Hmm, the PowerMac G5 just took a deep dive in value. I was thinking of grabbing one at a bargain when the Mactel desktops came out (I like some of my old OS9 applications), but the prospect of being able to run Windows on a new Mactel desktop is more appealing.
They were already stalled, but PowerMac G5 sales just fell off a cliff.
You know that if you buy an internal drive cable, or some such nonsense, you can get the Professional OEM copy for, I think it is $89. Though the price might be somewhat higher now.
See my reply right above yours... would you want 2 OS's sharing a computer? That will == more complex problems... esp with malware...
There is a reason they restricted hardware to the OS recently. I don't know if you were around but back in the pre win 2k days... and pre os x days... hardware could be directly accessed by applications... which caused a lot of lock ups. No thanks, I'll stick to mah 1 OS per machine rule
Personally it doesn't really matter to me just curious what apple might be thinking to keep both sides happy if that is their big plan..we all want big better faster stronger ..Macs!
We're eventually going to buy somewhat generic hardware and then we'll license whatever OS we need. Virtualization is going to expand throughout the computer encompassing even the I/O.
Not when certain makers of an OS have a business model that revolves around selling hardware (Apple). I think if you look down the road far enough, you will see Apple become primarily a high-end hardware seller that develops certain specialty software programs that can only be run on their machines.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess it's just because I am a part of the fanboi frenzy brigade that when Jobs hinted at something big for the 30th back in January to finish off the Macworld Expo... I would think that he means that Apple is going to release something big to celebrate the 30th anniversary.
He never hinted at anything, that's the whole point Kich was trying to make! You just whipped it up inside your pretty little noggin.
Hmm, the PowerMac G5 just took a deep dive in value. I was thinking of grabbing one at a bargain when the Mactel desktops came out (I like some of my old OS9 applications), but the prospect of being able to run Windows on a new Mactel desktop is more appealing.
They were already stalled, but PowerMac G5 sales just fell off a cliff.
LOL i just sent your comment to like 5 of mah buddies that just bought new dual core g5's a few months before intel came out... LOL @ THEM =D
1) The URL is kaput. Removing the crud from the middle that shows up in my address bar, I get bumped to the BootCamp article. Not seeing anything new there.
2) The URL you *gave* looks interesting, but doesn't seem to resolve to a page on that topic.
Notice that the Mac side can *read* NTFS, *but not write*. All data goes Windows -> Mac.
Yes, but you and I both know that this isn't a deliberate limitation. Microsoft refuses to give out the specs for NTFS, and Apple is using FreeBSD's NTFS implementation. Apple could, of course, ask Microsoft for a license.
He never hinted at anything, that's the whole point Kich was trying to make! You just whipped it up inside your pretty little noggin.
Well to be fair, he did hint at *something*... he just didn't say anything about what, when, or how. IIRC, it was something like "And as you know, our 30th birthday is coming up... we might have to do something for that."
That was it. Suddenly, it became "OMGWTFLOLBBQ! Jobs promised us {tablets, Intel PowerMacs, widescreen iPods, MacOS X 10.5} on April 1st!!!"
*IF* they do anything, they'll pre-announce the crap out of it like they have every other announcement of note. We'll get at least one week's notice, and then we'll see what they have up their sleeve.
Apple didn't promise squat. And that's exactly what y'all got.
LOL i just sent your comment to like 5 of mah buddies that just bought new dual core g5's a few months before intel came out... LOL @ THEM =D
The low end G5 is $1999. The education price of the low end G5 is $1799. What would I pay for one now knowing that Windows will run a Mactel? $200-$300.
Yes, but you and I both know that this isn't a deliberate limitation. Microsoft refuses to give out the specs for NTFS, and Apple is using FreeBSD's NTFS implementation. Apple could, of course, ask Microsoft for a license.
You're right, they could.
So why haven't they?
Possible reason above - no sense in doing so when you're intending it to be a migration path, not a cross-compatibility tool.
I'm still not convinced that Adobe won't drop development of OSX apps. We just saw the report recently from one of their engineers talking about how much work it was and how hard it was (blah dee blah blah) to write the MacIntel version of Photoshop. What he really was saying was how EXPENSIVE it is to have a fully separate team of engineers writing code for a different less popular OS. Adobe is not the small Mac based company it was 15 years ago. They are a huge publicly traded company with millions of share holders that Adobe is required by law to keep happy.
Think how much money they could save by firing the entire Mac dev team. They could take that money and make a deal with MS to include a cheap version of XP in a special "Let's Kill OSX" offer of Photoshop or Illustrator for XP. What would they have to lose? Very soon all Macs will be Intel based anyway and thus capable of running Windows.
Very often in the real world, shareholders (unfortunately) speak louder than customers.
What this tells me is that Apple is very secure that 10.5 will be better than XP or Vista. Developers and users given the choice will want to mostly use OS X.
I think Boot Camp will be used by a certain group of Mac users who have to integrate into the Windows world or use Windows only applications.
Most people will not buy a Mac then spend an additional $280 for Windows XP to then spend hundreds or thousands more dollars for Windows applications.
I'm still not convinced that Adobe won't drop development of OSX apps. They could take that money and make a deal with MS to include a cheap version of XP in a special "Let's Kill OSX" offer of Photoshop or Illustrator for XP. What would they have to lose?
MS really isn't that much of a friend to Adobe. MS is developing tools that will compete directly with Flash and PDF. MS was developing software that would compete with Photoshop but has seemed to have dropped that project currently. But its clear that Adobe is not safe from MS.
As far as Mac gaming goes, lets be honest -- it doesn't exist. We get about two decent games a year ported over, along with an endless stream of crap and hopelessly outdated titles ("Fish Tycoon" anyone? Scheduled for release in April! I'm sure you all share my excitement over that one).
I'd love to have OS X versions of games, but since they don't exist, I will be playing the Windows versions, and now I don't have to buy another machine to do it. Thats great, and I think it is a good move for Apple.
What about halfway between virtualization and dual booting?
How about Apple has their own Virtual PC written into OSX that functions seamlessly like Classic (of course requiring a copy of XP)? Couldn't Apple force XP applications into using OSX windowing and open/save, etc. menus? Just thinking out loud here...
I'd love to have OS X versions of games, but since they don't exist, I will be playing the Windows versions, and now I don't have to buy another machine to do it. Thats great, and I think it is a good move for Apple.
Indeed. Because frankly, Apple just wants to get market penetration to give people a taste of the OS, figuring that they'll migrate over on their own after they see it. Kind of a self-referential halo effect.
And whether you are running OS X, or Windows, they *STILL* made the sale.
Comments
They were already stalled, but PowerMac G5 sales just fell off a cliff.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
[B]$129? Surely that's the upgrade price?
A plain copy here in the UK is about £250 retail.
You know that if you buy an internal drive cable, or some such nonsense, you can get the Professional OEM copy for, I think it is $89. Though the price might be somewhat higher now.
Of course, MS won't support it directly.
Originally posted by emig647
See my reply right above yours... would you want 2 OS's sharing a computer? That will == more complex problems... esp with malware...
There is a reason they restricted hardware to the OS recently. I don't know if you were around but back in the pre win 2k days... and pre os x days... hardware could be directly accessed by applications... which caused a lot of lock ups. No thanks, I'll stick to mah 1 OS per machine rule
Personally it doesn't really matter to me just curious what apple might be thinking to keep both sides happy if that is their big plan..we all want big better faster stronger ..Macs!
Originally posted by hmurchison
We're eventually going to buy somewhat generic hardware and then we'll license whatever OS we need. Virtualization is going to expand throughout the computer encompassing even the I/O.
Not when certain makers of an OS have a business model that revolves around selling hardware (Apple). I think if you look down the road far enough, you will see Apple become primarily a high-end hardware seller that develops certain specialty software programs that can only be run on their machines.
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess it's just because I am a part of the fanboi frenzy brigade that when Jobs hinted at something big for the 30th back in January to finish off the Macworld Expo... I would think that he means that Apple is going to release something big to celebrate the 30th anniversary.
He never hinted at anything, that's the whole point Kich was trying to make! You just whipped it up inside your pretty little noggin.
Originally posted by baygbm
Hmm, the PowerMac G5 just took a deep dive in value. I was thinking of grabbing one at a bargain when the Mactel desktops came out (I like some of my old OS9 applications), but the prospect of being able to run Windows on a new Mactel desktop is more appealing.
They were already stalled, but PowerMac G5 sales just fell off a cliff.
LOL i just sent your comment to like 5 of mah buddies that just bought new dual core g5's a few months before intel came out... LOL @ THEM =D
Originally posted by melgross
Read down to the bottom, and all will become clear.
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...esistant_code/
Ooooookay, clear as mud.
1) The URL is kaput. Removing the crud from the middle that shows up in my address bar, I get bumped to the BootCamp article. Not seeing anything new there.
2) The URL you *gave* looks interesting, but doesn't seem to resolve to a page on that topic.
A printer for the instructions (You?ll want to print them before installing Windows, really.)
Originally posted by Kickaha
Notice that the Mac side can *read* NTFS, *but not write*. All data goes Windows -> Mac.
Yes, but you and I both know that this isn't a deliberate limitation. Microsoft refuses to give out the specs for NTFS, and Apple is using FreeBSD's NTFS implementation. Apple could, of course, ask Microsoft for a license.
Originally posted by Flounder
He never hinted at anything, that's the whole point Kich was trying to make! You just whipped it up inside your pretty little noggin.
Well to be fair, he did hint at *something*... he just didn't say anything about what, when, or how. IIRC, it was something like "And as you know, our 30th birthday is coming up... we might have to do something for that."
That was it. Suddenly, it became "OMGWTFLOLBBQ! Jobs promised us {tablets, Intel PowerMacs, widescreen iPods, MacOS X 10.5} on April 1st!!!"
*IF* they do anything, they'll pre-announce the crap out of it like they have every other announcement of note. We'll get at least one week's notice, and then we'll see what they have up their sleeve.
Apple didn't promise squat. And that's exactly what y'all got.
Originally posted by emig647
LOL i just sent your comment to like 5 of mah buddies that just bought new dual core g5's a few months before intel came out... LOL @ THEM =D
The low end G5 is $1999. The education price of the low end G5 is $1799. What would I pay for one now knowing that Windows will run a Mactel? $200-$300.
Originally posted by Chucker
Yes, but you and I both know that this isn't a deliberate limitation. Microsoft refuses to give out the specs for NTFS, and Apple is using FreeBSD's NTFS implementation. Apple could, of course, ask Microsoft for a license.
You're right, they could.
So why haven't they?
Possible reason above - no sense in doing so when you're intending it to be a migration path, not a cross-compatibility tool.
Think how much money they could save by firing the entire Mac dev team. They could take that money and make a deal with MS to include a cheap version of XP in a special "Let's Kill OSX" offer of Photoshop or Illustrator for XP. What would they have to lose? Very soon all Macs will be Intel based anyway and thus capable of running Windows.
Very often in the real world, shareholders (unfortunately) speak louder than customers.
Sorry, I'll stop pooping on it now.
I think Boot Camp will be used by a certain group of Mac users who have to integrate into the Windows world or use Windows only applications.
Most people will not buy a Mac then spend an additional $280 for Windows XP to then spend hundreds or thousands more dollars for Windows applications.
I'm still not convinced that Adobe won't drop development of OSX apps. They could take that money and make a deal with MS to include a cheap version of XP in a special "Let's Kill OSX" offer of Photoshop or Illustrator for XP. What would they have to lose?
MS really isn't that much of a friend to Adobe. MS is developing tools that will compete directly with Flash and PDF. MS was developing software that would compete with Photoshop but has seemed to have dropped that project currently. But its clear that Adobe is not safe from MS.
--B
Originally posted by Placebo
That's where you're wrong. Because gaming with a keyboard and mouse is better than playing Xbox titles.
You should leave this symbol when you're joking
I'd love to have OS X versions of games, but since they don't exist, I will be playing the Windows versions, and now I don't have to buy another machine to do it. Thats great, and I think it is a good move for Apple.
How about Apple has their own Virtual PC written into OSX that functions seamlessly like Classic (of course requiring a copy of XP)? Couldn't Apple force XP applications into using OSX windowing and open/save, etc. menus? Just thinking out loud here...
Originally posted by james808:
I'd love to have OS X versions of games, but since they don't exist, I will be playing the Windows versions, and now I don't have to buy another machine to do it. Thats great, and I think it is a good move for Apple.
Indeed. Because frankly, Apple just wants to get market penetration to give people a taste of the OS, figuring that they'll migrate over on their own after they see it. Kind of a self-referential halo effect.
And whether you are running OS X, or Windows, they *STILL* made the sale.