing to go for the expensive 17" will likely 'downgrade' to an iBook with Apple losing out on the 'pro' premium altogether.
If Apple kills the 12" PowerBook and only leaves a 17" and 15" model, I feel the 15" will likely go Intel first.
How about someone from inside? Built-in cameras are a BIG NO in such an environment.
Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.
Apple is going for a .25" thick panel. That panel has ro have a thickness to the metal or plastic. A hole in the front for the camera lens, fine. But the back has to have some thickness. How much does this leave? Less than .2"?
I'm sure that something can be done. But Apple is concerned with quality of the image. I don't think that they would do something that would give a poor image. The top of the Sony hmurchison led us to was a good .375" thick. I don't think the image will be very good on that. They didn't show an example of the quality on the site, so it might not be much.
I don't think that Apple would be happy with that. There are liquid lens's designed for cellphones, though I don't know if one has actually been in service yet. They adjust focus by applying a voltage across the liquid cell, which deformes the shape, in the fashion of our eye. But while that would fit, the quality isn't up to the 640 x480 standards Apple would need.
Folded optics still need room, and are expensive. Optical grade fiber is also expensive.
I think you're overestimating the cost and the bulk. The Minoltal Dimage Xt has a folded optics assembly with 3x optical zoom and costs only about $200.
Bottom line: Apple has often found a way to surprise and silence naysayers. I expect this will be one of those occasions.
You make sense. I am just merely playing all of the angles. If A.I. says that the 15-inch PowerBook is first, they are usually right. It only makes sense for Apple to start their Intel transition with its flagship portable. The only i's to dot and t's to cross is the software side of things. I am sure that they want to assure everyone that there is enough software ported to make a purchase worth someone's while.
I think we will see the new 15-inch PowerBook announced in January, shipping in February with other portable models to follow as the winter turns to spring. I am sure that it will be HOT seller.
what is so appealing about windows on mac hardware that so many people have it on the top of their wishlists?
It's not the OS, it is the apps. There is still plenty of Windows software that doesn't really have a good OS X equivalent, or the user has Windows software that that they don't want to re-buy.
Then there are the desirable "underground" apps for cracking DRM and such. I'd like a DVD cracking program save directly to a disk image such that an open disk image is automatically recognized by Apple's DVD player. What I do now is use a Windows program to save to ISO. I tried making a disk image from extracted files, but for some reason, making a disk image is slow and DVD Player doesn't want to work with the resulting file.
a dream- and nightmare machine, it's a kind of automutilation.
what is so appealing about windows on mac hardware that so many people have it on the top of their wishlists?
Why is this simple thing so hard to understand to many otherwise intelligent people?
It's the difference between having
- a 1000e Mac and a 1000e Windows PC, or
- a 1500e Mac that does everything faster and 500e cash left
This is just for desktops. In addition, in laptops there is no direct alternative to Windows on Mac hardware at any cost, because it's not feasible to carry both.
Im thinking about ordering a 12-inch ibook for christmas decked out with 1gb of ram and all. but now since the 13 inch wdescreen intel ibook is coming out prob apr-may, what do you guys think i should do? should i wait it out or should i just get the g4 ibook come x-mas? i just want something that will last a few years and be able to do the tasks i want done while im on the road (which is nothing high end or pro, just basic consumer stuff).
Why is this simple thing so hard to understand to many otherwise intelligent people?
It's the difference between having
- a 1000e Mac and a 1000e Windows PC, or
- a 1500e Mac that does everything faster and 500e cash left
This is just for desktops. In addition, in laptops there is no direct alternative to Windows on Mac hardware at any cost, because it's not feasible to carry both.
exactly--i need to update my dell, well i prefer mac, can't justify buying both, i only need windows for one stupid (won't change to mac) software--and i'd hate to have to buy vpc. i could care less about winblows but i need this program for work. it's the ONLY REASON I NEED WINDOWS why buy another dell/thinkpad if i can get a mac
Why is this simple thing so hard to understand to many otherwise intelligent people?
It's the difference between having
- a 1000e Mac and a 1000e Windows PC, or
- a 1500e Mac that does everything faster and 500e cash left
This is just for desktops. In addition, in laptops there is no direct alternative to Windows on Mac hardware at any cost, because it's not feasible to carry both.
no, you don't save money; you have to pay for the windows os and the other apps you want to use.
and i think that's a stupid investment except if you neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed that specific app that isn't macos compatible.
it's hard to understand that many otherwise intelligent people don't take the software costs of using two different oses into account.
At first I thought the same thing. But on second thought I no longer think so.
I agree that the iBook cannot move to Intel first, not unless they reduce the CPU speed so the iBook ends up slower than the PPC PowerBook. And that will likely not happen. Why move the iBook to Intel if it ends up as slow as the current iBook model?
Apple will have to move the PowerBook and the iBook line at the same time.
But it was agreed that moving the PowerBooks, the 'pro' line, to Intel first is a rather risky business. What if the design has major unknown bugs? What if OSX/Intel has some? And add those to the rather infamous bugs found in the first model of any new PowerBook generation. Not good.
A good way out of this dilemma is to split the 'pro' line. Move the 15" PowerBook to Intel first. This might seem to eat into 17" sales, but I feel those customers are probably unwilling to be the guinea pigs on the plunge to Intel anyway. Sure they'd want the speed and dual core CPUs, but if your business depends on this machine, would you risk buying a potentially buggy solution, perhaps not really working as advertised?
Therefore pro customers will likely much rather adopt a wait-and-see approach. And they'd also much rather see their applications compiled natively for Intel before they move. I assume they will wait with their PowerBook purchase until the next program update cycle anyway.
In that light it makes sense that Apple offers only the 15" model with Intel first, allowing conservative 'pro' customers to still be able to buy a 17" PPC PowerBook.
And as the 17" allows for better cooling perhaps Apple can even eek out a small performance boost on the PPC chip one last time for the 17" model at the same time they introduce the 15" Intel model.
Other than that I can see Apple offering current PPC PowerBook models alongside the new Intel models for some time. Like they did with the OS9 bootable PowerMacs.
But offering 15" and 17" models in Intel and PPC versions seems a bit much. Therefore it is likely only one of them or they split the 15" or 17" models as mentioned above.
[edit to clear up the meaning of some sentences]
I just can't see that.
The only way they could sell a 17" machine - which is the flagship of their line - is if the performance is at least equal to the one below.
With dual Yonah, or even worse, Merom chips in a 15", the 17" would be so far behind in performance that no one would want it. This would overwhelm any lingering distrust of the x86 platform that might (unlikely) exist.
Apple won't release an x86 pro machine unless they have their act together. Leaving the 17" as a now obsolete PPC machine would only lead people to think that Apple itself isn't confident about its own new product line. No company wants to give that impression. This isn't like leaving a single chip G4 PM available to those who just HAD to boot into OS 9. It was still the same hardware. The same thing for the dual 2.7.
This is a political message as well as a chip change. Apple has to be consistent here. No doubts about where they are going.
A quote from Anand Lal Shimpi's Weblog on AnandTech, a very respected site:
"And here's one thing I really do like about Apple, when they move to a new technology, they really move to it."
is there a business model for what apple is trying to do??some high flying business school should do a marketing and customer analyis to see which direction and strategy best puts apple on the critical high road--where are the ivy league business schools when you/we need them 8)
exactly--i need to update my dell, well i prefer mac, can't justify buying both, i only need windows for one stupid (won't change to mac) software--and i'd hate to have to buy vpc. i could care less about winblows but i need this program for work. it's the ONLY REASON I NEED WINDOWS why buy another dell/thinkpad if i can get a mac
The reason why we need VPC to run Windows or x86 Linux on a Mac is because of the cpu and associated chipsets. Once Apple goes to x86 those problems will go away.
Remember that they said that they wouldn't do anything to prevent Windows from running on the new Macs.
If a new VPC was required, with some attendent speed losses, they likely would not have had to say that.
After all,they don't talk about how they will allow Windows to run on a PPC Mac. That's because it can't.
Unless Apple uses some chipset of their own that will make their machines lack compatability, it shouldn't be a problem. From their patent filing for their security software, it keeps saying:
22: The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
I am not sure I can palpate the meaning of this. What is the context here?
I'll give you the link so that you can evaluate that for youyself.
It just seems to me that they are doing two things here.
One is to ensure that if their OS is hacked to run on a non Apple machine, applications won't work on it.
Two seems to be a reference to an Apple machine itself. Possibly meaning that the machine could triple boot, or at least run multiple OS's in some way natively.
Comments
Originally posted by aplnub
No...
Why not? I recall that upper mgmt at Autocad simply detest Macs. Why is that? Is it that Macs-in-the-80s had no decent 3D graphics card?
sorry for all the smilies my 4 yr old likes to click and watch
i'd enjoy ichat av but i'd never actually buy isight.
if its built in, like someone else said it will def open up the new ichat.
Originally posted by DHagan4755
I wonder if it will be the otherway around...meaning 17-inch PowerBook first, then the 15-inch PowerBook. [...] Sort of like what Apple did in 2003 when they kept offering the Titanium alongside the new aluminized 12- and 17-inch models, because the Titanium booted OS 9.
DHagan4755, that's possible. But tied together with reports that the 12" PowerBook will be phased out, I think it's less likely.
When the 17" and 12" came out, users had a choice: old OS9 compatibility with the Titanium or OSX only with the new PowerBooks. But a 17" is not for everyone. Many think it's too big and/or too expensive. But that wasn't a big problem then as the 12" PowerBook provided the lower end option.
With the 12" gone things will be different this time. As the 15" model is the most popular one I cannot see Apple forcing all those users to upgrade to a 17" model if they want to go Intel. A lot of people would be angry about this. Although it might make short-term business sense for Apple (forcing users to shell out more money for the 17") it is short sighted in the long run. Especially if they introduce iBooks at the same time, because then people not willing to go for the expensive 17" will likely 'downgrade' to an iBook with Apple losing out on the 'pro' premium altogether.
If Apple kills the 12" PowerBook and only leaves a 17" and 15" model, I feel the 15" will likely go Intel first.
What do you think?
Originally posted by PB
How about someone from inside? Built-in cameras are a BIG NO in such an environment.
Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.
There is absolutely *no* increased risk here.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple is going for a .25" thick panel. That panel has ro have a thickness to the metal or plastic. A hole in the front for the camera lens, fine. But the back has to have some thickness. How much does this leave? Less than .2"?
I'm sure that something can be done. But Apple is concerned with quality of the image. I don't think that they would do something that would give a poor image. The top of the Sony hmurchison led us to was a good .375" thick. I don't think the image will be very good on that. They didn't show an example of the quality on the site, so it might not be much.
I don't think that Apple would be happy with that. There are liquid lens's designed for cellphones, though I don't know if one has actually been in service yet. They adjust focus by applying a voltage across the liquid cell, which deformes the shape, in the fashion of our eye. But while that would fit, the quality isn't up to the 640 x480 standards Apple would need.
Folded optics still need room, and are expensive. Optical grade fiber is also expensive.
I think you're overestimating the cost and the bulk. The Minoltal Dimage Xt has a folded optics assembly with 3x optical zoom and costs only about $200.
Bottom line: Apple has often found a way to surprise and silence naysayers. I expect this will be one of those occasions.
Originally posted by sc_markt
A dual-core Powerbook that can run OS X and windows at full speed would
be a dream machine. [snip]
a dream- and nightmare machine, it's a kind of automutilation.
what is so appealing about windows on mac hardware that so many people have it on the top of their wishlists?
You make sense. I am just merely playing all of the angles. If A.I. says that the 15-inch PowerBook is first, they are usually right. It only makes sense for Apple to start their Intel transition with its flagship portable. The only i's to dot and t's to cross is the software side of things. I am sure that they want to assure everyone that there is enough software ported to make a purchase worth someone's while.
I think we will see the new 15-inch PowerBook announced in January, shipping in February with other portable models to follow as the winter turns to spring. I am sure that it will be HOT seller.
Originally posted by gar
what is so appealing about windows on mac hardware that so many people have it on the top of their wishlists?
It's not the OS, it is the apps. There is still plenty of Windows software that doesn't really have a good OS X equivalent, or the user has Windows software that that they don't want to re-buy.
Then there are the desirable "underground" apps for cracking DRM and such. I'd like a DVD cracking program save directly to a disk image such that an open disk image is automatically recognized by Apple's DVD player. What I do now is use a Windows program to save to ISO. I tried making a disk image from extracted files, but for some reason, making a disk image is slow and DVD Player doesn't want to work with the resulting file.
Originally posted by gar
a dream- and nightmare machine, it's a kind of automutilation.
what is so appealing about windows on mac hardware that so many people have it on the top of their wishlists?
Why is this simple thing so hard to understand to many otherwise intelligent people?
It's the difference between having
- a 1000e Mac and a 1000e Windows PC, or
- a 1500e Mac that does everything faster and 500e cash left
This is just for desktops. In addition, in laptops there is no direct alternative to Windows on Mac hardware at any cost, because it's not feasible to carry both.
Originally posted by Gon
Why is this simple thing so hard to understand to many otherwise intelligent people?
It's the difference between having
- a 1000e Mac and a 1000e Windows PC, or
- a 1500e Mac that does everything faster and 500e cash left
This is just for desktops. In addition, in laptops there is no direct alternative to Windows on Mac hardware at any cost, because it's not feasible to carry both.
exactly--i need to update my dell, well i prefer mac, can't justify buying both, i only need windows for one stupid (won't change to mac) software--and i'd hate to have to buy vpc. i could care less about winblows but i need this program for work. it's the ONLY REASON I NEED WINDOWS why buy another dell/thinkpad if i can get a mac
Originally posted by Gon
Why is this simple thing so hard to understand to many otherwise intelligent people?
It's the difference between having
- a 1000e Mac and a 1000e Windows PC, or
- a 1500e Mac that does everything faster and 500e cash left
This is just for desktops. In addition, in laptops there is no direct alternative to Windows on Mac hardware at any cost, because it's not feasible to carry both.
no, you don't save money; you have to pay for the windows os and the other apps you want to use.
and i think that's a stupid investment except if you neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed that specific app that isn't macos compatible.
it's hard to understand that many otherwise intelligent people don't take the software costs of using two different oses into account.
Originally posted by hobBIT
At first I thought the same thing. But on second thought I no longer think so.
I agree that the iBook cannot move to Intel first, not unless they reduce the CPU speed so the iBook ends up slower than the PPC PowerBook. And that will likely not happen. Why move the iBook to Intel if it ends up as slow as the current iBook model?
Apple will have to move the PowerBook and the iBook line at the same time.
But it was agreed that moving the PowerBooks, the 'pro' line, to Intel first is a rather risky business. What if the design has major unknown bugs? What if OSX/Intel has some? And add those to the rather infamous bugs found in the first model of any new PowerBook generation. Not good.
A good way out of this dilemma is to split the 'pro' line. Move the 15" PowerBook to Intel first. This might seem to eat into 17" sales, but I feel those customers are probably unwilling to be the guinea pigs on the plunge to Intel anyway. Sure they'd want the speed and dual core CPUs, but if your business depends on this machine, would you risk buying a potentially buggy solution, perhaps not really working as advertised?
Therefore pro customers will likely much rather adopt a wait-and-see approach. And they'd also much rather see their applications compiled natively for Intel before they move. I assume they will wait with their PowerBook purchase until the next program update cycle anyway.
In that light it makes sense that Apple offers only the 15" model with Intel first, allowing conservative 'pro' customers to still be able to buy a 17" PPC PowerBook.
And as the 17" allows for better cooling perhaps Apple can even eek out a small performance boost on the PPC chip one last time for the 17" model at the same time they introduce the 15" Intel model.
Other than that I can see Apple offering current PPC PowerBook models alongside the new Intel models for some time. Like they did with the OS9 bootable PowerMacs.
But offering 15" and 17" models in Intel and PPC versions seems a bit much. Therefore it is likely only one of them or they split the 15" or 17" models as mentioned above.
[edit to clear up the meaning of some sentences]
I just can't see that.
The only way they could sell a 17" machine - which is the flagship of their line - is if the performance is at least equal to the one below.
With dual Yonah, or even worse, Merom chips in a 15", the 17" would be so far behind in performance that no one would want it. This would overwhelm any lingering distrust of the x86 platform that might (unlikely) exist.
Apple won't release an x86 pro machine unless they have their act together. Leaving the 17" as a now obsolete PPC machine would only lead people to think that Apple itself isn't confident about its own new product line. No company wants to give that impression. This isn't like leaving a single chip G4 PM available to those who just HAD to boot into OS 9. It was still the same hardware. The same thing for the dual 2.7.
This is a political message as well as a chip change. Apple has to be consistent here. No doubts about where they are going.
A quote from Anand Lal Shimpi's Weblog on AnandTech, a very respected site:
"And here's one thing I really do like about Apple, when they move to a new technology, they really move to it."
Originally posted by NOFEER
exactly--i need to update my dell, well i prefer mac, can't justify buying both, i only need windows for one stupid (won't change to mac) software--and i'd hate to have to buy vpc. i could care less about winblows but i need this program for work. it's the ONLY REASON I NEED WINDOWS why buy another dell/thinkpad if i can get a mac
The reason why we need VPC to run Windows or x86 Linux on a Mac is because of the cpu and associated chipsets. Once Apple goes to x86 those problems will go away.
Remember that they said that they wouldn't do anything to prevent Windows from running on the new Macs.
If a new VPC was required, with some attendent speed losses, they likely would not have had to say that.
After all,they don't talk about how they will allow Windows to run on a PPC Mac. That's because it can't.
Unless Apple uses some chipset of their own that will make their machines lack compatability, it shouldn't be a problem. From their patent filing for their security software, it keeps saying:
22: The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
Interesting, no?
Originally posted by melgross
From their patent filing for their security software, it keeps saying:
22: The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
Interesting, no?
I am not sure I can palpate the meaning of this. What is the context here?
Originally posted by PB
I am not sure I can palpate the meaning of this. What is the context here?
I'll give you the link so that you can evaluate that for youyself.
It just seems to me that they are doing two things here.
One is to ensure that if their OS is hacked to run on a non Apple machine, applications won't work on it.
Two seems to be a reference to an Apple machine itself. Possibly meaning that the machine could triple boot, or at least run multiple OS's in some way natively.
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...esistant_code/
Let me know what you think.