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.
On a seperate now about Windows and Mac OS X on a Mac, Apple via Leopard needs to make it more integrated to have the best solution. For those users that have smaller hard drives, creating partitions will be very annoying in terms of disk usage. Also, I think it is important that people be able to run windows applications without running windows itself. I know I for one would make use of the ability of running Windows as a seperate OS, however many people don't give a shit about what OS system they are running... as long as it runs the programs they want to run, is fast, looks nice, and is secure. Thus for many people, Mac OS X running Windows programs with a full-speed emulator (programs run at the same speed or close to the same speed they would run under windows) would be the best solution.
Yah it sounds great on paper... where's the technical proof it can be done? As long as you're virtualizing windows, it's going to be slow. Period. You can do all the optimizing and DRM you want. It's going to be SLOWER than dual booting. Next: Ok you say, lets not virtualized but run the apps... Windows is such a damn mess that trying to get OS X to run an MFC exe or a C# app (I use that term loosely) would require so many libraries, and ... bah I just got up and am tired and don't want to explain something that isn't possible. =P
Yah it sounds great on paper... where's the technical proof it can be done? As long as you're virtualizing windows, it's going to be slow. Period. You can do all the optimizing and DRM you want. It's going to be SLOWER than dual booting. Next: Ok you say, lets not virtualized but run the apps... Windows is such a damn mess that trying to get OS X to run an MFC exe or a C# app (I use that term loosely) would require so many libraries, and ... bah I just got up and am tired and don't want to explain something that isn't possible. =P
I thought VM only slowed things down because it took more RAM.
running idle applications doesn't slow down my machine at all
I think windows XP in VM is bad for a different reason: security.
At least when you're booted into XP, you KNOW you're running it and are in danger of being mauled by internet cyberherpes. When it gets too much for you, I think it's a good thing you can restart and get away from it.
I think it's sort of crucial Apple make it dual-booting instead of VM. If it seamlessly runs windows Apps in OS X, it could mean many software makers would be less likely to put out stuff that's mac-only.
At least with the OS 9 -> OS X switch, you had carbon. With this, there's no intermediary. If you want a PC and a mac app, you have to write two totally different programs. If Apple ran windows in a VM, you could reach all audiences by writing just a windows app instead.
I thought VM only slowed things down because it took more RAM.
I went through this in previous posts...
But, no it takes more ram, cpu cycles, and northbridge cycles. OS X is the main os. Any application has to get permission to access any hardware or do anything. If it wasn't set up like this (like windows 98 wasn't) any application could grab a hold of part of the hardware (graphics card for instance), do something naughty and lock it. Because the OS gave up complete control it would have no way to recover. So it is set up now days that the OS always has complete control. So in order for windows be virtualized correctly it would need to ask permission to use these controls... where actually running windows (dual boot if you want) would be the controller instead of the controllee. Because it is the controllee it has to ask for these "permissions" to access things. Can it freely access ram? yah for the most part... (because it is thought of as an application), BUT it won't be able to freely access things like graphics cards, ports, etc without OS X. So there is always going to be some overhead from os x.
I thought VM only slowed things down because it took more RAM.
running idle applications doesn't slow down my machine at all
I think windows XP in VM is bad for a different reason: security.
At least when you're booted into XP, you KNOW you're running it and are in danger of being mauled by internet cyberherpes. When it gets too much for you, I think it's a good thing you can restart and get away from it.
I think it's sort of crucial Apple make it dual-booting instead of VM. If it seamlessly runs windows Apps in OS X, it could mean many software makers would be less likely to put out stuff that's mac-only.
At least with the OS 9 -> OS X switch, you had carbon. With this, there's no intermediary. If you want a PC and a mac app, you have to write two totally different programs. If Apple ran windows in a VM, you could reach all audiences by writing just a windows app instead.
Virtualization can run at pretty high speeds on the cpu, but as the native OS still controls the video, that area will not be running nearly as fast. That's the downside to virtualization.
Virtualization can run at pretty high speeds on the cpu, but as the native OS still controls the video, that area will not be running nearly as fast. That's the downside to virtualization.
Well damn, I wish I just would have used your short comment to be concise and clear.
Personally I think Leopard will not have one being able to just run .exe files willy-nilly. Just creates too much of a mess. It would jack up the OS X interface massively. It is highly possible though that in addition to dual-boot, Apple will have Windows running "sandboxed" via their own VirtualPC-type application.
Thus users will have an option -- you want full OS control and resources, dual-boot Windows or Mac OS X. You want to run Windows apps and Mac OS X apps side-by-side, use Apple's built-in VirtualPC-type application. The key for the latter is extremely seamless exchange of files and copy-and-paste of text, images, etc.
We know that clearly Apple's main profit and revenue stream is hardware sales. Ok, setting aside the iPod side of things, IIRC hardware sales of Macs still generates a greater percentage of profits for Apple. To keep Mac sales strong and to continue to have it on the rise, they have taken a bold step to play nicer with the Windows world.
If anyone can do it, it's Apple. Dual-boot into Windows is probably a nice solution for gaming and for when you need full dedicated resources given to the OS.
But VirtualPC-type virtualization is the key to penetrate the business market. I think the consumer market can only offer so much and Leopard will be an assault on the business market. Imagine you're a mid-level business manager. You've got an Intel iMac on your desk. You're able to seamlessly check your mail with Outlook (bleahhh) and switch over to Mac OS X to write on a few Dashboard stickies.
There is virtualization technology that's being hyped in the new Intel and AMD chips and we all really don't know what exactly it can offer. At the moment it's all guessing as to what performance and resource management is going to be like. Remember there is little if NO EMULATION because of it IS x86.
At the end of the day, I think that's what the Intel switch is about, beyond the inability of Freescale/IBM to deliver CPUs. It is growing market share of Macs in the business environment.
In essence then when we consider developers Steve Jobs has issued a harsh but perhaps necessary challenge to Mac developers. He's telling them, "Look, Mac OS X has so much fantastic technology that you do your thing right, you can out-compete similar apps in the Windows world -- in fact, you'll have to, because those Windows apps will be running right alongside your apps."
The only problem with my argument is what's been said many times here already. That if Windows apps run alongside Mac OS X in any way, what incentive is there for say Adobe or MYOB to actually *make* any OS X apps?
There's something Steve is targeting and a game plan we're clearly not seeing. Something up his sleeve. A big risk perhaps but maybe his goal is to take on the Windows-centric business world and triumph by increasing Mac market share in the business environment.
Personally I think Leopard will not have one being able to just run .exe files willy-nilly. Just creates too much of a mess. It would jack up the OS X interface massively. It is highly possible though that in addition to dual-boot, Apple will have Windows running "sandboxed" via their own VirtualPC-type application.
Thus users will have an option -- you want full OS control and resources, dual-boot Windows or Mac OS X. You want to run Windows apps and Mac OS X apps side-by-side, use Apple's built-in VirtualPC-type application. The key for the latter is extremely seamless exchange of files and copy-and-paste of text, images, etc.
We know that clearly Apple's main profit and revenue stream is hardware sales. Ok, setting aside the iPod side of things, IIRC hardware sales of Macs still generates a greater percentage of profits for Apple. To keep Mac sales strong and to continue to have it on the rise, they have taken a bold step to play nicer with the Windows world.
If anyone can do it, it's Apple. Dual-boot into Windows is probably a nice solution for gaming and for when you need full dedicated resources given to the OS.
But VirtualPC-type virtualization is the key to penetrate the business market. I think the consumer market can only offer so much and Leopard will be an assault on the business market. Imagine you're a mid-level business manager. You've got an Intel iMac on your desk. You're able to seamlessly check your mail with Outlook (bleahhh) and switch over to Mac OS X to write on a few Dashboard stickies.
There is virtualization technology that's being hyped in the new Intel and AMD chips and we all really don't know what exactly it can offer. At the moment it's all guessing as to what performance and resource management is going to be like. Remember there is little if NO EMULATION because of it IS x86.
At the end of the day, I think that's what the Intel switch is about, beyond the inability of Freescale/IBM to deliver CPUs. It is growing market share of Macs in the business environment.
In essence then when we consider developers Steve Jobs has issued a harsh but perhaps necessary challenge to Mac developers. He's telling them, "Look, Mac OS X has so much fantastic technology that you do your thing right, you can out-compete similar apps in the Windows world -- in fact, you'll have to, because those Windows apps will be running right alongside your apps."
The only problem with my argument is what's been said many times here already. That if Windows apps run alongside Mac OS X in any way, what incentive is there for say Adobe or MYOB to actually *make* any OS X apps?
There's something Steve is targeting and a game plan we're clearly not seeing. Something up his sleeve. A big risk perhaps but maybe his goal is to take on the Windows-centric business world and triumph by increasing Mac market share in the business environment.
I think he wants to be Santa Claus, and have the last laugh. Ho ho ho.
Would it not have been better for Apple to release Boot Camp (non-beta) with Leopard later in the year? That way the development of Universal Binary (UB) versions of most of the Mac apps would be well underway, and the risk of Mac development stopping completely would have been minimised. After all, this is the greatest fear most of us have here - that Mac development will dwindle and die. If you add the ability to boot into XP within a Mac, to the difficulty that some developers have in writing the UB versions, then there's another reason to drop support. However, the more development time that is committed to UB, the less likely they are to back out completely. So, a few more months delay in release of Boot Camp would have been sensible IMO. Of course the hacks were well on their way to getting a fully functional Windows-on-a-Mac (WOAM) solution, but this was for the adventurous few. The simplicity and ease of set-up that Boot Camp offers brings WOAM within reach of many more people.
Why did Apple seemingly rush it out now? Did they see the hacked WOAM a threat? Perhaps the stability and functionality of the hacked WOAM compromised the OS X experience, and Apple wanted it done professionally, with no compromises. So they did it their way.
Then again, perhaps the timing won't be an issue. I don't believe Mac developers will make any rash decisions about OS direction. They'll wait until the dust settles before making changes, if at all.
Isn't it ironic, that the destiny, and perhaps very survival of the Mac platform could turn out to be reliant upon its rival?
That was my whole point. I didn't like the way you put it... 'good riddance'. Like you wanted them to leave. There are people out there trying to make a difference. I've actually spent the last 30 minutes browsing macgamestore and insidemacgames. I had no idea there were so many games for the mac. I haven't heard of a lot of them and they are from semi-large companies. I think this is the other thing that bothers me. I browse mac websites daily. Macnn, macworld, arstechica, macrumors, appleinsider, thinksecret, dealmac... I keep up on the mac news as closely as I can... and again... haven't heard of most of these games. I think that is a failure on our part. Not getting the word out so these games CAN sell and make a profit to INVEST into engineering NEW games. I am definitely adding insidemacgames.com to my daily list of websites now.
Having to port games from Windows, and having ported games typically run slower, have more bugs, and be released for only a fraction of the PC games on the market many months after the PC versions are released is a major annoyance. Without porting houses to get PC games running on the Mac, it would have been very boring for Mac gamers. However, now that you can run PC games as soon as they come out, at full speed and integrity, just like on a PC, I, and many other Mac users who like games, aren't going to pity the porting houses just because they have lost business. They had a cottage market based on a less-than-desirable fact of being a Mac user, and now their relevance is gone, and I'm not going to go out of my way to support them because why would I prefer buying a more-expensive, delayed, slower-running game when I can spend a single minute booting into Windows?
However, Mac-only titles I will still play and love. Games like Gooball and such are great games that play very well on the Mac, and I encourage their existance. But I'm not going to wait for ports of PC games when I can play them the day they come out.
Having to port games from Windows, and having ported games typically run slower, have more bugs, and be released for only a fraction of the PC games on the market many months after the PC versions are released is a major annoyance. Without porting houses to get PC games running on the Mac, it would have been very boring for Mac gamers. However, now that you can run PC games as soon as they come out, at full speed and integrity, just like on a PC, I, and many other Mac users who like games, aren't going to pity the porting houses just because they have lost business. They had a cottage market based on a less-than-desirable fact of being a Mac user, and now their relevance is gone, and I'm not going to go out of my way to support them because why would I prefer buying a more-expensive, delayed, slower-running game when I can spend a single minute booting into Windows?
However, Mac-only titles I will still play and love. Games like Gooball and such are great games that play very well on the Mac, and I encourage their existance. But I'm not going to wait for ports of PC games when I can play them the day they come out.
I wasn't insinuating to buy inferior mac ports. I was just saying he should have had more respect for the people that have worked hard to bring entertainment to the mac.
But either way, it doesn't hurt to throw a few dollars to a starving developer
I know a few things that will happen by the end of 2006! Leopard will be cool, apple's sales will rise, and the business world will sit up and take notice!
Honestly, I think boot camp is more for the professional / business world than for "pc gamers to game on macs" or "home users to use their pc software". Can home users do that??? Of course... but I think this is a strategy to CONVERT BUSINESSES TO APPLE. Think about the type of users that are least likely to convert... BUSINESSES. It's a fact. Some businesses are still using dos machines, or old unix machines to carry out tasks. Some still run windows 98 or windows 3.1. Needless to say I think there will be a lot of businesses upgrading in the near future because their hardware is getting so out of date and non supported.
If apple can grab some of these businesses, it would definitely help them in the long run. Losing the businesses in the world is why they lost so much market share.
And think about it. These cheap businesses that are running windows 95 and an old version of office, aren't going to want to buy a bunch of software. So what do they do? Dual boot into it when they NEED it. Sounds like a much better reason to release bootcamp than for home users.
Would it not have been better for Apple to release Boot Camp (non-beta) with Leopard later in the year? That way the development of Universal Binary (UB) versions of most of the Mac apps would be well underway, and the risk of Mac development stopping completely would have been minimised. After all, this is the greatest fear most of us have here - that Mac development will dwindle and die. If you add the ability to boot into XP within a Mac, to the difficulty that some developers have in writing the UB versions, then there's another reason to drop support. However, the more development time that is committed to UB, the less likely they are to back out completely. So, a few more months delay in release of Boot Camp would have been sensible IMO. Of course the hacks were well on their way to getting a fully functional Windows-on-a-Mac (WOAM) solution, but this was for the adventurous few. The simplicity and ease of set-up that Boot Camp offers brings WOAM within reach of many more people.
Why did Apple seemingly rush it out now? Did they see the hacked WOAM a threat? Perhaps the stability and functionality of the hacked WOAM compromised the OS X experience, and Apple wanted it done professionally, with no compromises. So they did it their way.
Then again, perhaps the timing won't be an issue. I don't believe Mac developers will make any rash decisions about OS direction. They'll wait until the dust settles before making changes, if at all.
Isn't it ironic, that the destiny, and perhaps very survival of the Mac platform could turn out to be reliant upon its rival?
Honestly, I think boot camp is more for the professional / business world than for "pc gamers to game on macs" or "home users to use their pc software". Can home users do that??? Of course... but I think this is a strategy to CONVERT BUSINESSES TO APPLE. Think about the type of users that are least likely to convert... BUSINESSES. It's a fact. Some businesses are still using dos machines, or old unix machines to carry out tasks. Some still run windows 98 or windows 3.1. Needless to say I think there will be a lot of businesses upgrading in the near future because their hardware is getting so out of date and non supported.
If apple can grab some of these businesses, it would definitely help them in the long run. Losing the businesses in the world is why they lost so much market share.
And think about it. These cheap businesses that are running windows 95 and an old version of office, aren't going to want to buy a bunch of software. So what do they do? Dual boot into it when they NEED it. Sounds like a much better reason to release bootcamp than for home users.
That depends on how, and even if, it's supported. Apple won't support Windows, and so far, MS isn't sure if they will.
While the consumer might not care too much, business will. I've been reading a lot about that very issue the past few days. Business will want someone to step up, and take responsibility. It could be that the bigger, commercial VARs will do that. But, it remains to be seen.
Ironically, MS has supported their OS when running through SoftWindows, and VPC (from the beginning, before they bought it). Those programs were licesensed as actual computers. The sticker required on all machines running Windows was even in the box. For that reason, I think they will support it, but until they give the ok, it's still up in the air.
I do know some bussiness people who are interested, but they have already had Mac's in their organizations.
But, it's the gamers who have been making the most noise. Go to most non-Mac enthusiasts sites, and you will see what I mean.
Comments
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, okay.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Accounting, CAE, Case tools, reporting, project management, financial tools....
Macs have a good showing in creative applications but in business applications they really struggle to make a mark.
Here's new support from Symantec. pcAnywhere 12.
If this continues to pick up, Macs will become integrated before too long.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/04/...canywhere.120/
Originally posted by icfireball
On a seperate now about Windows and Mac OS X on a Mac, Apple via Leopard needs to make it more integrated to have the best solution. For those users that have smaller hard drives, creating partitions will be very annoying in terms of disk usage. Also, I think it is important that people be able to run windows applications without running windows itself. I know I for one would make use of the ability of running Windows as a seperate OS, however many people don't give a shit about what OS system they are running... as long as it runs the programs they want to run, is fast, looks nice, and is secure. Thus for many people, Mac OS X running Windows programs with a full-speed emulator (programs run at the same speed or close to the same speed they would run under windows) would be the best solution.
Yah it sounds great on paper... where's the technical proof it can be done? As long as you're virtualizing windows, it's going to be slow. Period. You can do all the optimizing and DRM you want. It's going to be SLOWER than dual booting. Next: Ok you say, lets not virtualized but run the apps... Windows is such a damn mess that trying to get OS X to run an MFC exe or a C# app (I use that term loosely) would require so many libraries, and ... bah I just got up and am tired and don't want to explain something that isn't possible. =P
Originally posted by emig647
Yah it sounds great on paper... where's the technical proof it can be done? As long as you're virtualizing windows, it's going to be slow. Period. You can do all the optimizing and DRM you want. It's going to be SLOWER than dual booting. Next: Ok you say, lets not virtualized but run the apps... Windows is such a damn mess that trying to get OS X to run an MFC exe or a C# app (I use that term loosely) would require so many libraries, and ... bah I just got up and am tired and don't want to explain something that isn't possible. =P
I thought VM only slowed things down because it took more RAM.
running idle applications doesn't slow down my machine at all
I think windows XP in VM is bad for a different reason: security.
At least when you're booted into XP, you KNOW you're running it and are in danger of being mauled by internet cyberherpes. When it gets too much for you, I think it's a good thing you can restart and get away from it.
I think it's sort of crucial Apple make it dual-booting instead of VM. If it seamlessly runs windows Apps in OS X, it could mean many software makers would be less likely to put out stuff that's mac-only.
At least with the OS 9 -> OS X switch, you had carbon. With this, there's no intermediary. If you want a PC and a mac app, you have to write two totally different programs. If Apple ran windows in a VM, you could reach all audiences by writing just a windows app instead.
Originally posted by slughead
I thought VM only slowed things down because it took more RAM.
I went through this in previous posts...
But, no it takes more ram, cpu cycles, and northbridge cycles. OS X is the main os. Any application has to get permission to access any hardware or do anything. If it wasn't set up like this (like windows 98 wasn't) any application could grab a hold of part of the hardware (graphics card for instance), do something naughty and lock it. Because the OS gave up complete control it would have no way to recover. So it is set up now days that the OS always has complete control. So in order for windows be virtualized correctly it would need to ask permission to use these controls... where actually running windows (dual boot if you want) would be the controller instead of the controllee. Because it is the controllee it has to ask for these "permissions" to access things. Can it freely access ram? yah for the most part... (because it is thought of as an application), BUT it won't be able to freely access things like graphics cards, ports, etc without OS X. So there is always going to be some overhead from os x.
Originally posted by slughead
I thought VM only slowed things down because it took more RAM.
running idle applications doesn't slow down my machine at all
I think windows XP in VM is bad for a different reason: security.
At least when you're booted into XP, you KNOW you're running it and are in danger of being mauled by internet cyberherpes. When it gets too much for you, I think it's a good thing you can restart and get away from it.
I think it's sort of crucial Apple make it dual-booting instead of VM. If it seamlessly runs windows Apps in OS X, it could mean many software makers would be less likely to put out stuff that's mac-only.
At least with the OS 9 -> OS X switch, you had carbon. With this, there's no intermediary. If you want a PC and a mac app, you have to write two totally different programs. If Apple ran windows in a VM, you could reach all audiences by writing just a windows app instead.
Virtualization can run at pretty high speeds on the cpu, but as the native OS still controls the video, that area will not be running nearly as fast. That's the downside to virtualization.
Originally posted by melgross
Virtualization can run at pretty high speeds on the cpu, but as the native OS still controls the video, that area will not be running nearly as fast. That's the downside to virtualization.
Well damn, I wish I just would have used your short comment to be concise and clear.
Thus users will have an option -- you want full OS control and resources, dual-boot Windows or Mac OS X. You want to run Windows apps and Mac OS X apps side-by-side, use Apple's built-in VirtualPC-type application. The key for the latter is extremely seamless exchange of files and copy-and-paste of text, images, etc.
We know that clearly Apple's main profit and revenue stream is hardware sales. Ok, setting aside the iPod side of things, IIRC hardware sales of Macs still generates a greater percentage of profits for Apple. To keep Mac sales strong and to continue to have it on the rise, they have taken a bold step to play nicer with the Windows world.
If anyone can do it, it's Apple. Dual-boot into Windows is probably a nice solution for gaming and for when you need full dedicated resources given to the OS.
But VirtualPC-type virtualization is the key to penetrate the business market. I think the consumer market can only offer so much and Leopard will be an assault on the business market. Imagine you're a mid-level business manager. You've got an Intel iMac on your desk. You're able to seamlessly check your mail with Outlook (bleahhh) and switch over to Mac OS X to write on a few Dashboard stickies.
There is virtualization technology that's being hyped in the new Intel and AMD chips and we all really don't know what exactly it can offer. At the moment it's all guessing as to what performance and resource management is going to be like. Remember there is little if NO EMULATION because of it IS x86.
At the end of the day, I think that's what the Intel switch is about, beyond the inability of Freescale/IBM to deliver CPUs. It is growing market share of Macs in the business environment.
In essence then when we consider developers Steve Jobs has issued a harsh but perhaps necessary challenge to Mac developers. He's telling them, "Look, Mac OS X has so much fantastic technology that you do your thing right, you can out-compete similar apps in the Windows world -- in fact, you'll have to, because those Windows apps will be running right alongside your apps."
The only problem with my argument is what's been said many times here already. That if Windows apps run alongside Mac OS X in any way, what incentive is there for say Adobe or MYOB to actually *make* any OS X apps?
There's something Steve is targeting and a game plan we're clearly not seeing. Something up his sleeve. A big risk perhaps but maybe his goal is to take on the Windows-centric business world and triumph by increasing Mac market share in the business environment.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Personally I think Leopard will not have one being able to just run .exe files willy-nilly. Just creates too much of a mess. It would jack up the OS X interface massively. It is highly possible though that in addition to dual-boot, Apple will have Windows running "sandboxed" via their own VirtualPC-type application.
Thus users will have an option -- you want full OS control and resources, dual-boot Windows or Mac OS X. You want to run Windows apps and Mac OS X apps side-by-side, use Apple's built-in VirtualPC-type application. The key for the latter is extremely seamless exchange of files and copy-and-paste of text, images, etc.
We know that clearly Apple's main profit and revenue stream is hardware sales. Ok, setting aside the iPod side of things, IIRC hardware sales of Macs still generates a greater percentage of profits for Apple. To keep Mac sales strong and to continue to have it on the rise, they have taken a bold step to play nicer with the Windows world.
If anyone can do it, it's Apple. Dual-boot into Windows is probably a nice solution for gaming and for when you need full dedicated resources given to the OS.
But VirtualPC-type virtualization is the key to penetrate the business market. I think the consumer market can only offer so much and Leopard will be an assault on the business market. Imagine you're a mid-level business manager. You've got an Intel iMac on your desk. You're able to seamlessly check your mail with Outlook (bleahhh) and switch over to Mac OS X to write on a few Dashboard stickies.
There is virtualization technology that's being hyped in the new Intel and AMD chips and we all really don't know what exactly it can offer. At the moment it's all guessing as to what performance and resource management is going to be like. Remember there is little if NO EMULATION because of it IS x86.
At the end of the day, I think that's what the Intel switch is about, beyond the inability of Freescale/IBM to deliver CPUs. It is growing market share of Macs in the business environment.
In essence then when we consider developers Steve Jobs has issued a harsh but perhaps necessary challenge to Mac developers. He's telling them, "Look, Mac OS X has so much fantastic technology that you do your thing right, you can out-compete similar apps in the Windows world -- in fact, you'll have to, because those Windows apps will be running right alongside your apps."
The only problem with my argument is what's been said many times here already. That if Windows apps run alongside Mac OS X in any way, what incentive is there for say Adobe or MYOB to actually *make* any OS X apps?
There's something Steve is targeting and a game plan we're clearly not seeing. Something up his sleeve. A big risk perhaps but maybe his goal is to take on the Windows-centric business world and triumph by increasing Mac market share in the business environment.
I think he wants to be Santa Claus, and have the last laugh. Ho ho ho.
Oh, or maybe the Jolly Green Giant.
Originally posted by slughead
internet cyberherpes
The bane of Windows users everywhere!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=62515
I think he wants to be Santa Claus, and have the last laugh. Ho ho ho.
Oh, or maybe the Jolly Green Giant.
smartass
maybe he'll be giving free intel iMacs to all AppleInsider members
Why did Apple seemingly rush it out now? Did they see the hacked WOAM a threat? Perhaps the stability and functionality of the hacked WOAM compromised the OS X experience, and Apple wanted it done professionally, with no compromises. So they did it their way.
Then again, perhaps the timing won't be an issue. I don't believe Mac developers will make any rash decisions about OS direction. They'll wait until the dust settles before making changes, if at all.
Isn't it ironic, that the destiny, and perhaps very survival of the Mac platform could turn out to be reliant upon its rival?
Originally posted by emig647
That was my whole point. I didn't like the way you put it... 'good riddance'. Like you wanted them to leave. There are people out there trying to make a difference. I've actually spent the last 30 minutes browsing macgamestore and insidemacgames. I had no idea there were so many games for the mac. I haven't heard of a lot of them and they are from semi-large companies. I think this is the other thing that bothers me. I browse mac websites daily. Macnn, macworld, arstechica, macrumors, appleinsider, thinksecret, dealmac... I keep up on the mac news as closely as I can... and again... haven't heard of most of these games. I think that is a failure on our part. Not getting the word out so these games CAN sell and make a profit to INVEST into engineering NEW games. I am definitely adding insidemacgames.com to my daily list of websites now.
Having to port games from Windows, and having ported games typically run slower, have more bugs, and be released for only a fraction of the PC games on the market many months after the PC versions are released is a major annoyance. Without porting houses to get PC games running on the Mac, it would have been very boring for Mac gamers. However, now that you can run PC games as soon as they come out, at full speed and integrity, just like on a PC, I, and many other Mac users who like games, aren't going to pity the porting houses just because they have lost business. They had a cottage market based on a less-than-desirable fact of being a Mac user, and now their relevance is gone, and I'm not going to go out of my way to support them because why would I prefer buying a more-expensive, delayed, slower-running game when I can spend a single minute booting into Windows?
However, Mac-only titles I will still play and love. Games like Gooball and such are great games that play very well on the Mac, and I encourage their existance. But I'm not going to wait for ports of PC games when I can play them the day they come out.
Originally posted by Placebo
Having to port games from Windows, and having ported games typically run slower, have more bugs, and be released for only a fraction of the PC games on the market many months after the PC versions are released is a major annoyance. Without porting houses to get PC games running on the Mac, it would have been very boring for Mac gamers. However, now that you can run PC games as soon as they come out, at full speed and integrity, just like on a PC, I, and many other Mac users who like games, aren't going to pity the porting houses just because they have lost business. They had a cottage market based on a less-than-desirable fact of being a Mac user, and now their relevance is gone, and I'm not going to go out of my way to support them because why would I prefer buying a more-expensive, delayed, slower-running game when I can spend a single minute booting into Windows?
However, Mac-only titles I will still play and love. Games like Gooball and such are great games that play very well on the Mac, and I encourage their existance. But I'm not going to wait for ports of PC games when I can play them the day they come out.
I wasn't insinuating to buy inferior mac ports. I was just saying he should have had more respect for the people that have worked hard to bring entertainment to the mac.
But either way, it doesn't hurt to throw a few dollars to a starving developer
Honestly, I think boot camp is more for the professional / business world than for "pc gamers to game on macs" or "home users to use their pc software". Can home users do that??? Of course... but I think this is a strategy to CONVERT BUSINESSES TO APPLE. Think about the type of users that are least likely to convert... BUSINESSES. It's a fact. Some businesses are still using dos machines, or old unix machines to carry out tasks. Some still run windows 98 or windows 3.1. Needless to say I think there will be a lot of businesses upgrading in the near future because their hardware is getting so out of date and non supported.
If apple can grab some of these businesses, it would definitely help them in the long run. Losing the businesses in the world is why they lost so much market share.
And think about it. These cheap businesses that are running windows 95 and an old version of office, aren't going to want to buy a bunch of software. So what do they do? Dual boot into it when they NEED it. Sounds like a much better reason to release bootcamp than for home users.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
I think he wants to be Santa Claus, and have the last laugh. Ho ho ho.
Oh, or maybe the Jolly Green Giant.
smartass
Maybe so.
But, it does fit the concept of what you were saying doesn't it?
Quote:
maybe he'll be giving free intel iMacs to all AppleInsider members
Only if we're good, and eat all of our veggies.
Originally posted by Mobius
Would it not have been better for Apple to release Boot Camp (non-beta) with Leopard later in the year? That way the development of Universal Binary (UB) versions of most of the Mac apps would be well underway, and the risk of Mac development stopping completely would have been minimised. After all, this is the greatest fear most of us have here - that Mac development will dwindle and die. If you add the ability to boot into XP within a Mac, to the difficulty that some developers have in writing the UB versions, then there's another reason to drop support. However, the more development time that is committed to UB, the less likely they are to back out completely. So, a few more months delay in release of Boot Camp would have been sensible IMO. Of course the hacks were well on their way to getting a fully functional Windows-on-a-Mac (WOAM) solution, but this was for the adventurous few. The simplicity and ease of set-up that Boot Camp offers brings WOAM within reach of many more people.
Why did Apple seemingly rush it out now? Did they see the hacked WOAM a threat? Perhaps the stability and functionality of the hacked WOAM compromised the OS X experience, and Apple wanted it done professionally, with no compromises. So they did it their way.
Then again, perhaps the timing won't be an issue. I don't believe Mac developers will make any rash decisions about OS direction. They'll wait until the dust settles before making changes, if at all.
Isn't it ironic, that the destiny, and perhaps very survival of the Mac platform could turn out to be reliant upon its rival?
Eveerything you said here is right.
Originally posted by emig647
It's all possible
Honestly, I think boot camp is more for the professional / business world than for "pc gamers to game on macs" or "home users to use their pc software". Can home users do that??? Of course... but I think this is a strategy to CONVERT BUSINESSES TO APPLE. Think about the type of users that are least likely to convert... BUSINESSES. It's a fact. Some businesses are still using dos machines, or old unix machines to carry out tasks. Some still run windows 98 or windows 3.1. Needless to say I think there will be a lot of businesses upgrading in the near future because their hardware is getting so out of date and non supported.
If apple can grab some of these businesses, it would definitely help them in the long run. Losing the businesses in the world is why they lost so much market share.
And think about it. These cheap businesses that are running windows 95 and an old version of office, aren't going to want to buy a bunch of software. So what do they do? Dual boot into it when they NEED it. Sounds like a much better reason to release bootcamp than for home users.
That depends on how, and even if, it's supported. Apple won't support Windows, and so far, MS isn't sure if they will.
While the consumer might not care too much, business will. I've been reading a lot about that very issue the past few days. Business will want someone to step up, and take responsibility. It could be that the bigger, commercial VARs will do that. But, it remains to be seen.
Ironically, MS has supported their OS when running through SoftWindows, and VPC (from the beginning, before they bought it). Those programs were licesensed as actual computers. The sticker required on all machines running Windows was even in the box. For that reason, I think they will support it, but until they give the ok, it's still up in the air.
I do know some bussiness people who are interested, but they have already had Mac's in their organizations.
But, it's the gamers who have been making the most noise. Go to most non-Mac enthusiasts sites, and you will see what I mean.