Apple should also make a version that would allow the same on PowerPC Macs. Why?
-----
First off... Why would rob05au even think this would even be remotly possible on PowerPC based Mac. The only reason this was doable at all is due to the fact that the chips Apple uses now are Intel (x86ish based) chips.
Waddya mean 'ish'? They ARE x86 chips. Last of the old guard P6 architecture chips.
A dual boot system however isn't reliant on the CPU being x86 though. You could, conceivably, boot into a limited emulation engine that had the sole purpose of providing a unified X86 hardware abstraction layer onto which Winows would run.
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveGee
Second when aegisdesign says "VirtualPC and Q ... ten times more useful" he MUST really mean VirtualPC and Q one tenth as compatible at one tenth the speed!
Because that's the real truth...
Dave
Have you actually used VirtualPC? It may have limited speed on PPC and a limited emulated set of hardware it supports but it has a number of things which make it much more useful than dual booting.
1) It doesn't require repartitioning your hard drive.
2) You can run more than one VirtualPC session - want to run 4 different versions of Windows simultaneously? You can with VPC.
3) You can store different Windows setups to test under as different virtual PCs.
4) It saves state when you quit VPC. Restart it and your VPC restarts where you left it.
5) You can drag and drop between Windows and Mac
6) You can use your Mac's network shares
7) You have a Mac running there right along side it
8) When your Windows install is hosed, you just restore from a disk image
9) You can run Linux with it
10) You can screenshot your windows session direct into your mac tools
So, there's ten ways in which VirtualPC is more useful than BootCamp which IMHO make it ten times more useful. Some of us don't really care about it's speed. All it has to do is run the app. What we do care about is having all our Mac software at hand instead of a reboot away. And that's the real truth.
hmurchison, you are a senior member too and I have a question for you. Do you think with this strategy from Apple, it gives Microsoft every excuse now to drop all mac software. They already dropped IE and WMP for Mac, now they can drop Mac Office.
No not really. I think MS bluffs about cancelling Office to keep Apple in line as well as they can. MS makes a profit on selling Office for Macs and no company likes to give profits up. MS doesn't make desktops or laptops they're all about selling the OS and Boot Camp sells more copies for them so I doubt they are that concerned as BC requires yet another Windows license. Steve Jobs is taking the risk that Mac users will find Windows "good enough"
Quote:
From where I sit, I would love to see Office for mac killed for 3 reasons
a_greer interesting post. Sometimes we find ourselves a bit too comfortable with the status quo and can't imagine a better tool. If Office suddenly left the platform it would be interesting to see who could fill the void.
I think Applications are going to have to compete more on their merits in the future. I think Apple will eventually have to forgo on locking OS X to their hardware. It eventually comes down to who designs the best software and hopefully there won't be so much file format lockdown. That's what the computing market needs. Interoperability.
It's too bad about Project, because it used to be on the Mac as well. I wonder when they discontinued it?
I've an old copy I got when picked up a second hand SE/30. It's one of the better apps of that vintage too along with Word 5.1. Microsoft were doing something right then.
I'd guess the number of people doing project planning on a Mac would be fairly slim pickings and creative types are a bit more hap hazard in their project planning IME. Besides, I quite like xTime anyway...
a_greer interesting post. Sometimes we find ourselves a bit too comfortable with the status quo and can't imagine a better tool. If Office suddenly left the platform it would be interesting to see who could fill the void.
It'd certainly give Apple more room and incentive to grow iWork. I think they will anyway. They've done it already pushing against Adobe with their pro video tools and to some extent with their creative tools. They'll surely do the same against Microsoft with Office.
It'd be a real shame to put all that core framework in place to have it not used by Adobe and Microsoft with their lowest common denominator shared UI tools. I can't see Apple and in particular Jobs settling for that. Leopard will be the point where Apple takes the application initiative now they've sorted out the OS and hardware.
This has to be a low point for Apple. Sure it made them money, but Apple is known more for class than sheer greed. One thing you'll never see is Ferrari supporting Ford parts because there are more Ford parts available to their customers.
This whole Windows on a Mac thing makes me sick in principle alone. The fact that so many Mac users are jumping in bed with Bill lets you really know the state of affairs for Apple users.
For those of us that still believe that Steve is looking out for us rather than selling us out, I'd like to think that this wasn't Steve's idea and that this was forced on him. It's like Boeing telling Airbus that they will start buying their avionics from them.
It's a sad day when people get on their knees and beg for Windows on a Mac.
This has to be a low point for Apple. Sure it made them money, but Apple is known more for class than sheer greed. One thing you'll never see is Ferrari supporting Ford parts because there are more Ford parts available to their customers.
This whole Windows on a Mac thing makes me sick in principle alone. The fact that so many Mac users are jumping in bed with Bill lets you really know the state of affairs for Apple users.
For those of us that still believe that Steve is looking out for us rather than selling us out, I'd like to think that this wasn't Steve's idea and that this was forced on him. It's like Boeing telling Airbus that they will start buying their avionics from them.
It's a sad day when people get on their knees and beg for Windows on a Mac.
It really is a cold day in Hell.
Yeah it's a bad idea to potentially increase market share.
We really have to ask ourselves, "Why should platforms matter"? Personally I find that despite the huge advantage in marketshare PCs simply do not have enough great apps. I think that if Apple and 3rd party developers continue to make cool applications and utilize cool technologies OS X will be the preferred OS regardless on whether you have the ability to run Linux or Windows.
Yeah it's a bad idea to potentially increase market share.
It could also potentially decrease market share. OSX was gradually increasing share, slowly but surely. Adding Windows support may rapidly increase share, it may decrease it. Who knows. It's a risk that need not have been made.
However, for those of us that care about OS design, that have seen good operating systems die at the feet of the crap coming out of Redmond, that have used Amigas, OS/2, BeOS and watched good design die or be squashed, the prospect of letting Windows run on a Mac is akin to Le Corbusier painting the Villa Savoye purple and adding horse brasses.
And if you don't know who Le Corbusier is you should probably be running Windows on a Dell.
We really have to ask ourselves, "Why should platforms matter"? Personally I find that despite the huge advantage in marketshare PCs simply do not have enough great apps. I think that if Apple and 3rd party developers continue to make cool applications and utilize cool technologies OS X will be the preferred OS regardless on whether you have the ability to run Linux or Windows.
Exactly. Platforms DO matter. OSX provides some really cool core technologies on which to build applications. But getting that across to developers who only look at marketshare isn't easy it seems.
So, Apple will have to double it's efforts to make sure more developers are convinced of how cool OSX and Cocoa are in the same way the only reason NeXT did any business was because of how cool NeXTStep and WebObjects was. Platforms matter, not the hardware.
It could also potentially decrease market share. OSX was gradually increasing share, slowly but surely. Adding Windows support may rapidly increase share, it may decrease it. Who knows. It's a risk that need not have been made.
However, for those of us that care about OS design, that have seen good operating systems die at the feet of the crap coming out of Redmond, that have used Amigas, OS/2, BeOS and watched good design die or be squashed, the prospect of letting Windows run on a Mac is akin to Le Corbusier painting the Villa Savoye purple and adding horse brasses.
And if you don't know who Le Corbusier is you should probably be running Windows on a Dell.
Fair enough, it could decrease market. I'm of the opinion that it would more likely increase market share. Deep down I suspect you think it would increase market share as well. I personally am more interested in a virtual solution and am looking a parellels. However for some people boot camp may make more sense.
Fair enough, it could decrease market. I'm of the opinion that it would more likely increase market share. Deep down I suspect you think it would increase market share as well. I personally am more interested in a virtual solution and am looking a parellels. However for some people boot camp may make more sense.
Nope. I've no doubt that this will increase market share for Mac sales and since each one comes with MacOSX, increase MacOSX market share too. Then again if each MacOSX user also buys Windows then there's no real market share gain though of course you'll see Jobs crowing over hardware sales. I suspect what will happen in reality is people will buy Macs and use old licences of Windows or nick a copy from work.
What I have doubts over is whether this will increase the number of fulltime users of MacOSX and increase the number of MacOSX native developers. It dilutes the message over what a Mac is about and introduces uncertainty for developers. Back when Jobs announced the switch he said that the OS was the soul of the Mac. So, he's ditched the hardware and you can replace the soul now. What's left?
Deep down personally, I think OSX is strong enough to prosper. But please, please, please Apple, give us something really shit-hot for 10.5 that makes Vista look like Windows 3.0 by comparison.
I think there are a series of steps that could allow Apple to win win win here.
* Boot Camp/Virtualization: Run practically any OS
* Cheaper Hardware for the Windoze Crew (Mac Mini)
* Intel processors for new portables (Tablets, handheld devices, smaller laptops are now easier to produce and it levels the platform and puts the Mac vs Windows issue on a level playing field.
* Mac OS X Leopard
* iPod (and possible future devices) will be grabbing mind share amongst the new kids
* Apple is gradually increasing their software base. If Adobe or Microsoft kicked off; Aperture is waiting to take on Photoshop, Motion for After FX, iWork for Office and so on. These apps are primitive today but as they evolve they have the potential to grab mindshare, increase their feature sets and take on the golden oldies. This grouped with Apples own innovations such as iLife with iWeb etc and the platform is ever expanding.
* Also.... a lot of people have been voicing concerns over Mac Gaming but I seem to remember Apple advertising for quite a few positions related to Open GL, Game developers etc about 12-18 months ago. This is probably the kind of development going to be unveiled with Leopard. I'm certain Apple will bring a fresh assault on the games market in the not too distant future.
Start adding these things together and you can see that the next 5 to 10 years are going to be the most exciting times for the Macintosh platform
Nope. I've no doubt that this will increase market share for Mac sales and since each one comes with MacOSX, increase MacOSX market share too. Then again if each MacOSX user also buys Windows then there's no real market share gain though of course you'll see Jobs crowing over hardware sales. I suspect what will happen in reality is people will buy Macs and use old licences of Windows or nick a copy from work.
What I have doubts over is whether this will increase the number of fulltime users of MacOSX and increase the number of MacOSX native developers. It dilutes the message over what a Mac is about and introduces uncertainty for developers. Back when Jobs announced the switch he said that the OS was the soul of the Mac. So, he's ditched the hardware and you can replace the soul now. What's left?
Deep down personally, I think OSX is strong enough to prosper. But please, please, please Apple, give us something really shit-hot for 10.5 that makes Vista look like Windows 3.0 by comparison.
After having a day to reflect on this situation, I think a lot of people have read too much into this event. I still think mainly geeks will utilize this option. I don't think you will see ma / pa shops or kids doing this. UNLESS Apple starts selling macs with xp already on them. I do think this could be a problem, but I don't see it being as widespread as everyone seems to be making it.
It's great that I have the option to install linux or windows now. I have already spoke with developers about it and this is one of their replies:
Quote:
I am actually _very_ excited about it
because I need to get a new PC bad
and a new Mac and this makes it awesome
so now I need to start saving - cause as soon as the Intel Mac towers come out - I am definitely getting one - will save me a lot of space and would just be great
Another mac hardware sale... I think this whole deal has to do with getting developers on macs. Maybe they will use windows 60% of the time and OS X 40% of the time... that is 40% more of the time than they were using it before. Maybe that % will grow over time. I say this will definitely increase market share which will open devs eyes to the platform.
On the same token. I want to point something out. Aspyr's CEO explained to the press that he is weary about future sales. I think this is the time when we as users need to support our faithful companies that have been with us for years. If you're a gamer... and something new comes out... buy it instead of pirating it. Unless you don't want mac games any more...
But, you see, that situation was VERY different. At the time, most of Avid's users were STILL on the Mac. Not the other way around.
It was different in that Apple was near death. That was primarily the reason Avid was leaving the platform.
This is an example of where the user did not just follow the software. This is an example where people said we don't want to use Windows we want to use Mac OS. In-spite of the fact that Avid was trying to move everyone over to Windows.
Quote:
But if their customer base had been slowely moving over to NT on their own, until most of them moved over, we might not see Avid on the Mac today.
Right it would be a totally different thing if Avid customers chose to use Windows systems.
As in today I don't see too many people choosing to buy Macs, buy the Windows operating system to run on their Mac, to then buy Windows software. When they could have bought a Windows computer in the first place. They bought the Mac because they want to use Mac OS X.
I think a lot of people have read too much into this event. I still think mainly geeks will utilize this option.
I agree most everyone I know who owns a Mac, bought the Mac to use OS X. They would have bought a Dell if they wanted to use Windows.
Another larger group of people I know who I am convincing to buy Macs don't really care about Windows or Mac OS, they just want a computer that works. It is highly unlikely this group would go through the trouble of dual booting Windows on a Mac.
Apple is taking a big gamble but more than likely in reality over 50% of Mac users will never boot Windows on their computers. I think an over all smaller group of Mac users who work in Windows based environments will use this option and perhaps would have never owned a Mac if the option were not available.
Plus there are tens of millions of PowerPC Macs that will be around for years that will never be able to dual boot Windows.
As in today I don't see too many people choosing to buy Macs, buy the Windows operating system to run on their Mac, to then buy Windows software. When they could have bought a Windows computer in the first place. They bought the Mac because they want to use Mac OS X.
Whilst that's true, I've one user who has to use AutoCAD. He's happy - Mac CAD companies just lost a sale though.
Plus, when I moved to the Mac I had to buy a LOT of Mac software I needed. If I was a Windows switcher today with an investment in Windows software, I wouldn't have to. Maybe it's my ex-development background but the switch and being able to run Windows apps makes me moderately nervous about the future.
Perhaps it's just time for developers to rally around and produce something compelling to make new switchers stick to OSX.
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Do you need the exact programs or just alternatives?
Access = Filemaker
Project = xTime Project / Merlin
Visio = Omni Graffle
It's too bad about Project, because it used to be on the Mac as well. I wonder when they discontinued it?
Originally posted by DaveGee
Originally posted by rob05au
----
Apple should also make a version that would allow the same on PowerPC Macs. Why?
-----
First off... Why would rob05au even think this would even be remotly possible on PowerPC based Mac. The only reason this was doable at all is due to the fact that the chips Apple uses now are Intel (x86ish based) chips.
Waddya mean 'ish'? They ARE x86 chips. Last of the old guard P6 architecture chips.
A dual boot system however isn't reliant on the CPU being x86 though. You could, conceivably, boot into a limited emulation engine that had the sole purpose of providing a unified X86 hardware abstraction layer onto which Winows would run.
Originally posted by DaveGee
Second when aegisdesign says "VirtualPC and Q ... ten times more useful" he MUST really mean VirtualPC and Q one tenth as compatible at one tenth the speed!
Because that's the real truth...
Dave
Have you actually used VirtualPC? It may have limited speed on PPC and a limited emulated set of hardware it supports but it has a number of things which make it much more useful than dual booting.
1) It doesn't require repartitioning your hard drive.
2) You can run more than one VirtualPC session - want to run 4 different versions of Windows simultaneously? You can with VPC.
3) You can store different Windows setups to test under as different virtual PCs.
4) It saves state when you quit VPC. Restart it and your VPC restarts where you left it.
5) You can drag and drop between Windows and Mac
6) You can use your Mac's network shares
7) You have a Mac running there right along side it
8) When your Windows install is hosed, you just restore from a disk image
9) You can run Linux with it
10) You can screenshot your windows session direct into your mac tools
So, there's ten ways in which VirtualPC is more useful than BootCamp which IMHO make it ten times more useful. Some of us don't really care about it's speed. All it has to do is run the app. What we do care about is having all our Mac software at hand instead of a reboot away. And that's the real truth.
Originally posted by geobe
hmurchison, you are a senior member too and I have a question for you. Do you think with this strategy from Apple, it gives Microsoft every excuse now to drop all mac software. They already dropped IE and WMP for Mac, now they can drop Mac Office.
No not really. I think MS bluffs about cancelling Office to keep Apple in line as well as they can. MS makes a profit on selling Office for Macs and no company likes to give profits up. MS doesn't make desktops or laptops they're all about selling the OS and Boot Camp sells more copies for them so I doubt they are that concerned as BC requires yet another Windows license. Steve Jobs is taking the risk that Mac users will find Windows "good enough"
From where I sit, I would love to see Office for mac killed for 3 reasons
a_greer interesting post. Sometimes we find ourselves a bit too comfortable with the status quo and can't imagine a better tool. If Office suddenly left the platform it would be interesting to see who could fill the void.
I think Applications are going to have to compete more on their merits in the future. I think Apple will eventually have to forgo on locking OS X to their hardware. It eventually comes down to who designs the best software and hopefully there won't be so much file format lockdown. That's what the computing market needs. Interoperability.
Originally posted by melgross
It's too bad about Project, because it used to be on the Mac as well. I wonder when they discontinued it?
I've an old copy I got when picked up a second hand SE/30. It's one of the better apps of that vintage too along with Word 5.1. Microsoft were doing something right then.
I'd guess the number of people doing project planning on a Mac would be fairly slim pickings and creative types are a bit more hap hazard in their project planning IME. Besides, I quite like xTime anyway...
http://www.app4mac.com/xtimeproject.html
Originally posted by hmurchison
a_greer interesting post. Sometimes we find ourselves a bit too comfortable with the status quo and can't imagine a better tool. If Office suddenly left the platform it would be interesting to see who could fill the void.
It'd certainly give Apple more room and incentive to grow iWork. I think they will anyway. They've done it already pushing against Adobe with their pro video tools and to some extent with their creative tools. They'll surely do the same against Microsoft with Office.
It'd be a real shame to put all that core framework in place to have it not used by Adobe and Microsoft with their lowest common denominator shared UI tools. I can't see Apple and in particular Jobs settling for that. Leopard will be the point where Apple takes the application initiative now they've sorted out the OS and hardware.
This whole Windows on a Mac thing makes me sick in principle alone. The fact that so many Mac users are jumping in bed with Bill lets you really know the state of affairs for Apple users.
For those of us that still believe that Steve is looking out for us rather than selling us out, I'd like to think that this wasn't Steve's idea and that this was forced on him. It's like Boeing telling Airbus that they will start buying their avionics from them.
It's a sad day when people get on their knees and beg for Windows on a Mac.
It really is a cold day in Hell.
Originally posted by Brian Green
This has to be a low point for Apple. Sure it made them money, but Apple is known more for class than sheer greed. One thing you'll never see is Ferrari supporting Ford parts because there are more Ford parts available to their customers.
This whole Windows on a Mac thing makes me sick in principle alone. The fact that so many Mac users are jumping in bed with Bill lets you really know the state of affairs for Apple users.
For those of us that still believe that Steve is looking out for us rather than selling us out, I'd like to think that this wasn't Steve's idea and that this was forced on him. It's like Boeing telling Airbus that they will start buying their avionics from them.
It's a sad day when people get on their knees and beg for Windows on a Mac.
It really is a cold day in Hell.
Yeah it's a bad idea to potentially increase market share.
We really have to ask ourselves, "Why should platforms matter"? Personally I find that despite the huge advantage in marketshare PCs simply do not have enough great apps. I think that if Apple and 3rd party developers continue to make cool applications and utilize cool technologies OS X will be the preferred OS regardless on whether you have the ability to run Linux or Windows.
Originally posted by backtomac
Yeah it's a bad idea to potentially increase market share.
It could also potentially decrease market share. OSX was gradually increasing share, slowly but surely. Adding Windows support may rapidly increase share, it may decrease it. Who knows. It's a risk that need not have been made.
However, for those of us that care about OS design, that have seen good operating systems die at the feet of the crap coming out of Redmond, that have used Amigas, OS/2, BeOS and watched good design die or be squashed, the prospect of letting Windows run on a Mac is akin to Le Corbusier painting the Villa Savoye purple and adding horse brasses.
And if you don't know who Le Corbusier is you should probably be running Windows on a Dell.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Brian
We really have to ask ourselves, "Why should platforms matter"? Personally I find that despite the huge advantage in marketshare PCs simply do not have enough great apps. I think that if Apple and 3rd party developers continue to make cool applications and utilize cool technologies OS X will be the preferred OS regardless on whether you have the ability to run Linux or Windows.
Exactly. Platforms DO matter. OSX provides some really cool core technologies on which to build applications. But getting that across to developers who only look at marketshare isn't easy it seems.
So, Apple will have to double it's efforts to make sure more developers are convinced of how cool OSX and Cocoa are in the same way the only reason NeXT did any business was because of how cool NeXTStep and WebObjects was. Platforms matter, not the hardware.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It could also potentially decrease market share. OSX was gradually increasing share, slowly but surely. Adding Windows support may rapidly increase share, it may decrease it. Who knows. It's a risk that need not have been made.
However, for those of us that care about OS design, that have seen good operating systems die at the feet of the crap coming out of Redmond, that have used Amigas, OS/2, BeOS and watched good design die or be squashed, the prospect of letting Windows run on a Mac is akin to Le Corbusier painting the Villa Savoye purple and adding horse brasses.
And if you don't know who Le Corbusier is you should probably be running Windows on a Dell.
Fair enough, it could decrease market. I'm of the opinion that it would more likely increase market share. Deep down I suspect you think it would increase market share as well. I personally am more interested in a virtual solution and am looking a parellels. However for some people boot camp may make more sense.
Originally posted by nostyleart
does windows ruin at full speed? cause i only want to use it for pc gaming..
Check out this video of a guy running Battlefield 2 with nice framerates on his 1.8GHz dual-core iMac!
http://web.mac.com/richardpride/iWeb/Site/Movie.html
Originally posted by backtomac
Fair enough, it could decrease market. I'm of the opinion that it would more likely increase market share. Deep down I suspect you think it would increase market share as well. I personally am more interested in a virtual solution and am looking a parellels. However for some people boot camp may make more sense.
Nope. I've no doubt that this will increase market share for Mac sales and since each one comes with MacOSX, increase MacOSX market share too. Then again if each MacOSX user also buys Windows then there's no real market share gain though of course you'll see Jobs crowing over hardware sales. I suspect what will happen in reality is people will buy Macs and use old licences of Windows or nick a copy from work.
What I have doubts over is whether this will increase the number of fulltime users of MacOSX and increase the number of MacOSX native developers. It dilutes the message over what a Mac is about and introduces uncertainty for developers. Back when Jobs announced the switch he said that the OS was the soul of the Mac. So, he's ditched the hardware and you can replace the soul now. What's left?
Deep down personally, I think OSX is strong enough to prosper. But please, please, please Apple, give us something really shit-hot for 10.5 that makes Vista look like Windows 3.0 by comparison.
* Boot Camp/Virtualization: Run practically any OS
* Cheaper Hardware for the Windoze Crew (Mac Mini)
* Intel processors for new portables (Tablets, handheld devices, smaller laptops are now easier to produce and it levels the platform and puts the Mac vs Windows issue on a level playing field.
* Mac OS X Leopard
* iPod (and possible future devices) will be grabbing mind share amongst the new kids
* Apple is gradually increasing their software base. If Adobe or Microsoft kicked off; Aperture is waiting to take on Photoshop, Motion for After FX, iWork for Office and so on. These apps are primitive today but as they evolve they have the potential to grab mindshare, increase their feature sets and take on the golden oldies. This grouped with Apples own innovations such as iLife with iWeb etc and the platform is ever expanding.
* Also.... a lot of people have been voicing concerns over Mac Gaming but I seem to remember Apple advertising for quite a few positions related to Open GL, Game developers etc about 12-18 months ago. This is probably the kind of development going to be unveiled with Leopard. I'm certain Apple will bring a fresh assault on the games market in the not too distant future.
Start adding these things together and you can see that the next 5 to 10 years are going to be the most exciting times for the Macintosh platform
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Nope. I've no doubt that this will increase market share for Mac sales and since each one comes with MacOSX, increase MacOSX market share too. Then again if each MacOSX user also buys Windows then there's no real market share gain though of course you'll see Jobs crowing over hardware sales. I suspect what will happen in reality is people will buy Macs and use old licences of Windows or nick a copy from work.
What I have doubts over is whether this will increase the number of fulltime users of MacOSX and increase the number of MacOSX native developers. It dilutes the message over what a Mac is about and introduces uncertainty for developers. Back when Jobs announced the switch he said that the OS was the soul of the Mac. So, he's ditched the hardware and you can replace the soul now. What's left?
Deep down personally, I think OSX is strong enough to prosper. But please, please, please Apple, give us something really shit-hot for 10.5 that makes Vista look like Windows 3.0 by comparison.
After having a day to reflect on this situation, I think a lot of people have read too much into this event. I still think mainly geeks will utilize this option. I don't think you will see ma / pa shops or kids doing this. UNLESS Apple starts selling macs with xp already on them. I do think this could be a problem, but I don't see it being as widespread as everyone seems to be making it.
It's great that I have the option to install linux or windows now. I have already spoke with developers about it and this is one of their replies:
I am actually _very_ excited about it
because I need to get a new PC bad
and a new Mac and this makes it awesome
so now I need to start saving - cause as soon as the Intel Mac towers come out - I am definitely getting one - will save me a lot of space and would just be great
Another mac hardware sale... I think this whole deal has to do with getting developers on macs. Maybe they will use windows 60% of the time and OS X 40% of the time... that is 40% more of the time than they were using it before. Maybe that % will grow over time. I say this will definitely increase market share which will open devs eyes to the platform.
On the same token. I want to point something out. Aspyr's CEO explained to the press that he is weary about future sales. I think this is the time when we as users need to support our faithful companies that have been with us for years. If you're a gamer... and something new comes out... buy it instead of pirating it. Unless you don't want mac games any more...
But, you see, that situation was VERY different. At the time, most of Avid's users were STILL on the Mac. Not the other way around.
It was different in that Apple was near death. That was primarily the reason Avid was leaving the platform.
This is an example of where the user did not just follow the software. This is an example where people said we don't want to use Windows we want to use Mac OS. In-spite of the fact that Avid was trying to move everyone over to Windows.
But if their customer base had been slowely moving over to NT on their own, until most of them moved over, we might not see Avid on the Mac today.
Right it would be a totally different thing if Avid customers chose to use Windows systems.
As in today I don't see too many people choosing to buy Macs, buy the Windows operating system to run on their Mac, to then buy Windows software. When they could have bought a Windows computer in the first place. They bought the Mac because they want to use Mac OS X.
I think a lot of people have read too much into this event. I still think mainly geeks will utilize this option.
I agree most everyone I know who owns a Mac, bought the Mac to use OS X. They would have bought a Dell if they wanted to use Windows.
Another larger group of people I know who I am convincing to buy Macs don't really care about Windows or Mac OS, they just want a computer that works. It is highly unlikely this group would go through the trouble of dual booting Windows on a Mac.
Apple is taking a big gamble but more than likely in reality over 50% of Mac users will never boot Windows on their computers. I think an over all smaller group of Mac users who work in Windows based environments will use this option and perhaps would have never owned a Mac if the option were not available.
Plus there are tens of millions of PowerPC Macs that will be around for years that will never be able to dual boot Windows.
Originally posted by TenoBell
As in today I don't see too many people choosing to buy Macs, buy the Windows operating system to run on their Mac, to then buy Windows software. When they could have bought a Windows computer in the first place. They bought the Mac because they want to use Mac OS X.
Whilst that's true, I've one user who has to use AutoCAD. He's happy - Mac CAD companies just lost a sale though.
Plus, when I moved to the Mac I had to buy a LOT of Mac software I needed. If I was a Windows switcher today with an investment in Windows software, I wouldn't have to. Maybe it's my ex-development background but the switch and being able to run Windows apps makes me moderately nervous about the future.
Perhaps it's just time for developers to rally around and produce something compelling to make new switchers stick to OSX.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Whilst that's true, I've one user who has to use AutoCAD. He's happy - Mac CAD companies just lost a sale though.
No, if he *HAS* to use AutoCAD, then no Mac developer was going to meet his needs in the first place, were they? No sale lost.
OTOH, if he *WANTED* to use a Mac, but *HAD* to use AutoCAD... it might just be that Apple just gained a sale.
Originally posted by Kickaha
No, if he *HAS* to use AutoCAD, then no Mac developer was going to meet his needs in the first place, were they? No sale lost.
OTOH, if he *WANTED* to use a Mac, but *HAD* to use AutoCAD... it might just be that Apple just gained a sale.
Exactly