Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean.
Don't worry, be happy. Unless you are in one or two very specialized domains, or you are a low level optimization-obsessed programmer like me, then you simply aren't going to notice that your next Mac has Intel Inside (tm). What you will notice is that your iMac, mini, or notebook will perform considerably better than the equivalent you could buy today. When you can buy a Mac tower with Intel Inside (tm), it will also outperform whatever was the last PPC-based Mac that Apple shipped. There will be exceptions here and there where the developer hasn't created a Universal Binary, or where Rosetta doesn't work, or software that plays directly to the strengths of the PPC (rare!)... but by the end of 2007 the whole Mac ecosystem will be purring along very happily on Intel-based chips and you won't be any the wiser unless you open the box, examine the spec sheet, or look at the system profile -- and do you really do those things more than once or twice? Most of the time you are doing things with the computer, and how well that works is far more important than what it says on the spec sheet.
And you can buy more new Mac software and hardware, confident in the knowledge that Apple's inability to keep pace with the x86 hardware is gone. 2008 is going to be a great to buy a Mac (or two).
Oh, and as an added bonus: VirtualPC (and the numerous other VMs likely to pop up) runs really really f%^&ing fast!!!
Trust me when I heard the transition was to take place I too flipped a bit and was extremely upset. However I finally came to my senses and looked into why Apple has moved to "enemy territory"
What I found was an Intel that was so sure of it's new path with low watt low pipeline processors they cancelled billions in investment dollars in Netburst.
They had finally seen the light and were hard at work correcting their misstep. If things go well we will be better off because of it. I love the G5 and PPC but the investment money they need cannot be provided by Apple and PPC just isn't strong enough to get a lot of investment dollars elsewhere.
Steve made the most sane decision he could. Hop aboard the X86 hardware gravy train and ride it for all it's worth. I think he made the right decision. If Intel hits it's goals we'll have relatively low wattage dual core laptops for the first half of 2006 and dual core low wattage desktop and server cpu for the latter half.
Could we be there with PPC? Sure we could be not at the 65nm and the low wattage that we need. I'm officially drinking the koolaid here.
I think that Apple is victim of it own mantra : X86 chips sucks. Unlike cars engines, you won't notice any difference between an intel chip and a PPC chips : it would be more or less faster (more most of the time)
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean. I stopped visiting AI regularly after I bought my G5 last year, and upon catching up on that recent article that stated Apple dismantled its PPC hardware team, I felt physically ill. I wish I could stop worrying and learn to love Mactel, yet every time I think about it I only feel revulsion. I suppose I need a blog. . . or a beer. \
wil is no slouch. He was a founding partner of Omni. He wrote Delicious Library and made his second mint. He recruits great programmers and UI designers who in turn are lured away by Apple.
No, Carniphage, Apple has publicly, overtly committed to marrying Intel. No exceptions, provisos or contingencies. You're simply engaging in wishful thinking. I wish I could believe you, but there's no evidence to support your optimistic vision.
The point is this: Apple is moving cautiously. They have to open their doors too more hardware...and eventually they will be at the point where OS X can be installed on any PC boxen. Even with the first gen Macs with Intel chips, what's to stop users from dropping in a pin-compatible AMD chip when they want to upgrade? It's a whole new ball-game Apple is playing. They CAN'T control the insides of their computers anymore. If they don't know this, then Apple is doomed. If they do, then you can be sure that in about 4 years, you'll be able make DIY Macs. If they do this well, Microsoft's monopoly will take a serious hit.
wil is no slouch. He was a founding partner of Omni. He wrote Delicious Library and made his second mint. He recruits great programmers and UI designers who in turn are lured away by Apple.
He's not worried.
I'm not worried.
You shouldn't be worried.
i got drunk with him in chicago..... he's a good guy.... and he's right.
anyway, cpu architecture means nothing. there. i said it. I spent years studying it while collecting graduate degrees in it, and while working for a certain majorly major CPU manufacturer, and bottom line: it doesn't matter. for general purpose software, economies of scale, and fabrication technology have a bigger impact on performance per $. intel was the right way to go. as for all of this whining and identity crisis because a flake of silicon is different in your next mac... get a xanax.
The point is this: Apple is moving cautiously. They have to open their doors too more hardware...and eventually they will be at the point where OS X can be installed on any PC boxen. Even with the first gen Macs with Intel chips, what's to stop users from dropping in a pin-compatible AMD chip when they want to upgrade? It's a whole new ball-game Apple is playing. They CAN'T control the insides of their computers anymore. If they don't know this, then Apple is doomed. If they do, then you can be sure that in about 4 years, you'll be able make DIY Macs. If they do this well, Microsoft's monopoly will take a serious hit.
-The same thing that has stopped users from dropping in a pin-compatible PPC970 will stop them from dropping in a p-c Intel or AMD upgrade. It won't work. Plus, no AMDs are p-c with Intel at the moment.
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean. I stopped visiting AI regularly after I bought my G5 last year, and upon catching up on that recent article that stated Apple dismantled its PPC hardware team, I felt physically ill. I wish I could stop worrying and learn to love Mactel, yet every time I think about it I only feel revulsion. I suppose I need a blog. . . or a beer. \
At first, I was 100% against it. However, I've reconsidered and now think it makes business sense.
I only hope that Apple doesn't charge a premium for an Apple box if its comparably equipped to a Dell or some other PC maker.
I also hope Apple is working with Intel on an Intel chip that strips the chip of its ability to run X86 legacy code. From what I've read, this would make the chip smaller and cooler (and maybe even faster). Altivec on a MacIntel chip would also be nice.
I also hope Apple is working with Intel on an Intel chip that strips the chip of its ability to run X86 legacy code. From what I've read, this would make the chip smaller and cooler (and maybe even faster). Altivec on a MacIntel chip would also be nice.
Don't hold your breath, Intel has already signaled to Apple that they are another customer. Intel is not a boutique, they will do the things that address their markets, and when I say this think big picture not small. They would not be able to address the issues of the whole market if they are trying to solve problems that affect 5% of the market. Intel as a company would like perhaps to move away from x86, but that is a place with no market, or little market. So move away from x86, and kill the company. Intel is the market leader but they are not the market, they follow the market just like any other company.
On the plus side, the rumors are that Intel has made great strides with their 45nm process. This should be pretty exciting in a year or two.
On the down side I worry that some vendors might stop supporting OS X. Suppose the Mac share grows to 10 or 15%. With PPC Macs someone like Autodesk would be compelled to write software for OS X. However, if it becomes easy to run windows software on OS X then those companies could simply tell customers to do so rather than rewrite their software for OS X.
Certainly, in cases where there is competition companies would have to write for OS X. Adobe would be compelled to write for OS X to compete with Quark.
It already happens in some cases that vendors tell Mac customers to run their product via VPC. It will be worse when OS X is running on Intel. The better windows programs run on OS X/Intel the less need they have to rewrite.
I see the Mac-Hardware line doomed. Right now, it is relatively simple to install OS X X86 on other hardware than the Developer Box - just imagine how it will turn out in 2006: Who will buy a "oh so expensive" Macintosh if they can call the local nerd / geek to install OS X on their loud Dell?
And don´t give me this "Oh no, this won´t happen, we have the super chip that checks wether you run OS X X86 on a Mac or not".
It took other people (of course... ) 4 secs to delete the *.kext responsible for the checking on 1.4.1. And I use computers long enough to know that this won´t change much with 10.5.
However I finally came to my senses and looked into why Apple has moved to "enemy territory"
It is also well worth remembering that in 1984 the "1984" commercial which introduced the Macintosh to the world identified IBM (Big Blue) as "the enemy". Ten years later Apple got in bed with IBM as their processor supplier. 11 years after that Apple is getting into bed with the other enemy. The moral of the story is that Apple with sleep with whomever they need to in order to make the hardware and software they need to in order to compete in the market.
On the plus side, the rumors are that Intel has made great strides with their 45nm process. This should be pretty exciting in a year or two.
On the down side I worry that some vendors might stop supporting OS X. Suppose the Mac share grows to 10 or 15%. With PPC Macs someone like Autodesk would be compelled to write software for OS X. However, if it becomes easy to run windows software on OS X then those companies could simply tell customers to do so rather than rewrite their software for OS X.
Certainly, in cases where there is competition companies would have to write for OS X. Adobe would be compelled to write for OS X to compete with Quark.
It already happens in some cases that vendors tell Mac customers to run their product via VPC. It will be worse when OS X is running on Intel. The better windows programs run on OS X/Intel the less need they have to rewrite.
That, of course, is the other classic objection to x86 compatibility. If Windows applications run acceptably well and at native speeds, the OS X software market is dead. We will first likely see the death of Mac compatibility, followed by the death of OS X/Intel applications. The main reason third parties support the Mac now is that the Mac cannot run Windows applications. Take that out of the equation, and the ramification is fairly obvious.
A couple of days ago a friend was asking me whether it was a good time to get a PowerBook. I had to tell him that, in all honesty, I could not in good conscience recommend one to him. Apple is killing the Mac, AFAIK. I hope to God I'm wrong, but when it comes to Apple I'm usually right.
How many times have I heard people like u ringing the death nell for apple.
This isn´t some "Apple will die because they won´t let it play protected WMAs" or "Apple is dead" #3443 - it is a fact that there are FAR more illegal Installations of 10.4.1 out there than Developerboxes.
Just google, and you will see.
And this is just a developer build. Now think a little more, and you should see my (valid) point.
And of course, all of the people (I don´t know them, of course) I´ve seen installing OS X X86 on their PCs will buy a Mac....
Quote:
Originally posted by regan
Your "scenario" won't pan out.
It already did, to a certain extend.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
You haven't, however, used computers long enough to find out where the apostrophe (') key is.
You haven´t thought a single moment where Vienna is located, didn´t you?
On the down side I worry that some vendors might stop supporting OS X. Suppose the Mac share grows to 10 or 15%. With PPC Macs someone like Autodesk would be compelled to write software for OS X. However, if it becomes easy to run windows software on OS X then those companies could simply tell customers to do so rather than rewrite their software for OS X.
think different:
no software vendor would force it's clients to buy a copy of an unsupported os.
they'll lose customers that way, especially as the mac-userbase grows.
You haven´t thought a single moment where Vienna is located, didn´t you?
While I haven't personally been to Vienna, I do in fact very much know where it is, unless we are talking about a different city by the same name. Unless I'm mistaken and Austrians use a different keyboard layout for whatever reason, I expect you to use the same layout as Germans do. To write an apostrophe, you use shift+#, which gives '.
The key with ´ and `, on the other hand, is mainly for accents.
P.S.: since you assumed that I checked your profile, maybe you should have looked a little into mine; the name might have given you some kind of indication that I am certainly not ignorant to Europe, having lived there for almost my entirely life.
The only thing that could be a problem for the OS X software market is a dirt cheap (or free) emulation layer that ran Windows software smoothly inside OS X. This would likely cause some companies to withdraw explicit OS X support.
The apps would still be clunky. If you have ever ran X11 software, that's about what it'd feel like. Or a "native" app which uses platform features poorly, like Firefox. If there really was a way to make a Windows app feel like a native one, it would have been done already.
Haxored OS X on X86 is not a threat to the Mac software market. I'm sure people will be able to hack any copy protection if they want to, and some tinkerers will do it just as a matter of principle. The limiting factor for widespread adoption is lack of graphics and chipset drivers. If you are reduced to picking component by component into your box just so you can run a haxored OS X, not only are you one person in a hundred thousand, you'd get off cheaper by just buying a Mac.
Dualbooting to Windows is also not a threat. Like gar said, software vendors can't do business if they ask their customers to run an unsupported OS.
Businesses certainly won't do this, it would be an administrative nightmare. If they want Windows they can buy another box, it's peanuts to them.
Few consumers will bother. The ones who do are likely doing it to run games, which are simply not up to par on OS X now, so nothing lost there, but probably many users gained.
Just a while ago, my new neighbor bought a computer. He came to me for advice. He uttered the magic words "... and play some games". He ended up with an Athlon64 / X800XL box built at a local vendor. I wish dualbooting Intel Macs had been available so I could have recommended one of those for him.
Apple is killing the Mac, AFAIK. I hope to God I'm wrong, but when it comes to Apple I'm usually right.
Well in that case I have good news for you: you are wrong. Apple is not killing the Mac. While I do not entirely believe the whole "performance per watt" argument (that is only a part of the equation), the move to x86 Intel processors was announced to make sure Mac's are always as fast as PC's more or less. Sure, with PPC, Apple often had "the fastest computer in the world" and what not for short periods of time, but often they were lagging behind.
Check out the PowerBook if you need an example. It's a great product still, but it could be faster. If Apple was working on killing off the Mac, why would they go to the trouble of switching to Intel? Wouldn't it be easier for them to just kill it now?
Comments
Originally posted by Big Mac
Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean.
Don't worry, be happy. Unless you are in one or two very specialized domains, or you are a low level optimization-obsessed programmer like me, then you simply aren't going to notice that your next Mac has Intel Inside (tm). What you will notice is that your iMac, mini, or notebook will perform considerably better than the equivalent you could buy today. When you can buy a Mac tower with Intel Inside (tm), it will also outperform whatever was the last PPC-based Mac that Apple shipped. There will be exceptions here and there where the developer hasn't created a Universal Binary, or where Rosetta doesn't work, or software that plays directly to the strengths of the PPC (rare!)... but by the end of 2007 the whole Mac ecosystem will be purring along very happily on Intel-based chips and you won't be any the wiser unless you open the box, examine the spec sheet, or look at the system profile -- and do you really do those things more than once or twice? Most of the time you are doing things with the computer, and how well that works is far more important than what it says on the spec sheet.
And you can buy more new Mac software and hardware, confident in the knowledge that Apple's inability to keep pace with the x86 hardware is gone. 2008 is going to be a great to buy a Mac (or two).
Oh, and as an added bonus: VirtualPC (and the numerous other VMs likely to pop up) runs really really f%^&ing fast!!!
Trust me when I heard the transition was to take place I too flipped a bit and was extremely upset. However I finally came to my senses and looked into why Apple has moved to "enemy territory"
What I found was an Intel that was so sure of it's new path with low watt low pipeline processors they cancelled billions in investment dollars in Netburst.
They had finally seen the light and were hard at work correcting their misstep. If things go well we will be better off because of it. I love the G5 and PPC but the investment money they need cannot be provided by Apple and PPC just isn't strong enough to get a lot of investment dollars elsewhere.
Steve made the most sane decision he could. Hop aboard the X86 hardware gravy train and ride it for all it's worth. I think he made the right decision. If Intel hits it's goals we'll have relatively low wattage dual core laptops for the first half of 2006 and dual core low wattage desktop and server cpu for the latter half.
Could we be there with PPC? Sure we could be not at the 65nm and the low wattage that we need. I'm officially drinking the koolaid here.
Originally posted by Big Mac
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean. I stopped visiting AI regularly after I bought my G5 last year, and upon catching up on that recent article that stated Apple dismantled its PPC hardware team, I felt physically ill.
Here's the blog you need: wilshipley.com, "I Invite you to wine"
wil is no slouch. He was a founding partner of Omni. He wrote Delicious Library and made his second mint. He recruits great programmers and UI designers who in turn are lured away by Apple.
He's not worried.
I'm not worried.
You shouldn't be worried.
Originally posted by Big Mac
No, Carniphage, Apple has publicly, overtly committed to marrying Intel. No exceptions, provisos or contingencies. You're simply engaging in wishful thinking. I wish I could believe you, but there's no evidence to support your optimistic vision.
The point is this: Apple is moving cautiously. They have to open their doors too more hardware...and eventually they will be at the point where OS X can be installed on any PC boxen. Even with the first gen Macs with Intel chips, what's to stop users from dropping in a pin-compatible AMD chip when they want to upgrade? It's a whole new ball-game Apple is playing. They CAN'T control the insides of their computers anymore. If they don't know this, then Apple is doomed. If they do, then you can be sure that in about 4 years, you'll be able make DIY Macs. If they do this well, Microsoft's monopoly will take a serious hit.
Originally posted by Hiro
Here's the blog you need: wilshipley.com, "I Invite you to wine"
wil is no slouch. He was a founding partner of Omni. He wrote Delicious Library and made his second mint. He recruits great programmers and UI designers who in turn are lured away by Apple.
He's not worried.
I'm not worried.
You shouldn't be worried.
i got drunk with him in chicago..... he's a good guy.... and he's right.
anyway, cpu architecture means nothing. there. i said it. I spent years studying it while collecting graduate degrees in it, and while working for a certain majorly major CPU manufacturer, and bottom line: it doesn't matter. for general purpose software, economies of scale, and fabrication technology have a bigger impact on performance per $. intel was the right way to go. as for all of this whining and identity crisis because a flake of silicon is different in your next mac... get a xanax.
Originally posted by DCQ
The point is this: Apple is moving cautiously. They have to open their doors too more hardware...and eventually they will be at the point where OS X can be installed on any PC boxen. Even with the first gen Macs with Intel chips, what's to stop users from dropping in a pin-compatible AMD chip when they want to upgrade? It's a whole new ball-game Apple is playing. They CAN'T control the insides of their computers anymore. If they don't know this, then Apple is doomed. If they do, then you can be sure that in about 4 years, you'll be able make DIY Macs. If they do this well, Microsoft's monopoly will take a serious hit.
-The same thing that has stopped users from dropping in a pin-compatible PPC970 will stop them from dropping in a p-c Intel or AMD upgrade. It won't work. Plus, no AMDs are p-c with Intel at the moment.
Originally posted by Big Mac
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean. I stopped visiting AI regularly after I bought my G5 last year, and upon catching up on that recent article that stated Apple dismantled its PPC hardware team, I felt physically ill.
At first, I was 100% against it. However, I've reconsidered and now think it makes business sense.
I only hope that Apple doesn't charge a premium for an Apple box if its comparably equipped to a Dell or some other PC maker.
I also hope Apple is working with Intel on an Intel chip that strips the chip of its ability to run X86 legacy code. From what I've read, this would make the chip smaller and cooler (and maybe even faster). Altivec on a MacIntel chip would also be nice.
Originally posted by sc_markt
I also hope Apple is working with Intel on an Intel chip that strips the chip of its ability to run X86 legacy code. From what I've read, this would make the chip smaller and cooler (and maybe even faster). Altivec on a MacIntel chip would also be nice.
Don't hold your breath, Intel has already signaled to Apple that they are another customer. Intel is not a boutique, they will do the things that address their markets, and when I say this think big picture not small. They would not be able to address the issues of the whole market if they are trying to solve problems that affect 5% of the market. Intel as a company would like perhaps to move away from x86, but that is a place with no market, or little market. So move away from x86, and kill the company. Intel is the market leader but they are not the market, they follow the market just like any other company.
On the plus side, the rumors are that Intel has made great strides with their 45nm process. This should be pretty exciting in a year or two.
On the down side I worry that some vendors might stop supporting OS X. Suppose the Mac share grows to 10 or 15%. With PPC Macs someone like Autodesk would be compelled to write software for OS X. However, if it becomes easy to run windows software on OS X then those companies could simply tell customers to do so rather than rewrite their software for OS X.
Certainly, in cases where there is competition companies would have to write for OS X. Adobe would be compelled to write for OS X to compete with Quark.
It already happens in some cases that vendors tell Mac customers to run their product via VPC. It will be worse when OS X is running on Intel. The better windows programs run on OS X/Intel the less need they have to rewrite.
I see the Mac-Hardware line doomed. Right now, it is relatively simple to install OS X X86 on other hardware than the Developer Box - just imagine how it will turn out in 2006: Who will buy a "oh so expensive" Macintosh if they can call the local nerd / geek to install OS X on their loud Dell?
And don´t give me this "Oh no, this won´t happen, we have the super chip that checks wether you run OS X X86 on a Mac or not".
It took other people (of course...
Suckage.
I beg to differ with you my dellusional friend. Yee have lost yee little mind me thinks.
How many times have I heard people like u ringing the death nell for apple.
Your "scenario" won't pan out.
THAT much I do know.
U make-ah me laugh.
har dee har har it is to laugh.
Originally posted by Denmaru
[..] here´s [..] don´t [..] won´t [..] And I use computers long enough to know that this won´t change much with 10.5.
You haven't, however, used computers long enough to find out where the apostrophe (') key is.
Originally posted by hmurchison
However I finally came to my senses and looked into why Apple has moved to "enemy territory"
It is also well worth remembering that in 1984 the "1984" commercial which introduced the Macintosh to the world identified IBM (Big Blue) as "the enemy". Ten years later Apple got in bed with IBM as their processor supplier. 11 years after that Apple is getting into bed with the other enemy. The moral of the story is that Apple with sleep with whomever they need to in order to make the hardware and software they need to in order to compete in the market.
Originally posted by neutrino23
I'm still pretty nervous about this.
On the plus side, the rumors are that Intel has made great strides with their 45nm process. This should be pretty exciting in a year or two.
On the down side I worry that some vendors might stop supporting OS X. Suppose the Mac share grows to 10 or 15%. With PPC Macs someone like Autodesk would be compelled to write software for OS X. However, if it becomes easy to run windows software on OS X then those companies could simply tell customers to do so rather than rewrite their software for OS X.
Certainly, in cases where there is competition companies would have to write for OS X. Adobe would be compelled to write for OS X to compete with Quark.
It already happens in some cases that vendors tell Mac customers to run their product via VPC. It will be worse when OS X is running on Intel. The better windows programs run on OS X/Intel the less need they have to rewrite.
That, of course, is the other classic objection to x86 compatibility. If Windows applications run acceptably well and at native speeds, the OS X software market is dead. We will first likely see the death of Mac compatibility, followed by the death of OS X/Intel applications. The main reason third parties support the Mac now is that the Mac cannot run Windows applications. Take that out of the equation, and the ramification is fairly obvious.
A couple of days ago a friend was asking me whether it was a good time to get a PowerBook. I had to tell him that, in all honesty, I could not in good conscience recommend one to him. Apple is killing the Mac, AFAIK. I hope to God I'm wrong, but when it comes to Apple I'm usually right.
Originally posted by regan
How many times have I heard people like u ringing the death nell for apple.
This isn´t some "Apple will die because they won´t let it play protected WMAs" or "Apple is dead" #3443 - it is a fact that there are FAR more illegal Installations of 10.4.1 out there than Developerboxes.
Just google, and you will see.
And this is just a developer build. Now think a little more, and you should see my (valid) point.
And of course, all of the people (I don´t know them, of course) I´ve seen installing OS X X86 on their PCs will buy a Mac....
Originally posted by regan
Your "scenario" won't pan out.
It already did, to a certain extend.
Originally posted by Chucker
You haven't, however, used computers long enough to find out where the apostrophe (') key is.
You haven´t thought a single moment where Vienna is located, didn´t you?
Originally posted by neutrino23
On the down side I worry that some vendors might stop supporting OS X. Suppose the Mac share grows to 10 or 15%. With PPC Macs someone like Autodesk would be compelled to write software for OS X. However, if it becomes easy to run windows software on OS X then those companies could simply tell customers to do so rather than rewrite their software for OS X.
think different:
no software vendor would force it's clients to buy a copy of an unsupported os.
they'll lose customers that way, especially as the mac-userbase grows.
Originally posted by Denmaru
You haven´t thought a single moment where Vienna is located, didn´t you?
While I haven't personally been to Vienna, I do in fact very much know where it is, unless we are talking about a different city by the same name. Unless I'm mistaken and Austrians use a different keyboard layout for whatever reason, I expect you to use the same layout as Germans do. To write an apostrophe, you use shift+#, which gives '.
The key with ´ and `, on the other hand, is mainly for accents.
P.S.: since you assumed that I checked your profile, maybe you should have looked a little into mine; the name might have given you some kind of indication that I am certainly not ignorant to Europe, having lived there for almost my entirely life.
The apps would still be clunky. If you have ever ran X11 software, that's about what it'd feel like. Or a "native" app which uses platform features poorly, like Firefox. If there really was a way to make a Windows app feel like a native one, it would have been done already.
Haxored OS X on X86 is not a threat to the Mac software market. I'm sure people will be able to hack any copy protection if they want to, and some tinkerers will do it just as a matter of principle. The limiting factor for widespread adoption is lack of graphics and chipset drivers. If you are reduced to picking component by component into your box just so you can run a haxored OS X, not only are you one person in a hundred thousand, you'd get off cheaper by just buying a Mac.
Dualbooting to Windows is also not a threat. Like gar said, software vendors can't do business if they ask their customers to run an unsupported OS.
Businesses certainly won't do this, it would be an administrative nightmare. If they want Windows they can buy another box, it's peanuts to them.
Few consumers will bother. The ones who do are likely doing it to run games, which are simply not up to par on OS X now, so nothing lost there, but probably many users gained.
Just a while ago, my new neighbor bought a computer. He came to me for advice. He uttered the magic words "... and play some games". He ended up with an Athlon64 / X800XL box built at a local vendor. I wish dualbooting Intel Macs had been available so I could have recommended one of those for him.
Originally posted by Big Mac
Apple is killing the Mac, AFAIK. I hope to God I'm wrong, but when it comes to Apple I'm usually right.
Well in that case I have good news for you: you are wrong. Apple is not killing the Mac. While I do not entirely believe the whole "performance per watt" argument (that is only a part of the equation), the move to x86 Intel processors was announced to make sure Mac's are always as fast as PC's more or less. Sure, with PPC, Apple often had "the fastest computer in the world" and what not for short periods of time, but often they were lagging behind.
Check out the PowerBook if you need an example. It's a great product still, but it could be faster. If Apple was working on killing off the Mac, why would they go to the trouble of switching to Intel? Wouldn't it be easier for them to just kill it now?