Briefly: Apple on Vista, Leopard, retail windows

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 135
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ensign Pulver


    Oh, and "Hasta la vista, Vista " is sheer brilliance.



    UMMM...No; not only is it the most obvious pun in computing this decade, it has been used by everyone. The first place I saw it was a slashdot comment in the story announcing the Longhorn->vista thing.
  • Reply 42 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BWhaler


    Vista is already delayed, and everyone knows it is going to be delayed again. There is nothing stopping Microsoft from delaying it by another 6 months and adding in whatever is missing from Visa that Apple announces for Leopard.



    MS's problem is that Vista is so big that adding features causes a lot more problems elsewhere. If Vista adds Leopard features, it'll have a lot more bugs creep up, and it won't come out until early 2008 or so, when everyone is talking about 10.6



    Additionally, if Leopard beats Vista, it creams XP. Like lays waste to it. And if users start thinking about XP as "7 year old technology", it's gonna look embarassing for MS. Additionally, XP doesn't have much SMP support - I think it has issues beyond 2-4 cores, if I hear right. It also doesn't have HD-DVD or Blu-Ray support. Microsoft would have to release an SP3 with those features, or OEMs are gonna be shipping PCs that are limited by Windows XP. And 4 cores is coming this Christmas, and will be in mid-range Dells by Q2 2007. If Vista isn't out, than quad-core iMacs or whatever Apple has there will dominate quad-core Windows machines, just because of the superiority of the OS.
  • Reply 43 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski


    Ok, but MS's lead is only because of it's lead. MS is supported only by inertia if Vista falls through. If Office winds up not being well-liked (the interface change is semi-divisive), then OO.o could get a bit of a boost, and if Vista bombs, people will look at Macs.



    Apple's winning here isn't 50% of the market, it's more like 15. All Apple and Linux need to do is loosen MS's grip and get it to about 75% market share. Then Windows developers are gonna look at Mac and Linux and see that they can add a lot to their profits by coding for them. If a competitor starts a Mac port, you darn well better too.



    There no that apple is going to get 75% market share with it's os locked to its hardware.
  • Reply 44 of 135
    I know that. I meant reduce Windows to 75% market share (from 94% or whatever it is now). Apple could take 15% of the market, and Linux 8-10%.
  • Reply 45 of 135
    bwhalerbwhaler Posts: 260member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski


    MS's problem is that Vista is so big that adding features causes a lot more problems elsewhere. If Vista adds Leopard features, it'll have a lot more bugs creep up, and it won't come out until early 2008 or so, when everyone is talking about 10.6



    Additionally, if Leopard beats Vista, it creams XP. Like lays waste to it. And if users start thinking about XP as "7 year old technology", it's gonna look embarassing for MS. Additionally, XP doesn't have much SMP support - I think it has issues beyond 2-4 cores, if I hear right. It also doesn't have HD-DVD or Blu-Ray support. Microsoft would have to release an SP3 with those features, or OEMs are gonna be shipping PCs that are limited by Windows XP. And 4 cores is coming this Christmas, and will be in mid-range Dells by Q2 2007. If Vista isn't out, than quad-core iMacs or whatever Apple has there will dominate quad-core Windows machines, just because of the superiority of the OS.



    Both good comments Zach.



    I don't disagree with you at all. I am just being cautious given Microsoft's remarkable success at making Windows a "good enough" copy of Apple's OS to keep serious switching from happening. I just don't want MSFT to be so embarrassed that they abort their current release schedule.



    I think Apple's original plan--and in part why they pushed back WWDC this year--was to announce Leopard's features late enough in Vista's development cycle that Microsoft would be stuck and the die cast. MSFT would be embarassed for many years.



    But I think Vista has been delayed beyond anyone's expectations, and this makes a window of opportunity for Microsoft--especially if the feature and design gap is wide enough--to simply take the hit and delay Vista. Hell, they can take another year, it's not like the stock is going to go much lower at this point.



    Obviously, I am rooting for Apple here. I want either MSFT to be stuck with Vista and Leopard to blow away the market. And my dream scenario is that Leopard is such an epic series of innovation MSFT has no choice but to release what they have and try better with SP6 in two years.



    But with all that said, I agree with your points. As I said in my original post, I am being very pessimistic given how lackluster--both in features and in quality--Tiger has been. But I am hoping tomorrow Apple shows us what they are capable of.
  • Reply 46 of 135
    Tiger was a developer release. There were something more than a dozen major (or at least non-trivial) new APIs added to Tiger. I see Leopard consolidating that. I mean, I think Dashboard and Exposé were tossed on at the last minute to add some "end user" stuff to the release. I mean, with all the APIs and working on the Intel switch, there wasn't much up-front stuff for Tiger.



    In so far as stuff that Apple is going to be in a great position to improve further from Tiger:



    Dashboard

    Spotlight (this has enormous potential)

    Core Image

    Q2D Extreme

    Boot Camp

    X11
  • Reply 47 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski


    MS's problem is that Vista is so big that adding features causes a lot more problems elsewhere. If Vista adds Leopard features, it'll have a lot more bugs creep up, and it won't come out until early 2008 or so, when everyone is talking about 10.6



    Additionally, if Leopard beats Vista, it creams XP. Like lays waste to it. And if users start thinking about XP as "7 year old technology", it's gonna look embarassing for MS. Additionally, XP doesn't have much SMP support - I think it has issues beyond 2-4 cores, if I hear right. It also doesn't have HD-DVD or Blu-Ray support. Microsoft would have to release an SP3 with those features, or OEMs are gonna be shipping PCs that are limited by Windows XP. And 4 cores is coming this Christmas, and will be in mid-range Dells by Q2 2007. If Vista isn't out, than quad-core iMacs or whatever Apple has there will dominate quad-core Windows machines, just because of the superiority of the OS.



    <in a feeble voice> "Yall whipper snappers don't know how good you gots it! Why, I remember when I was your age, you could fit a WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEM on a lil ole 800k floppy! What's a floppy? <sigh> Kids these days!"
  • Reply 48 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Placebo


    Because those points fail to address Vista's worth as an operating system?



    I like Mac os x but don't like what apple is doing with there hardware with think like



    No mid-range head less systems



    Forced to get an AIO or a high end workstation to get good video



    apple high costs you get laptops with bigger screens, real video cards, more ram, bigger Hard Drives, and more for just about the same price as the base Mac book.



    I would like to have a amd 4x4 system runing Mac os x and a system like is cheaper then a workstation and does not use high cost FB-DIMMS and will be better the intels quad-core that are just 2 duel core that are linked by a FSB the 4x4 can also use AMD up comeing quad-core too.
  • Reply 49 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Celemourn


    <in a feeble voice> "Yall whipper snappers don't know how good you gots it! Why, I remember when I was your age, you could fit a WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEM on a lil ole 800k floppy! What's a floppy? <sigh> Kids these days!"



  • Reply 50 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ai51240






    Frightening fact: On my tower, XP started as a 500mb installation, plus about 1gb for the page file. Now, after installing SP2, it's rocking its way at about 5 GB plus about 4 GB of page file. And that's JUST the os, not including ANY 3rd party aplications. I have those on a separate partition. Frightening. I REALLY HATE to think what vista is going to do. Anyone have a spare 250GB drive I can use as my system disk?



    *edit* Oh, and that was XP Home. no clue what pro or 64 would do.
  • Reply 51 of 135
    yes Joe, but there are two catches:



    1) In order to afford to sell software-only, OS X would have to cost $200 or more.

    2) Apple would have a hard time supporting every motherboard/graphics card/printer/camera under the sun. This is what causes a lot of windows headaches - driver issues and whatnot.



    Oh, and a Mac Pro will cream a 4x4 in processing power, and Quad-SLI hasn't proven all that useful just yet. If there is a Quad 2.0 Mac Pro with SLI, it'll kill any 4x4. I mean, Quad SLI is gonna cost more than SLI'd 7900GTs and is gonna be like 10% better (because of paralellization issues and bus issues. And 2.0 GHz Woodcrest will beat any FX that isn't heavily overclocked. Yes, FB-DIMMs are a pain in the butt, I'll admit. Also, a 1333 GHz FSB is not gonna be a huge bottleneck in a dual-dual situation. A dual-quad situation maybe, but generally it's only in 8+ processor environments that HT proves a huge plus over a fast FSB (which is not to say it doesn't beat an 800 MHz FSB, but 1333 is a different story)
  • Reply 52 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Celemourn


    Frightening fact: On my tower, XP started as a 500mb installation, plus about 1gb for the page file. Now, after installing SP2, it's rocking its way at about 5 GB plus about 4 GB of page file. And that's JUST the os, not including ANY 3rd party aplications. I have those on a separate partition. Frightening. I REALLY HATE to think what vista is going to do. Anyone have a spare 250GB drive I can use as my system disk?



    *edit* Oh, and that was XP Home. no clue what pro or 64 would do.



    To be fair here, I do somehow have just under 6 GBs of Virtual Memory ATM. I have 768 MB of RAM, and I'm running AOL, Adium, Firefox, iTunes, and Mail. That's something Apple could work on fixing in Leopard. I don't really care, since I have about 18 GB of HDD space free, but it's not like Vista is the only HDD hog.
  • Reply 53 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski


    To be fair here, I do somehow have just under 6 GBs of Virtual Memory ATM. I have 768 MB of RAM, and I'm running AOL, Adium, Firefox, iTunes, and Mail. That's something Apple could work on fixing in Leopard. I don't really care, since I have about 18 GB of HDD space free, but it's not like Vista is the only HDD hog.





    *Shudder* oh how I loath virtual memory! Remember when you would use virtual memory on your old IIsi because you couldn't afford the REAL ram? and remember when you upgraded to a brand new 601, you turned the tables and started using a RAM disk? ahh, the days of manual allocation! just get like 50TB of ram and call it good.
  • Reply 54 of 135
    Yeah - I remember virtual memory back on the Performa, but even then, it was only like 2x your real RAM. But here there's an awful lot of VM to go around at 6 GB, it's like 8 times the amount of RAM
  • Reply 55 of 135
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon


    I would like to have a amd 4x4 system runing Mac os x and a system like is cheaper then a workstation and does not use high cost FB-DIMMS and will be better the intels quad-core that are just 2 duel core that are linked by a FSB



    duel = fight

    dual = two



    I'm not sure which you refer to. Intel's 51xx Xeons are not linked together by the FSB (each socket has its own dedicated channel), though the Kentsfield is linked by FSB. So far, the 51xx series chips is proving to be the performance king in the workstation and dual socket server market. The successor to Kentsfield will not be linked by FSB, will have a shared cache. Apple's chosen route for Mac Pro isn't clear yet, I hope that is cleared up during the keynote.



    I do agree with you though that the lock-in isn't helping acceptance. I think their hardware is nice, but I only really want their OS, there are plenty of times when their hardware doesn't suit my needs.
  • Reply 56 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM


    duel = fight

    dual = two



    I'm not sure which you refer to. Intel's 51xx Xeons are not linked together by the FSB, though the Kentsfield is. The successor to Kentsfield will not be. For the 5100, each processor socket has its own channel to the chipset. Apple's chosen route isn't clear yet.



    I do agree with you though that the lock-in isn't helping acceptance. I think their hardware is nice, but I only really want their OS, there are plenty of times when their hardware doesn't suit my needs.



    I primarily want the MacOS because it's a load more stable than Win. I also love Apple's industrial design. But I want a tablet and Apple hasn't given any significant indications that they will ever produce even so much as a convertable (I don't really care for the slate idea. Tablet is more useful to me as a suplimental input system, rather than a substitute.) So I'd love to just get, say, a Fujitsu TabletPC and install MacOS as the base system. Except that it probably would have as much trouble as Windows has in regards to stability.



    The wonderful thing about the MacOS is that it IS locked to Apple's hardware, which generally leads to mondo better stability, since (yes, I know this is review) Apple's software engineers know exactly what hardware it will be run on, and can make sure that it runs well, rather than trying to support billions and billions (thanks Sagen) of configurations.



    So I'd love to be able to get non-Apple hardware if what Apple makes doesn't suit my needs, but doing so would really open pandora's box.



    Hmm... what if Apple were to recognize specific PC types (such as tablets) that it had no interest in producing, and partner up with an existing pc manufacturer to licence the MacOS and tightly control those models so as to provide the same level of stability....



    Hee hee! It'll never happen! (probably)
  • Reply 57 of 135
    bdj21yabdj21ya Posts: 297member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski


    OK guys - let's play a game:



    Honest guess as to Vista consumer release date:



    A) Never (world ends, or MS goes bankrupt first)

    B) Jan-Mar 2007

    C) Mar-May 2007

    D) June-Aug 2007



    Yeah, my money's on C too, though I think March or April. Either way, it will soon after become painfully clear that it was still much to soon to release. The real issue is that MS has made the whole OS a lot more difficult to control, at least for those of us who like drop down menus. I've tried to use both WMP 11 and IE7, but they both drove me crazy with how hard it was to do anything. I also can't stand how HUGE the whole interface is. You can't get anything done with the space that's left over after this new GUI moves in.
  • Reply 58 of 135
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Celemourn


    what if Apple were to recognize specific PC types (such as tablets) that it had no interest in producing, and partner up with an existing pc manufacturer to licence the MacOS and tightly control those models so as to provide the same level of stability....



    Hee hee! It'll never happen! (probably)



    The problem with that concept is: for obvious reasons, Apple would only do it if it could expand the Mac platform's market share. Could a convertible? Or a tablet PC? And if they could, why wouldn't Apple produce them themselves? Since Apple doesn't produce them, they probably believe that the needn't R&D wouldn't be justifiable based on projected sales, and that wouldn't be different for a third party either. (Even if you were to take a third party that already has experience with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, that's still a different story than using Mac OS X as a tablet computer.)
  • Reply 59 of 135
    I think that as we see Apple grow, it'll move into more and more markets with extra hardware lines.



    Personally, I think we'll see a new line some time in the next year. I think Apple has three more lines it should make:



    1) mid-range desktop (iMac w/o screen)

    2) tablet

    3) smaller pro laptop - I miss the 12" Powerbook. I'd like to see a 10-12 inch model MBP, and I think we will.
  • Reply 60 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski


    OK guys - let's play a game:



    Honest guess as to Vista consumer release date:



    A) Never (world ends, or MS goes bankrupt first)

    B) Jan-Mar 2007

    C) Mar-May 2007

    D) June-Aug 2007



    OK guys - let's play a game:



    Honest guess as to Copland consumer release date:



    A) Never (world ends, or Apple goes bankrupt first)

    B) Jan-Mar 1996

    C) Mar-May 1996

    D) June-Aug 1997
Sign In or Register to comment.