<strong>BUT couldn´t you have a VPC-like interface running Windows on real hardware? I am not talking about THE VPC of course (since its a software solution) but a solution that from the users perspective worked like that? Then it would be like having two real hardware computers in one at the same time. You wouldn´t need a 2Ghz in that, only a relative cool 800-1000Mhz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would assume that they could do something along the lines of how classic works right now (different menu's). Of course that may require some sort of windows liscensing ...
If this were possible I doubt many people would switch. As Nonsuch pointed out, PC users probalby wouldn't be too impressed with the $2500-$3500 price tag attached. I personally feel it'd drive more people away from the mac. Why? Macs are already priced very steeply, add $500 on top of that (or take it out of the Mac specs) for your intel compatability (between hardware/R&D/software) & the mac starts looking even more overpriced. Could cause more people to jump ship.
There's also no way for Apple to increase it's marketshare without more applications running on it's operating system. I don't see how people fail to realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't agree. When I think of the software my PC-using family and friends rely on, there are very few applications that are not available in Mac versions. Macs can run MS Office, Outlook, AOL, RealPlayer, Netscape, Quicken, Toast, and just about every file-sharing client. There are some ignorant PC trolls who still like to trot out the 'no software' argument, but anyone who's actually investigated the subject knows it's a sham. I will agree with you as far as games are concerned, but Apple is apparently working on that. Obviously there are some niche-market specialty apps with no Mac equivalent, but those don't represent a barrier to entry for most of the computer using public.
As I see it, these factors, not application availability, are what keep most people from trying Macs:
1) Ignorance. This cannot be overstated. A lot of people think Macs can't use the internet, can't share data with PCs (even Office documents), can't run any useful software. Some of them probably think Apple went out of business back in the late 80s. Apple has its work cut out for it in this regard; fortunately, it <a href="http://www.apple.com/myths/"; target="_blank">appears</a> they have finally understood this.
2) Price/Performance. No getting around it: Macs are more expensive. Unlike a lot of folks around here, I understand why Macs are more expensive and why they will--perhaps should--remain so. I have no desire to see Apple enter the pricing bloodbath that all the other PC makers have willingly joined. Sadly, people see Dell commercials touting computer systems for $800, and that's what they think they should cost. Apple needs to make clear that the experience of using a Mac is worth the extra price. (That Apple's processors appear to be--and often are--much slower doesn't help either, obviously.)
3) Inertia. Like Gates himself said, Windows is good enough. For the common user, they can do everything on their cheap Windows box that they can do on a Mac, just not as efficiently or with as much satisfaction. They don't care.
4) Enterprise Indifference. Windows rules the workplace. This means that users considering a Mac will have to learn a new way of doing familiar tasks and may have compatibility issues should they try bringing any work home. It also reinforces the stereotype that Macs aren't "real" computers. Apple may just have to live with this--even with OS X I don't see them making great inroads into the enterprise sector.
If it was possible to have a dual processor device that could run x86 and ppc instructions equally, and apple made it(which if it involved AMd then apple would probably have to let AMD use PPc)then apple would become the best computer on the market case closed.
if there was a powermac that could run 3ds max and iTunes(just thinking of notorious mac-only and pc only apps)and furthermore if apple was the only company to be able to do this, there would be NO reason to have a PC, and apple would win, its that simple. I remember hearing that apple made a chip that did x86 and ppc instructions but it was INCREDIBLY unstable and would have been really costy back then, perhaps they have been working on it more? chances are that AMD or intel aren't involved though, because if AMD was involved its not very beneficial for AMD to give apple athlon rights(although if they did then AMD would remain profitable, and intel would die) and if it was just apple and AMD and if they were buddy-buddy sharing processors and stuff then the computer world would be united and the only obstacle left would be Microsoft and windows
at any rate I don't think we will be seeing a x86/risc ppc dual procesor computer anytime soon, but it is a hot topic, that apple has the advantage in(being they own PPC rights, therefore intel and AMD can't beat to the punch in doing this)
I would assume that they could do something along the lines of how classic works right now (different menu's). Of course that may require some sort of windows liscensing ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Didn't think of that. Yeah, Apple would have to license Windows from Microsoft.
[There's also no way for Apple to increase it's [marketshare without more applications running on [it's operating system. I don't see how people [fail to realize that.
/rant
Increasing marketshare IS NOT an issue! Keeping Marketshare percentage-wise should be the goal....WHY?.... The market is always expanding.
Therefore, the Mac userbase grows. Not many other manufacturers of PC's hold 5% approx to themselves. It's a PC, plain and simple... call it a Dell, a Compaq, an IBM or a Mac, it's still a PC that has survived.
Those few PC users who are curious about Mac OS will have to bite the bullet and get an iMac. There's no way to merge the Mac and Windows platforms without hurting the Mac, and I don't see how people persist in failing to realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I absolutely agree. 99.9% of the "Mac on x86" whiners are PC owners who want to try OSX without buying any hardware. It's interesting that they'll spend $1500 on new hardware to run XP, but $500 for a used iMac is a crime.
My Dad had a 7200 PC Compatible (with the Pentium card). It worked pretty well - command-Return flipped you between OSes. The main problem was the one plaguing Macs for years - lack of upgradeability. The card had a P100 on it (IIRC - pretty good at the time), but could not be swapped out for something better. Interestingly, the Mac side remained fairly functional (if slow - 120 MHz 601), but the Windows side gradually fell into uselessness. It gave a very nice contrast between the relative values of Mac and Windows hardware, but the impossibility of upgrading it doomed it.
My experience with that (the 7200 couldn't be upgraded, either) has left me leery of any system that can't be upgraded (i.e. iMacs, Cubes). I eventually swapped out the mobo for a 7300 (and the power supply, since the connector didn't fit), gave it a 350 MHz G4, an ATA card (and 30 GB hard drive), Firewire/USB card, and Voodoo5, and it's still a good machine - nearly 7 years after being made. I've spent maybe $1000 over the years on it, and it has been a very good workhorse, outliving 2 or 3 Windows PCs (and still superior to my friend's Rev. A iMac). This is one of the big reasons I buy Macs (besides the Mac OS). I'm ready for something new, though (finally), but my money will stay in my pocket until the G5s are out. I expect it to last me another 7-10 years.
[quote]I absolutely agree. 99.9% of the "Mac on x86" whiners are PC owners who want to try OSX without buying any hardware. It's interesting that they'll spend $1500 on new hardware to run XP, but $500 for a used iMac is a crime.<hr></blockquote>
Well, this isn't exactly Mac on x86 that I'm talking about. It's more of x86 on Mac. The Mac OS would still solely exist on Apple hardware, it would just allow people to run the 'Windows' apps on the Power Macs.
As Amorph alluded to, this is basically impossible.
An application when compiled is converted into machine code, so that the instructions which it contains can be sent directly to the microprocessor to be executed. (Note to assembly gurus: okay, you try explaining it in one sentence.)
So we would need two separate things: a) some addition to OS X so that it even recognized a compiled Windows .exe as being something that could be run, as opposed to a big file full of gibberish characters, and b) some piece of magnificent engineering that, when presented with one of these executables, would be able to understand that it is to be broken up into instructions, routed to the processor, and the results comprehended in some way.
Unfortunately, b) is called an operating system. It's usually called Windows.
Okay, but let's imagine a miraculous addition to OS X that would permit it to "comprehend" .exe files and run them on an auxiliary Intel processor in the machine. There's another problem: applications written for Windows rely on the Windows API, which is a set of standardized routines which handle things like displaying things on the screen, processing network activity, printing, etc. These are part of Windows, and .exes are going to be looking for them, so you'd have to write replacements into OS X which would handle these requests.
So we'd need to write something which comprehended what .exes were and how to execute them, and something which would supply what programs want the API to do. In essence, we'd need to rewrite Windows.
(standard disclaimers: obviously this is a complicated topic, etc. etc.)
There's also no way for Apple to increase it's marketshare without more applications running on it's operating system. I don't see how people fail to realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no way I'd buy a Mac if I was stuck using Windows software, no matter what the interface looks like, it just wouldn't be Mac software. I don't see how people fail to realize that.
this may be a way down the road, but what about the Windows emulators being built on Linux. Lindows <a href="http://www.lindows.com"; target="_blank">web page</a> is currently working on just such a thing (and getting sued by M$ for the name). If these projects come to fruition, then Apple could simply port the Linux emulator and have a built in windows mode at no additional cost.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Sorry, no. From the Lindows.com FAQ:
"LindowsOS will run on computer systems with a Pentium Processor or AMD Processor, 64 MB RAM and 1GB of disk space."
In other words, there's no low-level emulation. Lindows is probably built on WINE (WINE Is Not an Emulator), which is a clone of the Win32 libraries. If not, it's built on the same idea: Take advantage of the fact that the object code is native and supply the system libraries. Apps will, in theory, never know the difference. Unfortunately, that's not the sort of solution that can be easily ported to another hardware platform, because it's not emulation: hardware emulation (as in VPC) is still necessary. Fran's solution mitigates that somewhat by bringing an x86 chip on board. But the CPU isn't the only piece of hardware the apps will expect to be compatible with.
The easiest thing to do would be, essentially, to use the x86 chip to hardware-accelerate an environment like VPC, where the "other" OS is kept in a box. If you make it transparent, then everything from the kernel to the window manager has to be modified to be aware of the foreign threads and tasks and windows. And I doubt you'd get video acceleration, because the Mac drivers (and possibly the cards themselves) expect big-endian data. Running two drivers simultaneously is not an option, so the existing drivers would have to be rewritten, and they'd only work on platform-agnostic cards (cards that don't even have to be flashed to work on two different platforms). That alone would be no small feat, and its only one of many things that would have to be completely reengineered.
I wouldn't want to be the poor schmuck in charge writing the layer that translates Windows file-system calls transparently to HFS+ and back, either.
<strong>If it was possible to have a dual processor device that could run x86 and ppc instructions equally, and apple made it(which if it involved AMd then apple would probably have to let AMD use PPc)then apple would become the best computer on the market case closed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but it would only be on the market for a few months before Apple would declare bankruptcy. Think about it. If every (or even most) Mac could run Windows apps seemlessly, why would any developer make a Mac version of the app? There's no reason too. The only Mac apps would come out of Apple.
Now, given that Mac apps have then dried up, there's no reason to use the Mac anymore. All the software would run and behave like Windows apps, except with Aqua looking interface widgets. If you're running 99% Windows software, you might as well buy a cheaper Windows box, get the Aqua theme for Windowblinds and be done with it. And that's what most of Apple's customers would think too.
The Mac has its edge because of how well the Mac software integrates with the rest of the system. Running Windows apps on it would simple chip away at the Mac's value.
Remember, Apple does NOT have to win the marketshare batter, all it has to do is grow its own market. It will not do it by admitting to its customers that they need to run Windows software.
I think this was actually tried before. It was called the Power Macintosh 7300/180 PC Compatible, and it did have two processors in it: a 180MHz 604e Power PC, and a 166MHz Pentium.
I was working at a university computer store during the pre-G3/4 days, and what I remember about this model was that it was expensive--about $1000 more than the base 7300, which put it around the same price point of the Power Macintosh 8600/9600 towers. I remember telling people about it, but no one was interested because of the cost.
I'm guessing Apple didn't come out with another one because it had a high R&D cost without a comparable return on investment, and because of the availability of relatively inexpensive software solutions like Virtural PC.
Actually one post in this whole mess has me somewhat interested. What if Connectix bundled VPC with a PCI card that had a PC processor on it that would hardware accellerate VPC? They could sell the Hardware Acclerated one for more money than the Pure software version. Say $100-200 more. I think people would pay it if the speed was fast enough to play PC video games or get a bit of heavy lifting done. It could also have a built in graphics accelleration like the old Voodoo cards used to do. Sort of a shotgun effect. COuld be cool, and is a much more practical way to implement what Fran has brought up.
<strong>Actually one post in this whole mess has me somewhat interested. What if Connectix bundled VPC with a PCI card that had a PC processor on it that would hardware accellerate VPC? They could sell the Hardware Acclerated one for more money than the Pure software version. Say $100-200 more. I think people would pay it if the speed was fast enough to play PC video games or get a bit of heavy lifting done. It could also have a built in graphics accelleration like the old Voodoo cards used to do. Sort of a shotgun effect. COuld be cool, and is a much more practical way to implement what Fran has brought up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's a PCI card with a PC processor and graphics acceleration, limited to a relatively small market (PowerMacs), it would command substantially more than a $200 premium.
You'd also have to get another monitor to hook up to the onboard video circuitry, and performance would get throttled by memory latency, because the PCI bus would be a bottleneck.
Remember, Apple does NOT have to win the marketshare batter, all it has to do is grow its own market. It will not do it by admitting to its customers that they need to run Windows software.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point. Those who advocate bundling VPC with the Mac forget that, PR-wise, that would pretty much be an admission that the Mac platform alone is inadequate.
People want to run their older software when they upgrade their computers. Consumers invest in their systems with their software purchases, and if Apple is serious about getting people to switch to the Mac, they need to ensure that at least some of their older software is going to work.
Comments
<strong>BUT couldn´t you have a VPC-like interface running Windows on real hardware? I am not talking about THE VPC of course (since its a software solution) but a solution that from the users perspective worked like that? Then it would be like having two real hardware computers in one at the same time. You wouldn´t need a 2Ghz in that, only a relative cool 800-1000Mhz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would assume that they could do something along the lines of how classic works right now (different menu's). Of course that may require some sort of windows liscensing ...
If this were possible I doubt many people would switch. As Nonsuch pointed out, PC users probalby wouldn't be too impressed with the $2500-$3500 price tag attached. I personally feel it'd drive more people away from the mac. Why? Macs are already priced very steeply, add $500 on top of that (or take it out of the Mac specs) for your intel compatability (between hardware/R&D/software) & the mac starts looking even more overpriced. Could cause more people to jump ship.
<strong>
There's also no way for Apple to increase it's marketshare without more applications running on it's operating system. I don't see how people fail to realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't agree. When I think of the software my PC-using family and friends rely on, there are very few applications that are not available in Mac versions. Macs can run MS Office, Outlook, AOL, RealPlayer, Netscape, Quicken, Toast, and just about every file-sharing client. There are some ignorant PC trolls who still like to trot out the 'no software' argument, but anyone who's actually investigated the subject knows it's a sham. I will agree with you as far as games are concerned, but Apple is apparently working on that. Obviously there are some niche-market specialty apps with no Mac equivalent, but those don't represent a barrier to entry for most of the computer using public.
As I see it, these factors, not application availability, are what keep most people from trying Macs:
1) Ignorance. This cannot be overstated. A lot of people think Macs can't use the internet, can't share data with PCs (even Office documents), can't run any useful software. Some of them probably think Apple went out of business back in the late 80s. Apple has its work cut out for it in this regard; fortunately, it <a href="http://www.apple.com/myths/"; target="_blank">appears</a> they have finally understood this.
2) Price/Performance. No getting around it: Macs are more expensive. Unlike a lot of folks around here, I understand why Macs are more expensive and why they will--perhaps should--remain so. I have no desire to see Apple enter the pricing bloodbath that all the other PC makers have willingly joined. Sadly, people see Dell commercials touting computer systems for $800, and that's what they think they should cost. Apple needs to make clear that the experience of using a Mac is worth the extra price. (That Apple's processors appear to be--and often are--much slower doesn't help either, obviously.)
3) Inertia. Like Gates himself said, Windows is good enough. For the common user, they can do everything on their cheap Windows box that they can do on a Mac, just not as efficiently or with as much satisfaction. They don't care.
4) Enterprise Indifference. Windows rules the workplace. This means that users considering a Mac will have to learn a new way of doing familiar tasks and may have compatibility issues should they try bringing any work home. It also reinforces the stereotype that Macs aren't "real" computers. Apple may just have to live with this--even with OS X I don't see them making great inroads into the enterprise sector.
if there was a powermac that could run 3ds max and iTunes(just thinking of notorious mac-only and pc only apps)and furthermore if apple was the only company to be able to do this, there would be NO reason to have a PC, and apple would win, its that simple. I remember hearing that apple made a chip that did x86 and ppc instructions but it was INCREDIBLY unstable and would have been really costy back then, perhaps they have been working on it more? chances are that AMD or intel aren't involved though, because if AMD was involved its not very beneficial for AMD to give apple athlon rights(although if they did then AMD would remain profitable, and intel would die) and if it was just apple and AMD and if they were buddy-buddy sharing processors and stuff then the computer world would be united and the only obstacle left would be Microsoft and windows
at any rate I don't think we will be seeing a x86/risc ppc dual procesor computer anytime soon, but it is a hot topic, that apple has the advantage in(being they own PPC rights, therefore intel and AMD can't beat to the punch in doing this)
<strong>
I would assume that they could do something along the lines of how classic works right now (different menu's). Of course that may require some sort of windows liscensing ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Didn't think of that. Yeah, Apple would have to license Windows from Microsoft.
Then Microsoft could claim more marketshare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[There's also no way for Apple to increase it's [marketshare without more applications running on [it's operating system. I don't see how people [fail to realize that.
/rant
Increasing marketshare IS NOT an issue! Keeping Marketshare percentage-wise should be the goal....WHY?.... The market is always expanding.
Therefore, the Mac userbase grows. Not many other manufacturers of PC's hold 5% approx to themselves. It's a PC, plain and simple... call it a Dell, a Compaq, an IBM or a Mac, it's still a PC that has survived.
/rant off
/appease
And they better have "Son of Newton" soon
No attack on you there btw
<strong>
Those few PC users who are curious about Mac OS will have to bite the bullet and get an iMac. There's no way to merge the Mac and Windows platforms without hurting the Mac, and I don't see how people persist in failing to realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I absolutely agree. 99.9% of the "Mac on x86" whiners are PC owners who want to try OSX without buying any hardware. It's interesting that they'll spend $1500 on new hardware to run XP, but $500 for a used iMac is a crime.
My Dad had a 7200 PC Compatible (with the Pentium card). It worked pretty well - command-Return flipped you between OSes. The main problem was the one plaguing Macs for years - lack of upgradeability. The card had a P100 on it (IIRC - pretty good at the time), but could not be swapped out for something better. Interestingly, the Mac side remained fairly functional (if slow - 120 MHz 601), but the Windows side gradually fell into uselessness. It gave a very nice contrast between the relative values of Mac and Windows hardware, but the impossibility of upgrading it doomed it.
My experience with that (the 7200 couldn't be upgraded, either) has left me leery of any system that can't be upgraded (i.e. iMacs, Cubes). I eventually swapped out the mobo for a 7300 (and the power supply, since the connector didn't fit), gave it a 350 MHz G4, an ATA card (and 30 GB hard drive), Firewire/USB card, and Voodoo5, and it's still a good machine - nearly 7 years after being made. I've spent maybe $1000 over the years on it, and it has been a very good workhorse, outliving 2 or 3 Windows PCs (and still superior to my friend's Rev. A iMac). This is one of the big reasons I buy Macs (besides the Mac OS). I'm ready for something new, though (finally), but my money will stay in my pocket until the G5s are out. I expect it to last me another 7-10 years.
BTW, I keep all my cars for 10+ years, too.
Well, this isn't exactly Mac on x86 that I'm talking about. It's more of x86 on Mac. The Mac OS would still solely exist on Apple hardware, it would just allow people to run the 'Windows' apps on the Power Macs.
An application when compiled is converted into machine code, so that the instructions which it contains can be sent directly to the microprocessor to be executed. (Note to assembly gurus: okay, you try explaining it in one sentence.)
So we would need two separate things: a) some addition to OS X so that it even recognized a compiled Windows .exe as being something that could be run, as opposed to a big file full of gibberish characters, and b) some piece of magnificent engineering that, when presented with one of these executables, would be able to understand that it is to be broken up into instructions, routed to the processor, and the results comprehended in some way.
Unfortunately, b) is called an operating system. It's usually called Windows.
Okay, but let's imagine a miraculous addition to OS X that would permit it to "comprehend" .exe files and run them on an auxiliary Intel processor in the machine. There's another problem: applications written for Windows rely on the Windows API, which is a set of standardized routines which handle things like displaying things on the screen, processing network activity, printing, etc. These are part of Windows, and .exes are going to be looking for them, so you'd have to write replacements into OS X which would handle these requests.
So we'd need to write something which comprehended what .exes were and how to execute them, and something which would supply what programs want the API to do. In essence, we'd need to rewrite Windows.
(standard disclaimers: obviously this is a complicated topic, etc. etc.)
------------------------
All my .exes live in T.exas.
Then again, FPUs used to be coprocessors too...
<strong>
There's also no way for Apple to increase it's marketshare without more applications running on it's operating system. I don't see how people fail to realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no way I'd buy a Mac if I was stuck using Windows software, no matter what the interface looks like, it just wouldn't be Mac software. I don't see how people fail to realize that.
Who's next?
Sorry, no. From the Lindows.com FAQ:
"LindowsOS will run on computer systems with a Pentium Processor or AMD Processor, 64 MB RAM and 1GB of disk space."
In other words, there's no low-level emulation. Lindows is probably built on WINE (WINE Is Not an Emulator), which is a clone of the Win32 libraries. If not, it's built on the same idea: Take advantage of the fact that the object code is native and supply the system libraries. Apps will, in theory, never know the difference. Unfortunately, that's not the sort of solution that can be easily ported to another hardware platform, because it's not emulation: hardware emulation (as in VPC) is still necessary. Fran's solution mitigates that somewhat by bringing an x86 chip on board. But the CPU isn't the only piece of hardware the apps will expect to be compatible with.
The easiest thing to do would be, essentially, to use the x86 chip to hardware-accelerate an environment like VPC, where the "other" OS is kept in a box. If you make it transparent, then everything from the kernel to the window manager has to be modified to be aware of the foreign threads and tasks and windows. And I doubt you'd get video acceleration, because the Mac drivers (and possibly the cards themselves) expect big-endian data. Running two drivers simultaneously is not an option, so the existing drivers would have to be rewritten, and they'd only work on platform-agnostic cards (cards that don't even have to be flashed to work on two different platforms). That alone would be no small feat, and its only one of many things that would have to be completely reengineered.
I wouldn't want to be the poor schmuck in charge writing the layer that translates Windows file-system calls transparently to HFS+ and back, either.
[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>If it was possible to have a dual processor device that could run x86 and ppc instructions equally, and apple made it(which if it involved AMd then apple would probably have to let AMD use PPc)then apple would become the best computer on the market case closed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but it would only be on the market for a few months before Apple would declare bankruptcy. Think about it. If every (or even most) Mac could run Windows apps seemlessly, why would any developer make a Mac version of the app? There's no reason too. The only Mac apps would come out of Apple.
Now, given that Mac apps have then dried up, there's no reason to use the Mac anymore. All the software would run and behave like Windows apps, except with Aqua looking interface widgets. If you're running 99% Windows software, you might as well buy a cheaper Windows box, get the Aqua theme for Windowblinds and be done with it. And that's what most of Apple's customers would think too.
The Mac has its edge because of how well the Mac software integrates with the rest of the system. Running Windows apps on it would simple chip away at the Mac's value.
Remember, Apple does NOT have to win the marketshare batter, all it has to do is grow its own market. It will not do it by admitting to its customers that they need to run Windows software.
<strong>we'd need to rewrite Windows.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
and this is a bad thing
while were at it, lets talk about how great monkey literature would be - if only monkeys could write...
EDIT: spelling...
[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: grad student ]
[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: grad student ]</p>
I was working at a university computer store during the pre-G3/4 days, and what I remember about this model was that it was expensive--about $1000 more than the base 7300, which put it around the same price point of the Power Macintosh 8600/9600 towers. I remember telling people about it, but no one was interested because of the cost.
I'm guessing Apple didn't come out with another one because it had a high R&D cost without a comparable return on investment, and because of the availability of relatively inexpensive software solutions like Virtural PC.
<strong>
and this is a bad thing
It would be an expensive thing, which is not what Apple needs right now.
<strong>Actually one post in this whole mess has me somewhat interested. What if Connectix bundled VPC with a PCI card that had a PC processor on it that would hardware accellerate VPC? They could sell the Hardware Acclerated one for more money than the Pure software version. Say $100-200 more. I think people would pay it if the speed was fast enough to play PC video games or get a bit of heavy lifting done. It could also have a built in graphics accelleration like the old Voodoo cards used to do. Sort of a shotgun effect. COuld be cool, and is a much more practical way to implement what Fran has brought up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it's a PCI card with a PC processor and graphics acceleration, limited to a relatively small market (PowerMacs), it would command substantially more than a $200 premium.
You'd also have to get another monitor to hook up to the onboard video circuitry, and performance would get throttled by memory latency, because the PCI bus would be a bottleneck.
<strong>
Remember, Apple does NOT have to win the marketshare batter, all it has to do is grow its own market. It will not do it by admitting to its customers that they need to run Windows software.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point. Those who advocate bundling VPC with the Mac forget that, PR-wise, that would pretty much be an admission that the Mac platform alone is inadequate.
<a href="http://www.apple.com/myths/"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/myths/</a>;
People want to run their older software when they upgrade their computers. Consumers invest in their systems with their software purchases, and if Apple is serious about getting people to switch to the Mac, they need to ensure that at least some of their older software is going to work.