<strong> I don't think Apple is looking to go x86, they would piss off too many developers. But a PowerPC made by AMD would work well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh man .. that would be sexy !!!.... i agree this sounds like the best option, it would benefit both companies greatly and makes sense since both companies are being forced againsed the wall lately by the Intel MS alliance...
There is this misconception that OS X on x86 would be *cheaper*. Forget the fact that the PPC is in itself a less expensive chip than the Pentiums.... Anyway, the ONLY way it would be cheaper is if Apple allowed OS X to be installed on preexisting Wintel machines. Machines that use "off-the-shelf" XYZ motherboards. Neither Dell nor Gateway design their own mobos and most x86 system are simply slapped together with commodity parts. HP, Compaq (dead) and *maybe* IBM still do R&D of their own mobos. And let me say this... ANY OEM x86 system you buy is as proprietary as any other. Just try and get tech support if you alter and major component from the original configuration or God forbid... Try and install a different mobo in a Dell case etc. Hell, I installed a new video card in a friends Dell because he had to have the latest and greatest... The thing started to have a seizure about a month later. He called Dell for support and guess what? Since it wasn't the same system they sent him as per the build-sheet, they wouldn't help him. Believe me this happened. I can confirm that same EXACT experience when my cousin's design company attempted to "upgrade" a few of the graphics cards in their Dell workstations. I have build-sheets and a phone number if you'd like to call them and confirm for yourself.
[[[ I will address the ROM issue in point 5, but the old idea that plug and play does not work on PCs is flat out fud. I have never had a USB device, a PCI card, or a Parallel port printer fail to be recognized and installed easily in all the years I have had PCs. ]]]
Then you are VERY lucky. I've worked with, configured and owned them over the better part of 14 years... Commodore and Amiga before that. I can say that for every video card, sound card, modem and SCSI card I've installed...Not to mention monitor, the PC's were nothing but a pain. And let's not even talk about IRQ problems and that train-wreck known as the registry. You are very lucky indeed. I suppose you built all your own PC's too, huh? I bet they were more reliable then DELLs... lol
[[[Also, the fact that the PowerPC is RISC based is not a virtue in and of itself, and can not be claimed as a benefit without a deeper explanation.\t]]]
I think it would be beyond the scope of this forum. You're being silly... :-)
[[[I am not a high level programmer but I think Apple programmers would be able to get the Hammer to emulate a PowerPC at 10% to 20% of its clock speed, meaning it would be able to emulate a 300MHz to 600MHz PPC. This would be enough for basic PowerPC emulation.]]]
You are guessing... And no, it would NOT be good enough. I guess the same could be said for VPC...\t
[[[I have both Macs and PCs yet I appreciate the way Windows will inform you a new device has been installed and will attempt to locate drivers for it. Even better, if your device was made in 2001 or before, the drivers will most likely be included in XP. ]]]
Um, I've had MUCH better experiences on a Mac. Just plug the stuff in and it really does work... I didn't have to reset the machine spouting weird incantations in Aramaic while patting my head and rubbing my tummy to get the thing to configure. On Windoze systems I did that and a lot more. O, and since you brought it up, here is the latest example of Plug-N-Pray PC vs. Plug-N-Play Mac:
As for OS X on x86, I believe that most of the reason posted here on this forum AGAINST the idea are spot-on. There really would be no advantage other than a perceptual on that has to do with the "numbers-rating game". The trouble with Moto is that they have MANUFACTURING problems and not design problems. IBM seems to be doing well. Not only that, but the real reason (and I know many of you aren't going to believe me) that Macs seem to be lagging in the benchmark comparisons is because of less-than-acceptable coding techniques. I'd rather not get into it here, but one thing that might account for the seeming under-whelming performance is the lack of parallelism within developers PPC code. I posted a whole slew of info on my other post speculating about the G5, titled :"G5 Speculation Revisited" you should go check it out... Anyway, OS Xon x86? I highly doubt it. Besides, it's not something we really want... And since Apple will have to DESIGN THEIR OWN x86 mobo and accompanying logic boards etc... the cost savings will evaporate quickly.
To compete with Intel and Microsoft, Apple has to show the megahertz. The average computer user looks at the megahertz and figures that a 2ghz P4 will blow a 1ghz G4 out of the water. They don't look at performance tests they look at what the clock speed on the box says. Aside from this, Apple is way behind in terms of buss speed. Intel is currently marketing a 500mghz system buss speed alongside a 2.4ghz P4. If I was a consumer and laid an Apple box alongside a Dell box and simply compaired numbers, the Apple looks like a celeron. I agree that the G4 is a bada** chip, but its definately falling behind the times in terms of chip clock speed and has been behind forever in terms of buss speed. Come on Steve, dump Motorola and hook up with AMD. AMD must be doing something right, because their 1.5 chips consistently outperform their counterpart 2.4 P4 Intel chips. I think AMD can set a level playing field with Microsoft and Intel. Besides, AMD is well known to the average computer user and might entice some PC to mac switches that Apple is heavily advertising.
Only Geeks care about Bus speeds and Megahertz. My Mother cared more about Office than the total speed of her machine.
The G4 is an elegant design and despite the Mac Sheep braying about Moto in a negative light Macs are still in demand.
Put it this way. If Macs supported DDR their buss would instantly jump to 266Mhz for the Powermacs and 200Mhz for the iMac and notebooks.
Spouting off about Bus speed and megahertz is what the user who really knows nothing does. Odds are if you debate someone who really knows their stuff on computers and Motherboards you will quickly have your hat handed to you.
People really need to get over this idea that AMD producing PPC processors would benefit them in some way. It isn't good business sense for AMD and Apple to team up right now. It wouldn't benefit either of them at all and would merely make AMD bleed even more cash and Apple make even less progress.
AMD needs to consolidate its current markets and work on expanding margins and respectability in them. In particular for them that means attacking the server and enterprise market with their Opteron chips.
[quote]Originally posted by fromdetroit7:
<strong>To compete with Intel and Microsoft, Apple has to show the megahertz. The average computer user looks at the megahertz and figures that a 2ghz P4 will blow a 1ghz G4 out of the water. They don't look at performance tests they look at what the clock speed on the box says. </strong><hr></blockquote>Actually the average user doesn't look at it at all. They just wander down to their local shop, or perhaps call someone like Dell if they have seen the ads, then a salesperson convinces them of what they need. Most people really just have no understanding about anything and 2.0GHz is for the most part meaningless gibberish. Especially when they may have a phone that says 2.4GHz.
The problem here is too many people just have no idea that Macs have the breadth of usability of PCs and are in fact considerably easier. They think they are isolated and for special users. This is exactly what the Switch ads are aimed at changing.
<strong>To compete with Intel and Microsoft, Apple has to show the megahertz. The average computer user looks at the megahertz and figures that a 2ghz P4 will blow a 1ghz G4 out of the water. They don't look at performance tests they look at what the clock speed on the box says. Aside from this, Apple is way behind in terms of buss speed. Intel is currently marketing a 500mghz system buss speed alongside a 2.4ghz P4. If I was a consumer and laid an Apple box alongside a Dell box and simply compaired numbers, the Apple looks like a celeron. I agree that the G4 is a bada** chip, but its definately falling behind the times in terms of chip clock speed and has been behind forever in terms of buss speed. Come on Steve, dump Motorola and hook up with AMD. AMD must be doing something right, because their 1.5 chips consistently outperform their counterpart 2.4 P4 Intel chips. I think AMD can set a level playing field with Microsoft and Intel. Besides, AMD is well known to the average computer user and might entice some PC to mac switches that Apple is heavily advertising.
That was a little long winded.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah time were simpler when most systems ran at the same Mhz, like the old 1Mhz 8 bit systems of the late 70's and early 80's, before overclocking and other stuff. The Average user won't know what Mhz is used for, except that higher is better. They also want to get the system at the most reasonable price, which is why so many buy those $600USD PC systems over a $1200USD Mac. Sad, they could have gotten a better system if they only just learned a bit more.
Personaly I do not think that OS X will ever run on your average run-of-the-mill P4 machine, it would make much more sense, and less of a PR come-down to make it Itanium only. Itanium is not really an X86 chip as such and although today they aren't really that good in comparison to a P4 they do have a longer future that the P4 family. That's my 2c.
If they can get the G4 hiked up higher in mhz and follow with a G5 sooner after.
With Rapid Io and Hypertransport...with a cpu to shift to the next gen 'throughput'...
...then I think the 'mhz' issue will be a non issue.
Especially with next gen' graphic cards doing such heavy lifting in 3D.
Apple still need a decent cpu to go with it. It'll be interesting to see if the G4 is still stuck with a single fpu on a Rio board if Clawhammer is 30% at same clockspeed on Hypertransport early next year...
... Sad, they could have gotten a better system if they only just learned a bit more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Long Live Beta...
Quality has a price.
The only thing the average person has learned is, is if they have to buy new equipment every three or four years to keep up with the technology, that they will spend as little as necessary.
I do not feel that OS X for x86 would hurt Apple hardware sales even alittle. Those who can afford it will buy the better system. Those who can not afford to should not be punished and be forced to use an inferior M$ OS. So many PC people are switching to LINUX, why not give a stable alternative.
In an ideal world, OS X would be running on every processor on the planet... Nah, in the Universe.
So many PC people are switching to LINUX, why not give a stable alternative.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact :
- for non-Altivec apps PC/Linux performance/price >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>> Mac/OSX
- for Altivec apps PC/Linux performance/price >>>> Mac/OSX
I'm of those who are thinking that with the Linux market Apple has a GREAT card to play. because they have the best linux OS and because lot of people are going to linux (and clusters).
So, Mr Jobs, decrease your price and increase the performance and you will make profit and have more marketshare. Even if price are a LITTLE BIT greater than those of PC, I'm ready to pay more (just a little) because of the easy-of-use, the security, the stability of OSX.
- for non-Altivec apps PC/Linux performance/price >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>> Mac/OSX
- for Altivec apps PC/Linux performance/price >>>> Mac/OSX
I'm of those who are thinking that with the Linux market Apple has a GREAT card to play. because they have the best linux OS and because lot of people are going to linux (and clusters).
So, Mr Jobs, decrease your price and increase the performance and you will make profit and have more marketshare. Even if price are a LITTLE BIT greater than those of PC, I'm ready to pay more (just a little) because of the easy-of-use, the security, the stability of OSX.
Are you all afraid that OS X on an x86 processor might run better ?
Some of you obviously must think it will run better. Why else would you even speculate how it could hurt Apple hardware sales.
OS X on an x86 processor should have absolutely no impact on the current Apple hardware buyer. It will however get more market share of those cheap ignorant bas-turds that are so easily convinced that PCs are better.
Apple switching from the PPC is a completely different issue.
Are you all afraid that OS X on an x86 processor might run better ?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not afraid.
I don't think so.
[quote]<strong>
Some of you obviously must think it will run better. Why else would you even speculate how it could hurt Apple hardware sales.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not me.
[quote]<strong>
OS X on an x86 processor should have absolutely no impact on the current Apple hardware buyer. It will however get more market share of those cheap ignorant bas-turds that are so easily convinced that PCs are better.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree.
PC are not better. They're cheaper for the same performance even mor if you put Linux on them.
[quote]<strong>
Apple switching from the PPC is a completely different issue.
Why be limited to what IBM and Motorola put out? OSX can get better performance than Windows on an X86 system. Apple could also take a bite out of Linux.
Why be limited to what IBM and Motorola put out? OSX can get better performance than Windows on an X86 system. Apple could also take a bite out of Linux.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I posted enough reply for OSX on x86 to increase marketshare of Apple (in the Linux/x86 market)...
My yes was a little bit ironic and the roadmap blah blah is what SJ said...
But the options are (at short term and by order of probablity) Mot's G5, IBM POWER4/5, Hammer/opteron, x86, itanium.
Before Apple can stand toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the corporate desktop, a deployment strategy needs to be established. Apple needs to win OEM support to deliver Mac OSX on standard PC hardware from Dell, HP, IBM, Toshiba, and others. But before Apple can even address deployment two lynchpin issues need resolving. Can AMD deliver hammers in volume? and... Will Dell sell AMD Hammers? If the answer to both these questions is yes, then you can bet that Mac will make a stab at the market. <hr></blockquote>
Running Mac OS on x86 platforms puts Jobs up against Gates
By Andrew Busigin: Tuesday 23 July 2002, 10:55
MACWORLD SHOWED US that Jobs is running the old migration-to-the- PC-idea up the familiar flagpole. While the eventual target for such a strategic move is the erosion of Microsoft's desktop OS market share, the nearer-term targets for Jobs' words are manufacturers and tier-one OEMs such as Dell, and HP.
Industry watchers will remember the various dual-boot wars between IBM's OS/2, and flavors of Windows - 3.1, NT and Win95. Microsoft concluded those wars victoriously, fighting tooth and nail to bury OS/2 and, aided by IBM's ham-handed support, succeeded smartly.
An X86 Mac Would Be Desirable For Many
MS scenarios analysing potential conflicts between an x86 MAC, and Windows platforms raise far different and more dangerous threats to the virtual Microsoft monopoly on desktops, than IBM ever did with OS/2. Apple, unlike IBM, knows a thing or two about ergonomics, and customer satisfaction, and poses a genuine threat that Microsoft cannot brush aside easily.
Mac OSX is also technically more desirable than Windows XP since it has welded the highly desirable Mac interface onto an extremely stable and mature unix back end. The unix kernel inside the Mac OS on a standard PC poses a threat not only from the ergonomic perspective, but also threatens the entire marketing thrust of the Microsoft operating system strategic directions, that are leading users into a spiral of more intrusive and proprietary man-machine-business interfaces.
Notably, from a corporate security focus, unix based systems are also reputed to have far fewer problems than Windows based systems.
So the only significant remaining Microsoft selling points are arguably their .NET related proprietary strategies, along with any applications that Microsoft holds back from porting to the Mac platform.
Mac X86 Adoption Has Two Major Barriers
Before Apple can stand toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the corporate desktop, a deployment strategy needs to be established. Apple needs to win OEM support to deliver Mac OSX on standard PC hardware from Dell, HP, IBM, Toshiba, and others. But before Apple can even address deployment two lynchpin issues need resolving. Can AMD deliver hammers in volume? and... Will Dell sell AMD Hammers? If the answer to both these questions is yes, then you can bet that Mac will make a stab at the market.
Technically, it's reasonable to assume Apple has a functional port working today on some early AMD-nVidia gear, with the rumours of Apple tending towards a Hammer-nForce platform-standard doing the rounds. Technically the kernel port to Hammer is not a huge issue, and Apple already has had a lot of success with eMac employment of nVidia technology. So you can bet that as the hardware matures, so will the OSX port.
Is ATI A Wildcard? ATI OSX support for an X-86 Mac is likely to be less of a technical issue, than a marketing agreement issue. You can bet that ATI will try to join the Mac X-86 party - if there is one. In fact I wouldn't doubt that ATI has annoyed Intel to pursue AMD chipset support in part, specifically to cover the possibility of an hammer-based Mac OSX.
OEM Support Costs May Rise Slightly
OEMs in consideration of delivering Mac OSX or dual-boot PCs sporting both XP and OSX, will be most concerned about their capacity to support a diversity of clients - which unavoidably adds some costs. But with drivers coming primarily from the integrated chipset vendors like nVidia, these concerns are modest. The primary support costs will be related to call center templates, and training/hiring second and third-line support staff. Apple could offer to underwrite some of the support costs indirectly through advertising promotional programs, but the potential surge in sales of 64 bit PCs could aid in the resumption of an economic boost on new cycle of an industry-wide corporate PC refresh.
Applications Aren't A Big Issue
Application software is generally not a problem, with Apple already sporting great versions of most popular office applications. Microsoft will undoubtedly try to leverage it's control of the MS-Office suite to sap Apple x86 implementations, but Apple has a weapon that MS fears tremendously - Open office. If Apple opts to ally itself with Sun's commercial or freeware based Open office applications, users could largely retain their capabilities to interact with MS-Office, while saving money, and denying MS their office-software revenues. MS could potentially be stupid enough to deny itself Mac OSX software revenues.
The area where Apple needs significant work is in the integration/migration strategies for organizations using Exchange. Microsoft has the exchange noose around a lot of corporate necks, and it remains to be seen whether Apple chooses to fight or fit-in with Microsoft groupware strategies.
The Redmond World Domination Plan?
The remaining questions that Apple will need to address are the longer term business architecture visions that Microsoft has been so busily scheming on about. Perhaps Apple would do well to paraphrase former heavyweight wrestler-cum-politician Jessie Ventura, after governing the state of Minnesota taught him a thing or two about overextending oneself. After trying his best to "fix" public education systems, Jessie finally admitted to a painful epiphany saying, "There are some things that governments just don't well". Perhaps the same can be said of companies that try to leverage their OS products to control everything they touch.
The idea of a business OS that didn't have pretensions of taking over the world might be refreshing! µ
Comments
<strong> I don't think Apple is looking to go x86, they would piss off too many developers. But a PowerPC made by AMD would work well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh man .. that would be sexy !!!.... i agree this sounds like the best option, it would benefit both companies greatly and makes sense since both companies are being forced againsed the wall lately by the Intel MS alliance...
[[[ I will address the ROM issue in point 5, but the old idea that plug and play does not work on PCs is flat out fud. I have never had a USB device, a PCI card, or a Parallel port printer fail to be recognized and installed easily in all the years I have had PCs. ]]]
Then you are VERY lucky. I've worked with, configured and owned them over the better part of 14 years... Commodore and Amiga before that. I can say that for every video card, sound card, modem and SCSI card I've installed...Not to mention monitor, the PC's were nothing but a pain. And let's not even talk about IRQ problems and that train-wreck known as the registry. You are very lucky indeed. I suppose you built all your own PC's too, huh? I bet they were more reliable then DELLs... lol
[[[Also, the fact that the PowerPC is RISC based is not a virtue in and of itself, and can not be claimed as a benefit without a deeper explanation.\t]]]
I think it would be beyond the scope of this forum. You're being silly... :-)
[[[I am not a high level programmer but I think Apple programmers would be able to get the Hammer to emulate a PowerPC at 10% to 20% of its clock speed, meaning it would be able to emulate a 300MHz to 600MHz PPC. This would be enough for basic PowerPC emulation.]]]
You are guessing... And no, it would NOT be good enough. I guess the same could be said for VPC...\t
[[[I have both Macs and PCs yet I appreciate the way Windows will inform you a new device has been installed and will attempt to locate drivers for it. Even better, if your device was made in 2001 or before, the drivers will most likely be included in XP. ]]]
Um, I've had MUCH better experiences on a Mac. Just plug the stuff in and it really does work... I didn't have to reset the machine spouting weird incantations in Aramaic while patting my head and rubbing my tummy to get the thing to configure. On Windoze systems I did that and a lot more. O, and since you brought it up, here is the latest example of Plug-N-Pray PC vs. Plug-N-Play Mac:
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/advertising/orbitz/orbitz-window.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/advertising/orbitz/orbitz-window.htm</a>\t
and
<a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,324759,00.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,324759,00.asp</a>;
As for OS X on x86, I believe that most of the reason posted here on this forum AGAINST the idea are spot-on. There really would be no advantage other than a perceptual on that has to do with the "numbers-rating game". The trouble with Moto is that they have MANUFACTURING problems and not design problems. IBM seems to be doing well. Not only that, but the real reason (and I know many of you aren't going to believe me) that Macs seem to be lagging in the benchmark comparisons is because of less-than-acceptable coding techniques. I'd rather not get into it here, but one thing that might account for the seeming under-whelming performance is the lack of parallelism within developers PPC code. I posted a whole slew of info on my other post speculating about the G5, titled :"G5 Speculation Revisited" you should go check it out... Anyway, OS Xon x86? I highly doubt it. Besides, it's not something we really want... And since Apple will have to DESIGN THEIR OWN x86 mobo and accompanying logic boards etc... the cost savings will evaporate quickly.
--
Ed
That was a little long winded.
The G4 is an elegant design and despite the Mac Sheep braying about Moto in a negative light Macs are still in demand.
Put it this way. If Macs supported DDR their buss would instantly jump to 266Mhz for the Powermacs and 200Mhz for the iMac and notebooks.
Spouting off about Bus speed and megahertz is what the user who really knows nothing does. Odds are if you debate someone who really knows their stuff on computers and Motherboards you will quickly have your hat handed to you.
AMD needs to consolidate its current markets and work on expanding margins and respectability in them. In particular for them that means attacking the server and enterprise market with their Opteron chips.
[quote]Originally posted by fromdetroit7:
<strong>To compete with Intel and Microsoft, Apple has to show the megahertz. The average computer user looks at the megahertz and figures that a 2ghz P4 will blow a 1ghz G4 out of the water. They don't look at performance tests they look at what the clock speed on the box says. </strong><hr></blockquote>Actually the average user doesn't look at it at all. They just wander down to their local shop, or perhaps call someone like Dell if they have seen the ads, then a salesperson convinces them of what they need. Most people really just have no understanding about anything and 2.0GHz is for the most part meaningless gibberish. Especially when they may have a phone that says 2.4GHz.
The problem here is too many people just have no idea that Macs have the breadth of usability of PCs and are in fact considerably easier. They think they are isolated and for special users. This is exactly what the Switch ads are aimed at changing.
<strong>To compete with Intel and Microsoft, Apple has to show the megahertz. The average computer user looks at the megahertz and figures that a 2ghz P4 will blow a 1ghz G4 out of the water. They don't look at performance tests they look at what the clock speed on the box says. Aside from this, Apple is way behind in terms of buss speed. Intel is currently marketing a 500mghz system buss speed alongside a 2.4ghz P4. If I was a consumer and laid an Apple box alongside a Dell box and simply compaired numbers, the Apple looks like a celeron. I agree that the G4 is a bada** chip, but its definately falling behind the times in terms of chip clock speed and has been behind forever in terms of buss speed. Come on Steve, dump Motorola and hook up with AMD. AMD must be doing something right, because their 1.5 chips consistently outperform their counterpart 2.4 P4 Intel chips. I think AMD can set a level playing field with Microsoft and Intel. Besides, AMD is well known to the average computer user and might entice some PC to mac switches that Apple is heavily advertising.
That was a little long winded.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah time were simpler when most systems ran at the same Mhz, like the old 1Mhz 8 bit systems of the late 70's and early 80's, before overclocking and other stuff. The Average user won't know what Mhz is used for, except that higher is better. They also want to get the system at the most reasonable price, which is why so many buy those $600USD PC systems over a $1200USD Mac. Sad, they could have gotten a better system if they only just learned a bit more.
With Rapid Io and Hypertransport...with a cpu to shift to the next gen 'throughput'...
...then I think the 'mhz' issue will be a non issue.
Especially with next gen' graphic cards doing such heavy lifting in 3D.
Apple still need a decent cpu to go with it. It'll be interesting to see if the G4 is still stuck with a single fpu on a Rio board if Clawhammer is 30% at same clockspeed on Hypertransport early next year...
lemon Bon bon
<strong>
... Sad, they could have gotten a better system if they only just learned a bit more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Long Live Beta...
Quality has a price.
The only thing the average person has learned is, is if they have to buy new equipment every three or four years to keep up with the technology, that they will spend as little as necessary.
I do not feel that OS X for x86 would hurt Apple hardware sales even alittle. Those who can afford it will buy the better system. Those who can not afford to should not be punished and be forced to use an inferior M$ OS. So many PC people are switching to LINUX, why not give a stable alternative.
In an ideal world, OS X would be running on every processor on the planet... Nah, in the Universe.
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>
So many PC people are switching to LINUX, why not give a stable alternative.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The fact :
- for non-Altivec apps PC/Linux performance/price >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>> Mac/OSX
- for Altivec apps PC/Linux performance/price >>>> Mac/OSX
I'm of those who are thinking that with the Linux market Apple has a GREAT card to play. because they have the best linux OS and because lot of people are going to linux (and clusters).
So, Mr Jobs, decrease your price and increase the performance and you will make profit and have more marketshare. Even if price are a LITTLE BIT greater than those of PC, I'm ready to pay more (just a little) because of the easy-of-use, the security, the stability of OSX.
Aw
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]</p>
<strong>
The fact :
- for non-Altivec apps PC/Linux performance/price >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>> Mac/OSX
- for Altivec apps PC/Linux performance/price >>>> Mac/OSX
I'm of those who are thinking that with the Linux market Apple has a GREAT card to play. because they have the best linux OS and because lot of people are going to linux (and clusters).
So, Mr Jobs, decrease your price and increase the performance and you will make profit and have more marketshare. Even if price are a LITTLE BIT greater than those of PC, I'm ready to pay more (just a little) because of the easy-of-use, the security, the stability of OSX.
Aw
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
MacOS is based upon UNIX not a linux OS ....
And performace is nothing something under Steve Jobs control, go over to motorola's webpage and ask them to do their job.
<strong>
MacOS is based upon UNIX not a linux OS ....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unix BSD 4.4 / Mach 3.0
Linux is very close to UNIX
[quote]<strong>
And performance is nothing something under Steve Jobs control, go over to motorola's webpage and ask them to do their job.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who said Moto will be our CPU provider ?
Who will say IBM/AMD is our CPU provider now ?Who design MB ?
So, performance is under SJ control.
Are you all afraid that OS X on an x86 processor might run better ?
Some of you obviously must think it will run better. Why else would you even speculate how it could hurt Apple hardware sales.
OS X on an x86 processor should have absolutely no impact on the current Apple hardware buyer. It will however get more market share of those cheap ignorant bas-turds that are so easily convinced that PCs are better.
Apple switching from the PPC is a completely different issue.
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>Bottom Line Question:
Are you all afraid that OS X on an x86 processor might run better ?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not afraid.
I don't think so.
[quote]<strong>
Some of you obviously must think it will run better. Why else would you even speculate how it could hurt Apple hardware sales.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not me.
[quote]<strong>
OS X on an x86 processor should have absolutely no impact on the current Apple hardware buyer. It will however get more market share of those cheap ignorant bas-turds that are so easily convinced that PCs are better.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree.
PC are not better. They're cheaper for the same performance even mor if you put Linux on them.
[quote]<strong>
Apple switching from the PPC is a completely different issue.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.. The PPC roadmap is good (thanks IBM).
But an option is the Hammer/Opteron.
Aw
[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: sc_markt ]</p>
<strong>
Yes.. The PPC roadmap is good (thanks IBM).
But an option is the Hammer/Opteron.
Aw</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why be limited to what IBM and Motorola put out? OSX can get better performance than Windows on an X86 system. Apple could also take a bite out of Linux.
<strong>
Why be limited to what IBM and Motorola put out? OSX can get better performance than Windows on an X86 system. Apple could also take a bite out of Linux.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I posted enough reply for OSX on x86 to increase marketshare of Apple (in the Linux/x86 market)...
My yes was a little bit ironic and the roadmap blah blah is what SJ said...
But the options are (at short term and by order of probablity) Mot's G5, IBM POWER4/5, Hammer/opteron, x86, itanium.
Before Apple can stand toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the corporate desktop, a deployment strategy needs to be established. Apple needs to win OEM support to deliver Mac OSX on standard PC hardware from Dell, HP, IBM, Toshiba, and others. But before Apple can even address deployment two lynchpin issues need resolving. Can AMD deliver hammers in volume? and... Will Dell sell AMD Hammers? If the answer to both these questions is yes, then you can bet that Mac will make a stab at the market. <hr></blockquote>
[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: bluesigns ]</p>
-tink
<a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4559"; target="_blank">The Inquirer</a>
Mac moves designed to give Microsoft migraines
Running Mac OS on x86 platforms puts Jobs up against Gates
By Andrew Busigin: Tuesday 23 July 2002, 10:55
MACWORLD SHOWED US that Jobs is running the old migration-to-the- PC-idea up the familiar flagpole. While the eventual target for such a strategic move is the erosion of Microsoft's desktop OS market share, the nearer-term targets for Jobs' words are manufacturers and tier-one OEMs such as Dell, and HP.
Industry watchers will remember the various dual-boot wars between IBM's OS/2, and flavors of Windows - 3.1, NT and Win95. Microsoft concluded those wars victoriously, fighting tooth and nail to bury OS/2 and, aided by IBM's ham-handed support, succeeded smartly.
An X86 Mac Would Be Desirable For Many
MS scenarios analysing potential conflicts between an x86 MAC, and Windows platforms raise far different and more dangerous threats to the virtual Microsoft monopoly on desktops, than IBM ever did with OS/2. Apple, unlike IBM, knows a thing or two about ergonomics, and customer satisfaction, and poses a genuine threat that Microsoft cannot brush aside easily.
Mac OSX is also technically more desirable than Windows XP since it has welded the highly desirable Mac interface onto an extremely stable and mature unix back end. The unix kernel inside the Mac OS on a standard PC poses a threat not only from the ergonomic perspective, but also threatens the entire marketing thrust of the Microsoft operating system strategic directions, that are leading users into a spiral of more intrusive and proprietary man-machine-business interfaces.
Notably, from a corporate security focus, unix based systems are also reputed to have far fewer problems than Windows based systems.
So the only significant remaining Microsoft selling points are arguably their .NET related proprietary strategies, along with any applications that Microsoft holds back from porting to the Mac platform.
Mac X86 Adoption Has Two Major Barriers
Before Apple can stand toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the corporate desktop, a deployment strategy needs to be established. Apple needs to win OEM support to deliver Mac OSX on standard PC hardware from Dell, HP, IBM, Toshiba, and others. But before Apple can even address deployment two lynchpin issues need resolving. Can AMD deliver hammers in volume? and... Will Dell sell AMD Hammers? If the answer to both these questions is yes, then you can bet that Mac will make a stab at the market.
Technically, it's reasonable to assume Apple has a functional port working today on some early AMD-nVidia gear, with the rumours of Apple tending towards a Hammer-nForce platform-standard doing the rounds. Technically the kernel port to Hammer is not a huge issue, and Apple already has had a lot of success with eMac employment of nVidia technology. So you can bet that as the hardware matures, so will the OSX port.
Is ATI A Wildcard? ATI OSX support for an X-86 Mac is likely to be less of a technical issue, than a marketing agreement issue. You can bet that ATI will try to join the Mac X-86 party - if there is one. In fact I wouldn't doubt that ATI has annoyed Intel to pursue AMD chipset support in part, specifically to cover the possibility of an hammer-based Mac OSX.
OEM Support Costs May Rise Slightly
OEMs in consideration of delivering Mac OSX or dual-boot PCs sporting both XP and OSX, will be most concerned about their capacity to support a diversity of clients - which unavoidably adds some costs. But with drivers coming primarily from the integrated chipset vendors like nVidia, these concerns are modest. The primary support costs will be related to call center templates, and training/hiring second and third-line support staff. Apple could offer to underwrite some of the support costs indirectly through advertising promotional programs, but the potential surge in sales of 64 bit PCs could aid in the resumption of an economic boost on new cycle of an industry-wide corporate PC refresh.
Applications Aren't A Big Issue
Application software is generally not a problem, with Apple already sporting great versions of most popular office applications. Microsoft will undoubtedly try to leverage it's control of the MS-Office suite to sap Apple x86 implementations, but Apple has a weapon that MS fears tremendously - Open office. If Apple opts to ally itself with Sun's commercial or freeware based Open office applications, users could largely retain their capabilities to interact with MS-Office, while saving money, and denying MS their office-software revenues. MS could potentially be stupid enough to deny itself Mac OSX software revenues.
The area where Apple needs significant work is in the integration/migration strategies for organizations using Exchange. Microsoft has the exchange noose around a lot of corporate necks, and it remains to be seen whether Apple chooses to fight or fit-in with Microsoft groupware strategies.
The Redmond World Domination Plan?
The remaining questions that Apple will need to address are the longer term business architecture visions that Microsoft has been so busily scheming on about. Perhaps Apple would do well to paraphrase former heavyweight wrestler-cum-politician Jessie Ventura, after governing the state of Minnesota taught him a thing or two about overextending oneself. After trying his best to "fix" public education systems, Jessie finally admitted to a painful epiphany saying, "There are some things that governments just don't well". Perhaps the same can be said of companies that try to leverage their OS products to control everything they touch.
The idea of a business OS that didn't have pretensions of taking over the world might be refreshing! µ