“Though the transition [to Intel processors in Macs] is likely to be rocky at first for Apple, programmers and customers, the move could lead to Macs that are both more competitive and more compatible with Windows. It could even open the Mac to software titles now available only to Windows users,” Greg Sandoval and Matthew Fordahl report for The Associated Press.
“At the same time, Apple would retain as much control as it wants over its software and brand… Intel has been touting a hardware-based security plan called LaGrande Technology as a way to keep systems secure by locking data with a key that’s embedded in a hardware chip. But LaGrande also could be used to ensure that certain software only runs on permitted machines, such as Mac OS X only running on systems built by Apple,” Sandoval and Matthew Fordahl report.
“But there’s a much bigger opportunity for Apple beyond faster, more efficient chips. Though it will prevent Mac OS X from leaking non-Apple PCs, it could allow Apple systems to run Windows – and its universe of programs – at full speed. Currently, running Windows programs on Macs requires emulators that slow down performance,” Sandoval and Matthew Fordahl report. “‘It seems to me that Jobs is putting himself in the sights of Bill Gates,’ said Don Yachtman, a Salt Lake City-based software developer. ‘Microsoft may act like they don’t care about Apple’s move to Intel but you never know until they launch an attack.’ But Microsoft isn’t likely to complain. After all, Apple or its customers would still have to buy a copy of Windows.”
Full article here.
In a related article, Thomas Claburn reports for InformationWeek, “David Moody, VP of worldwide Macintosh product marketing at Apple, says emphatically that this does not mean that anyone with an Intel-based PC will be able to install the Mac OS X. However, he notes that while Apple will not sell or support other operating systems with next year’s Intel-based Macs, the company has no plans to prevent users from concurrently installing a second operating system like Windows XP. The possibility of running Mac OS X and Windows on the same Intel box may make Apple hardware more appealing to enterprise customers.”
MacDailyNews Take: Apple Mac users won’t be the ones buying many copies of Windows if this comes to pass. We already know which OS we prefer. It’ll be Windows users who like the idea of getting two machines for the price of one that will be buying that copy of Windows to run along with the included Mac OS X on their new Intel-based Macs. The question for which Microsoft might not like the answer is: how many of these initial dual users will decide Mac OS X does everything they need better and forego future versions of Windows altogether? Is Apple setting up the ultimate “Switcher” campaign by preparing to let Mac OS X speak for itself?
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Twin Mac website debuts, dedicated to dual booting Intel-based Macs running Mac OS X and Windows – June 10, 2005
Cringley: Apple and Intel to merge; Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates – June 09, 2005
Fortune: Apple’s switch to Intel processors to accelerate Windows users switching to Mac OS X – June 09, 2005
Will developers stop writing Mac applications if Apple ‘Macintel’ computers can run Windows? – June 08, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Apple isn’t going to cross-promote Windows.
The Apple brand is still going to cost more out of the gate. People are going to have to WANT OSX, or they’ll just go with one of the other clone makers.
God I hate the sound of that, but Apple is a now clone maker. Yuck.
When Apple completely accommodates Windows and/or easily allows Windows to be selected as a startup, Apple will have thrown in the towel.
Of course, some may well perceive the towel already lying on the floor in the corner…
It appears that MacDailyNews is perpetuating this “Windows on Mac” frenzy, and should be more responsible.
Here’s some Apple-approved news, linked straight from the Apple Hot News page:
Will users be able to install and run Microsoft Windows on the new Intel-based Macs?
Apple’s official position is that it won’t block the use of Windows on its new machines. Unofficially, however, the company says people won’t be able to just buy a copy of Windows XP and install it on an Intel-based Mac. That’s because Apple is unlikely to build in all the standard under-the-hood hardware pieces that Windows is designed to mate with. And it won’t supply any special software called “drivers” to help Windows use the unique under-the-hood hardware Apple will use.
However, I expect some third-party company to supply the missing drivers and otherwise make it possible to run Windows on an Intel-based Mac. Microsoft itself might even do this. That would allow Mac users to run Windows programs that lack Mac equivalents at speeds comparable to a Windows computer’s.
Read the entire article here: http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050609.html
If you’ve got the know-how to make Windows run on a Mac with Intel, then more power to you. But this notion of Macs running Windows that’s spreading through these Mac sites by contributors who are not Apple engineers or Apple marketing reps confuses the entire “Mac switches to Intel” situation. From reading many of the posts since Apple’s announcement, newbies and non-Mac users interested in what’s happening are all wetting their pants that they can run Windows on their new Macs in 2006.
And as these rumor sites go, word on the streets will soon enough be that Apple makes Windows machines now, and that OS X is Windows for Mac, etc.
It’s important at this point NOT to evangelize Macs as Windows bait, and stick to topic:
Macs will have Intel Processors.
PPC will be supported for some years out.
Applications will be Universal Binary for both PPC and Intel based Macs.
It’s fine for the geeks and the techies, but it spreads false information and can have a serious backlash when these new Macs hit the streets and potential buyers see that the machines don’t boot Windows at all.
I do appreciate MDN for cutting through the B.S. and not wasting time crying over the switch. I believe that Jobs has a master plan and selling Macs that run Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux while everyone else is stuck selling Mac OS X-less machines is a major, major deal. This week, we may have witnessed the beginning of the superior Mac platform’s rise to threaten Microsoft’s crappy Windows junk.
Out of all of the people that I’ve switched, none of them ever went back to Windows after experiencing the Mac OS. This held true for the classic Mac OSes and it’s even stronger with Mac OS X.
Microsoft is going to do something nasty to counter. I have no idea what Dell and the rest can possibly do to stop their customers from getting a dual use Mac instead of their crap. Maybe they’ll beg Jobs to license them Mac OS X? Or do a “Apple Mac by HP” kind of deal?
justified,
MDN is linking to an AP article. They wrote it, not MDN. MDN actually writes, “if this comes to pass…” in their “MDN Take.” Blame AP, Mossberg, and the others, not MDN.
I believe Microsoft will make sure that Windows will run on a Mac. Apple is going to become just one more hardware vendor that they will be able to sell their software too. Why wouldn’t they do this?
True, Apple won’t support it, but they won’t stop it either.. It’d be stupid for MS not to take advantage of this. Yes, they will supply all the necessesary drivers and what not to make this happen.
If Apple thought that this was going to be very difiicult to do, Phil Schiller would have never made a comment about it. Obviously, Apple wants the public to know that dual booting Macs are a possibiliity or it wouldn’t have been mentioned.
Because, sam, “Once you go Mac, you never go back” isn’t just a saying. It’s real. These Windows-only users who get a taste of Mac OS X will finally understand what they’ve been missing and the vast majority of them will become Mac users. Microsoft has two options, the usual FUD and/or making Windows as good as or better than Mac OS X. Good luck to MS on option two. Or MS will threaten behind-the-scenes to kill Mac Office or something – they’ve probably already delivered that threat to Jobs.
Microsoft gets nothing but machines that will allow people to actually compare Mac OS X to Windows right in front of their faces. Microsoft loses very badly when this happens.
Ed,
The point is, MDN’s take SHOULD be, “Apple’s switch to Intel is not about Apple becoming a Windows vendor. It’s important at this point NOT to evangelize Macs as the new Windows machines, and stick to topic: Macs will have Intel Processors; PPC will be supported for some years out; Applications will be Universal Binary for both PPC and Intel based Macs.”
MDN should not answer to the speculation with its own speculation.
Sam–
You nailed it. This is a win/win for Apple and Microsoft, if indeed true. The only ones getting hit will be the Dells of the world as more people realize that two OSs are better than one.
Of course, fast forward a few years, and MDN is probably right…eventually, people will realize the superior system and ignore Windows altogther. After a little time, Microsoft will take a hit.
MDN picks the news it chooses to run here.
By editorially selecting the stories here it sets the tone of the discussion.
MDN is slanting the Mac Daily News as it wants….and ignoring anything it does not want to promote.
Well then. That’s it. With Macs on Intel that run Windows, Apple will be delivering WinTel machines that also run the Mac OS.
Game Over.
Fred Says: “Because, sam, “Once you go Mac, you never go back” isn’t just a saying. It’s real. These Windows-only users who get a taste of Mac OS X will finally understand what they’ve been missing and the vast majority of them will become Mac users. Microsoft has two options, the usual FUD and/or making Windows as good as or better than Mac OS X. Good luck to MS on option two. Or MS will threaten behind-the-scenes to kill Mac Office or something – they’ve probably already delivered that threat to Jobs.
Microsoft gets nothing but machines that will allow people to actually compare Mac OS X to Windows right in front of their faces. Microsoft loses very badly when this happens.”
Well Fred, how do you explain Virtual PC? Last time I checked Microsoft was supporting that. Being able to run Windows natively on a Mac will only make the Windows experience better. It is essentially still Windows on a Mac but without having to use emulators that slows everything down.
The danger is that developers will stop making software for the Apple OS…based on the concept that just put windows on your mac.
Eventually Then all you have is a Mac that runs Apple software.
They will use the secure Apple OS to surf the web, but do all the serious computing on Windows…
Remember, more people have Windows OS than Mac OS.
they will probaly ave different intel chips without all of that i386, i486 stuf so the run faster on the same chips. And remember that intel did not like that m$ was not letting them innovate so lets see what comes
justified,
WTF are you, the MDN Take Editor? If that’s MDN’s take, it’s the MDN Take. Or is that too existential for you?
Also, I read MDN’s take and they aren’t saying buy Macs to run Windows. They are clearly saying that current Windows users will buy Macs to get “two for the price of one” and eventually they’ll see that Mac OS X is far better and switch on their own. Their Windows use will decline to nothing in time: bad for Microsoft eventually. Very bad for Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. as soon as Intel-based Macs are available.
If Jobs doesn’t think the way MDN thinks on this, he should.
Gackle the great says”The danger is that developers will stop making software for the Apple OS…based on the concept that just put windows on your mac.”
Not likely… This will increase the Mac marketshare as more people will be buying Macs. Developers will see this increase and be even more inclined to develop for the platform, not less.
People are not just going to buy a dual-boot Mac just to run Windows on it. No, they are going to buy a dual-boot Mac because they want OSX but may also still be tied to a particular Windows application. It’s a security blanket for Windows users.
Gackle,
Not much danger. Most of the greatest Mac applications, many of them best in class, are made by… drumroll, please… Apple.
Do you think Apple is going to make iMovie, GarageBand, iPhoto, Safari, iDVD, Final Cut Pro, Motion, etc, for Windows? Of course not.
That chess move has already been made. Apple’s has set itself up for this switch for years. By making great Apple apps Mac-only, the have already assured that people will want to run Mac OS X. And people that run Mac OS X will also need apps from Adobe, etc.
LGH,
You’re missing the point. Apple has put itself on the ropes. Perception is everything. Feeding into the rumor mill can be very bad for Apple right now. Or is that too existential for you?
justified,
MDN doesn’t seem to believe that Apple has put itself on the ropes. It seems to me like Apple may have just put itself in position to checkmate Dell, Gateway, etc. and eventually Microsoft with a few more moves.
Justified. What rumor are you talking about?
Phil Schiller himself said that though they won’t support it, this will be possible and “I’m sure someone will do it.”
This is not just some blind rumor.
Once again, everyone is SPECULATING about what Apple will and won’t do. Well, since you were all so misinformed prior to the Intel in ’06 switch (I mean Apple was running every single version of OS X on Intel for 5 years under your noses), why the hell should we take any of the anal lyst and know-it-alls’ speculation serious?
Apple has a plan and none of you know what the hell it is – period.
Scary I know. Deal with it.
Another possible option particularly if Windows continues to be so vulnerable security and stability wise would be a decision to have the only ‘classic’ like environment that would permit a stable and secure Windows subordinated and protected by Mac Os X. That feature alone if feasible could sell enormously.
Five long years!
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/694.html
Rock on Steve!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smile” style=”border:0;” />
jj,
Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac – MacDailyNews, October 08, 2004
LGH,
I agree that this game may not over and Apple may have set itself up for many moves in the near future. But, I stand by my position that — in the interest of protecting Apple’s fragile public perception — Apple news sites and evangelist sites should not be feeding into the rumor mills at this point in the game.
That’s all I’m sayin’.
MacMania,
eWeek adds to Marklar (OS X on x86) rumors; Apple may release server version” – MacDailyNews, December 23, 2002
Justified,
Rumor sites will speculate. That is what they’ve always done and will continue to do.
However, this is not really a rumor. This news was started by Apple as it came directly from the lips of Apples VP. Here are his exact words:
“We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac,” he said.
On the other hand, Schiller said Apple won’t intentionally stop users from trying to run Microsoft’s Windows operating system on the forthcoming Intel-based Macs, although there will be no official support from Apple on that front.
“That doesn’t preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will,” he said.
If windows did run on a a mac it could only be a good thing. Microsoft would make money on the sale but it would be the last money they ever made from that particular client. They’ll start of thinking they’ll use windows and try OS X then they’ll find that windows hasn’t been run for weeks and regret having wasted so much time and money on it before buying a mac. From then on apple will be making all the money on future sales.
Sam,
That is exactly the point. Phil Schiller himself said that they won’t support it. And if they won’t support it, then it is not yet being considered by Apple as bait. I’m not saying that it won’t be in the future, but what if everyone prepares for Wintel Macs and then Apple doesn’t deliver on a rumor? Then what? Huh? Then what? (OK. I’m just getting punchy now.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> )
The average computer user will not care about OS X and won’t buy an Intel Mac unless there’s a “killer app” as bait. We all know the Mac price will be higher than a comparable Dell, and the need to buy a higher-priced Mac AND a copy of Windows (free on his POS Dell) will stop him dead in his tracks. Joe Sixpack doesn’t buy a computer for the design or the OS, because to most people a computer is just another appliance, like a microwave or a dishwasher. To him, Windows and Dell are “good enough.” Joe ain’t gonna spend one more sawbuck than he needs to… unless Apple gives him a compelling reason. Whatever Apple’s Next Big Thing is (tablet Mac, WiFi remote, video iPod, movie store, cell phone, tricorder, whatever), it has to come out on OS X first, the way iTunes/iPod did. Then, once the buzz starts about the new Apple whatchamacallit, Joe Sixpack will see something of value on the Mac platform that (to him) isn’t there now.
I believe that Justified is.
Perception is everything as Justified stated. As Mac owners, we should understand that when people poke fun at us for owning Macs. It’s a delicate balancing act.
There is a great deal of info that has yet to come out. But even with what has been explained rather clearly, journalists and supposed IT professionals have completely missed it.
With MDN’s take, there is the implicit “wait until the MacIntel boxes come out” for the switchers. That could be less than optimal for Apple if it is a prevalent opinion.
Apple never supports 3rd party software. They only support their own applications. What we are saying here or at least I am saying is that it will be Microsoft who supports this.
I don’t think anyone expects Apple to be supporting Microsoft Longhorn for the Mac.
All we are saying is that it will be possible to run Windows or Longhorn on a Mac and that it will be an additional selling point.
Winston,
The average Joe doesn’t like to look/feel stupid and he loves the idea of getting “two for the price of one” (even if he has no idea what he’s getting) almost as much as he loves “all you can eat.”
But Rob,
Joe Sixpack won’t be getting “two for the price of one” unless Apple ships its machines with Mac OS X and Windows (which they’re not going to do) for the price of a Dell.
The average Joe doesn’t like to look/feel stupid and he loves the idea of getting “two for the price of one” (even if he has no idea what he’s getting) almost as much as he loves “all you can eat.”
—–
True, but he won’t see it as two for the price of one. He’ll see it as two for the price of two.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think most people just don’t care. I’m sure there are plenty of people who are curious about OS X and frustrated by Windows’ BS, but for a lot of people it boils down to dollars and cents… not dollars and sense. OS X will charm them but it’s not a killer app that will cause them to shell out more cash.
From Apple’s consultant FAQ:
“Apple has no plans to sell or support Windows.”
So why wouldn´t Maya or some other expensive software just give a copy of Windows OS with their product rather than developing a Mac OS version of their product?
It would be cheaper than developing a separate version for Apple.
————–
And the comparison will now be which software runs faster on an Intel processor: Photoshop on Windows or Photoshop on OSX??? Maya rendering via Windows or OSX??? If Apple does not win those horseraces, its got some serious problems.
Winston,
I don’t think anyone here is expecting a dual-boot Mac to take over the computing world and put Microsoft and Dell out of business.
You are right, for many people a Dell is “good enough” and will continue to be “good enough” in their eyes.
However, not all Windows users are as computer illiterate as you imply. There are many Windows who are curious about OSX. They’ve heard and read about it’s security, stability and design advantages.
Apple has already given Windows users a compelling reason to switch, that’s why year over year Mac sales are up 40% and continuing to grow. It’s gonna take time. We’re hoping for marketshare increase, not a total domination. A dual boot Mac will be a real incentive for those who are considering switching but aren’t ready to give up the security blanket just yet.
Sam, I hope you’re right, really I do. But it sounds like Apple won’t promote Windows compatibility in its marketing — it simply won’t block Windows from functioning on a Mac. That makes the the sales pitch a lot harder.
Every time I argue Mac vs. Windows with my friends, they’re baffled by my devotion to OS X. “Who cares about the interface?”, they ask me. “It’s just a means to an end. The apps are what matters”. Anyway, that’s their view of the world. I hope the rest of the Windows world is more open-minded than my pals are.
Cripes! Gackle you whacked the nail on the head.
If an Apple can boot both Windows and OSX….
The top version of Maya is not even available for the Mac. Now all Alias has to do is toss a copy of Windows Longhorn or XP in with their software and Apple users can us the top version of Maya.
Alias no longer needs to develop a Mac OS version of its software anymore!!!!
—-
And why can´t Microsoft make Longhorn so it won´t run on Apple computers?
Winston: “Who cares about the interface?”, they ask me. “It’s just a means to an end. The apps are what matters”.
Man, that´s what I have been saying for years….and I own both macs and pcs.
Ship Windows with your app? Dual booting? So, essentially, OS X is dead. Mac boxes will simply be Wintels with OS X as bonus software.
Apple users will use OSX to surf the web, get email because it is secure…plus use Apple software.
Everything else can be Windows software if one has Windows OS on it.
Checkmate.
It’s been mentioned I’m sure many times but I just don’t understand why all of these analysts think that Mac users are all going to go out a buy a copy of Windows or VPC. Granted some will, but as a Mac user since ’86 (in my personal life) I won’t. And Winston, for me it is the interface and how much smoother everything is on a Mac.
Queeezie,
But the Apple apps already do 99.9% of everything the average person does: web browser, email, chat, digital photos, digital movies, word processing, presentations, music, etc. So, what is the “everything else” they will be using Windows for again?
This announcement of Apple’s has proven the old addage that opinions are like assholes; everyone’s got one. Man this has gotten a lot of ink. And, yes, I am also proof of the addage.
“And why can´t Microsoft make Longhorn so it won´t run on Apple computers?”
Because Microsoft does not sell Hardware.
Has anyone bothered to check up on new/exotic tech rumors (specifically, microprocessors) from about 5 years ago? I did.
At the time, all the speculations were about microprocessors that can be reconfigured. Hmmm. It’s called “reconfigurable computing”.
Here’s an url to get everyone started:
http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds5-3/rcconcept.html
(I hope this works, I’m new at posting).
Here’s a quote:
“During the past 5 years a large number of RC systems developed by the research community have demonstrated the potential for achieving high performance for a range of applications. However, performance improvements possible with these systems typically are dependent on the skill and experience of hardware designers.”
Okay, guys & gals, have at ‘er!
Why bother making a Mac version of a program if you can run Windows on a Mac? Because Apple and Intel will be working closely together to optimise their respective technologies for each other. There may simply be performance and functionality advantages for running an application on Mac OS X.
I’d say Intel is jack of Windows not keeping up with it in the innovation stakes.
Mac users have an answer for every possible situation that might arise in the future…
Except for ‘What if Steve decides to switch from Intel to some other chip maker after a couple of years…’.
You know, you can never rule that possibility out!
That’s why OSX was designed to be processor independant.
Here’s another possibility (admittedly far-fetched):
Apple announces the switch to Intel early, so that most major applications can be ported across in time. Then, just as the transition is about to occur, and in a pre-emptive strike against Longhorn, Apple licenses Mac OS X to other PC makers.
PC users can now opt for Mac OS X on their choice of box with a decent (and growing) selection of software. HP, Sony, maybe even Dull can do Apple’s marketing for it …
Of course most existing Mac users and design-conscious PC users will continue buying Apple’s machines. Oh, and it would be a huge betrayal of Microsoft.
Apple has repeatedly said it’s a hardware company with a killer OS. Panther (and Wintel disgust) lured me into buying a used Lombard last year, and the prospect of Tiger (plus the necessity of upgrading) lured me into buying a Mac mini this year. I’ve been using iTunes with a great set of bookshelf speakers as my home music system for more than a year now. That lured me into buying a shuffle and other life-changing decisions.
Needless to say, I can hardly wait to see what Apple and Intel have brewing.
There’s no better sales pitch for me to buy the company’s hardware than the seamless elegance of almost all of its software. That philosophy has {worked} for Apple in the past and should continue to do so in the future, no matter who’s making the chipsets.
What? Mac users buying Windows?
When flying monkeys exit Bill Gate’s rectum!
We want WINE!
I think the point of the “win-on-mac” thing is that it will be attractive argument to computer illiterate winXP users to be able to “fall back” on windows in case they want to/need to/feel like it. I’m talking about the kind of people who don’t know which is the ethernet cable and which is the power cable. I know plenty such people and when trying to convince them to get a mac, they look at you with disbelief. You may get them to see all the good sides of the mac and they can see for themselves that their win-system is breaking down on a weekly basis. But there is still too much uncertainty for them in doing something different from the herd. I supose they like the warm nice feeling of peeing in their pants. These people would be easier to convince if you could ensure them that they could still use windows if they want to. Of course they wouldn’t in practice. Because when windows breaks down and they need to write that letter or e-mail or visit a webpage, they will do it in OS X and over time migrate completely to os x.
When you get a copy of Virtual PC a copy of the Windows OS comes with it (anyway mine did when I bought VPC a few years ago) – so Microsoft gives the user a copy of Windows.
Ta-dah! That will all one needs to run every Windows app on the dual booting Apple.
This dual-booting is not the positive news for Apple everyone is trying to spin it as. It sounds cool, but its something that can work both ways and to the detriment of Apple.
meatofmoose: “What? Mac users buying Windows?”
No, meat, the question is Windows users buying Mac???
That is the question. Will Windows user buy the Mac and will they use the Mac to run Mac-based software or Windows-based software?
Will the Windows user just use the Mac OS to surf the web because it is currently safer to use the Mac OS, but spend all their software money on Windows versions.
If software developers see more and more sales going for their Windows versions then odds are fewer will make Mac versions.
What’s Really Behind the Apple-Intel Alliance
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/technology/11apple.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
Of course all of these potential switchers to the Intel Mac will already own a copy of Windows. They won’t buy another one. So Microsoft will gain nothing, even if dual booting is an option.
The 10 % price difference on a $500 mac is just $50. This may not be too much of a premium for the average Windows person to pay. Especially considering that most anti-virus software costs about that much. It’s a wash. Dell with anti piracy software or OSX without.
As far as the software goes. It actually would benefit the Windows game developers if a program that ran Windows and Direct X natively under OSX was created. WINE has been mentioned , but i don’t know enough about it. Games are the only piece of software that I could see needing from the Windows world. When people are able to compare the same product running under Windows vs. OSX. OSX wins. Office, Photoshop, Quark, just a joke under Windows by the way.
People prefer OSX versions. Apple just has to keep making sure that developers make great applications for their OS. A great Example is Photoshop with Automator or without. INdesign with automator or without.
Something few understand…
The move to Intel is not the end game. Many have asked about running OS X on
any PC and Apple says no way, our Macs only. But… They could certainly release
OS X for PCs today. The problem is that there’s no apps other than the Mac apps
included with the Intel pre-release. If Apple released PC OSX today, it would sputter
because there’s no 3rd party applications. Wait 18 months and Adobe etc. will have
all of the must-have apps ready. -Then- Apple can release PC OSX and have a real
shot against Microsoft. Heh. Cool.
From the NY Times article:
“”There is going to be a long wait,” said Mark D. Stahlman, a Wall Street analyst at Caris & Company. The power-conserving 64-bit Intel chips that Apple is counting on to rejuvenate its laptop products will not be available until early 2007, he pointed out.”
Gee…wasn´t Apple just in this situation???? Waiting for a company to deliver a chip that is promised but can´t be made???
A lot can happen in the next 18+ months…
(Maybe AMD has been working on a new chip that is available in 6 months???)
And to all you Cell chip fans, here is Steve´s take (from the NY Times piece link above:
“As it happens, Intel’s was not the only alternative chip design that Apple had explored for the Mac. An executive close to Sony said that last year Mr. Jobs met in California with both Nobuyuki Idei, then the chairman and chief executive of the Japanese consumer electronics firm, and with Kenichi Kutaragi, the creator of the Sony PlayStation.
Mr. Kutaragi tried to interest Mr. Jobs in adopting the Cell chip, which is being developed by I.B.M. for use in the coming PlayStation 3, in exchange for access to certain Sony technologies. Mr. Jobs rejected the idea, telling Mr. Kutaragi that he was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC.”
APPLE snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. This move will go down in Business history as one of the dumbest moves of all time. Maybe its the first known instance of a corporation beaching itself —IPOD is probably the most famous device in the world next to the telephone and the stethescope–TIGER is probably the most well received soft ware ever–The present G5 chip is already a 64 bit chip and already faster thanmost Intel chips ( and buy the way –since when are price conscious consumers interested in paying extra for the aboslute fastest chip of the moment. All things considered Id like to have the fastest chip but most people dont care. ) Where was I? Oh yeah Apple already had the best chipon the market by far so why couldnt Jobs just wait for dual core machines or for the CELL? Why couldnt jobs just sell a way to link minimacs together to make a minimax with like 4 minis linked together? Ill tell you Im going to buy what ever has a CELL in it and a blue laser.
>the move could lead to Macs that are both more competitive and more compatible with Windows
Isn’t that what Apple did with iPod?
Keep your friends closer and your enemies even closer.
I’ll be the ultimate armchair quarterback. I’ve been for this all along, beating most of you by maybe 2 whole hours at least!
>the move could lead to Macs that are both more competitive and more compatible with Windows
Isn’t that what Apple did with iPod?
Keep your friends closer and your enemies even closer.
I’ll be the ultimate armchair quarterback. I’ve been for this all along, beating most of you by maybe 2 whole hours at least!
>the move could lead to Macs that are both more competitive and more compatible with Windows
Isn’t that what Apple did with iPod?
Keep your friends closer and your enemies even closer.
I’ll be the ultimate armchair quarterback. I’ve been for this all along, beating most of you by maybe 2 whole hours at least!
Here’s one I haven’t heard yet.
As part of the PPC consortium, does Apple co-own the rights to the velocity engine and could they give that information to Intel for the next gen microprocessor used exclusively on MacTel systems?
Just a thought.
Dear Lisa,
Aliens have arrived. Your ride is here.
lisa
Good luck carrying that 4-way mini around. Personally I’d prefer a laptop with G5 performance, but without it being the size of a car battery.
Justified–Im sure that well reasoned analysis appears alien to you —
ON THE OTHER HAND
maybe it appears in your little consciousness that aliens have arrived.
Okay mac is doing something right, for once but people arent just gona buy a new comp and a new OS, they shold make macs run on i386’s also known as “PC” and put it out 3 months before LH this, also geting contacts with dell, compaq, HP and Others. Then relese it 3 monts before Long Horn comes out, this would weaken M$ foot hold in the macket. Also port the windows API onto the new OS. Do this and you will be rich
But how would Windows on Mac users actually operate the machine with only one mouse button
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
-B
David, as Steve Jobs said at the WWDC, its not about trying to get MS out of the market, nor so make the software run on any CPU, but to deliver the best personal computers on the market. I think Apple is convinced about their hardware design, and they will keep on doing their own products.
and lisa: i think Apple knows very well which CPUs MacOS X runs best on…