I've been using Windows emulators on Macs since the "beginning" and have 4 licenses for VPC currently, but we use them on laptops, where it would be inconvenient to bring along a PC laptop AND a Mac laptop just to have access to more than one platform. For desktop use, one can add a PC for not much more than the price of VPC + OS and, if space is a problem, as it is for me, build an inexpensive Athlon PC with a Shuttle case and put in a KVM switch to keep to a single keyboard and monitor.
We have 3 shuttles with 2400+ processors, 256MB ram, 80GB drives, running Windows 2000 Pro. We already had flat panel monitors which the iBook users mirror when sitting at a desk, so it was simple to place a KVM between their external keyboard/mouse and monitor. The cost of the box was less than $400 each and that included an OEM Radeon 9000 Pro in each of them, which is not really necessary for standard 2D work as they come with decent graphics built in for modest 2D work.
I just don't see the gains for running VPC on a desktop Mac considering the low price of PC hardware; but for a laptop, it's really handy and since there's not much chance of a G5 laptop anytime soon, we can hope there will be a workable solution when and if the G5 architecture comes to Powerbooks.
Amen. Living in a university town, Lawrence, KS, and having been a PC user from 1980 and a Mac user from 1987, I remember distinctly the prophesies of local VARs when Apple's policies changed in the late 80's and particularly the early 90's. They have come to pass and it's a huge freight train that will take a long time for Apple to counter, if indeed they can.
I'm not sure Apple will try and "keep" what they've basically lost in mindshare and competitiveness as it pertains to the schools. They may try a different angle. I think they are going after the mindshare like key namebrands have done for the past two decades. You don't have to be the ONLY best, but you try and convince the public that you are consistently, unquestionably, among the best of the best, PLUS you add a pride factor or must-have factor.
It won't, of course, stem the tide of PC purchases. However, mindshare is critical for long term viability. If students feel they are "forced" to use a particular product, they will likely "rebel" against that at a later time. They will strive to own the "desired" product that their state-run school deemed too "elite" for their needs. I know a lot of "kiddies" felt forced to use Apple IIe systems or older Macs and so when they "grew up" and got their own license to drive, they went out and got a "real computer", one that has it's own custom BSOD, etc. Maybe Apple should work their magic and show their smaller market share as a position of strength, rather than looking at it as a sign of weakness.
However, it's a tricky game and not everyone can play it and survive. I hope Apple continues to thrive, and I would love for them to have a 10-15% market share; but frankly, if it were some huge share of, say 40%, I'd probably be looking for the "next" Apple to come along. The best products are rarely the most dominant in numbers; rather they dominate the wish lists.
Your $0.02 would not go very far in making up the cost difference in electrical costs between the two setups. 500 dual Athlons would burn about 4 times the electricity of 500 dual G4's.
I wonder... Intel is touting this breakthrough, which should affect chip design for all kinds of chips and on Sept. 4, Sun-Times reported that Motorola had firmed up the design and manufacturing processes for using Gallium Arsenide as a binding agent to greatly enhance capabilities into the 50+ ghz range. IBM discussed this process as a future breakthrough situation that would likely occur within 5 years... back in 1998, as reported on CNet.
i think they're referring to this article from Sept. 4: http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-mo to04.html
also, IBM discussed this in 1998 and estimated it would be about 5 years before it became commercially viable, which is still consistent with this report re: Motorola's process. It would also have favorable implications to ALL chip manufacturing, not just core processors. It's nothing new, theoretically, just new and revolutionary in a practical sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using Windows emulators on Macs since the "beginning" and have 4 licenses for VPC currently, but we use them on laptops, where it would be inconvenient to bring along a PC laptop AND a Mac laptop just to have access to more than one platform. For desktop use, one can add a PC for not much more than the price of VPC + OS and, if space is a problem, as it is for me, build an inexpensive Athlon PC with a Shuttle case and put in a KVM switch to keep to a single keyboard and monitor.
We have 3 shuttles with 2400+ processors, 256MB ram, 80GB drives, running Windows 2000 Pro. We already had flat panel monitors which the iBook users mirror when sitting at a desk, so it was simple to place a KVM between their external keyboard/mouse and monitor. The cost of the box was less than $400 each and that included an OEM Radeon 9000 Pro in each of them, which is not really necessary for standard 2D work as they come with decent graphics built in for modest 2D work.
I just don't see the gains for running VPC on a desktop Mac considering the low price of PC hardware; but for a laptop, it's really handy and since there's not much chance of a G5 laptop anytime soon, we can hope there will be a workable solution when and if the G5 architecture comes to Powerbooks.
Amen. Living in a university town, Lawrence, KS, and having been a PC user from 1980 and a Mac user from 1987, I remember distinctly the prophesies of local VARs when Apple's policies changed in the late 80's and particularly the early 90's. They have come to pass and it's a huge freight train that will take a long time for Apple to counter, if indeed they can.
I'm not sure Apple will try and "keep" what they've basically lost in mindshare and competitiveness as it pertains to the schools. They may try a different angle. I think they are going after the mindshare like key namebrands have done for the past two decades. You don't have to be the ONLY best, but you try and convince the public that you are consistently, unquestionably, among the best of the best, PLUS you add a pride factor or must-have factor.
It won't, of course, stem the tide of PC purchases. However, mindshare is critical for long term viability. If students feel they are "forced" to use a particular product, they will likely "rebel" against that at a later time. They will strive to own the "desired" product that their state-run school deemed too "elite" for their needs. I know a lot of "kiddies" felt forced to use Apple IIe systems or older Macs and so when they "grew up" and got their own license to drive, they went out and got a "real computer", one that has it's own custom BSOD, etc. Maybe Apple should work their magic and show their smaller market share as a position of strength, rather than looking at it as a sign of weakness.
However, it's a tricky game and not everyone can play it and survive. I hope Apple continues to thrive, and I would love for them to have a 10-15% market share; but frankly, if it were some huge share of, say 40%, I'd probably be looking for the "next" Apple to come along. The best products are rarely the most dominant in numbers; rather they dominate the wish lists.
Your $0.02 would not go very far in making up the cost difference in electrical costs between the two setups. 500 dual Athlons would burn about 4 times the electricity of 500 dual G4's.
Fast times at Motorola
IBM advances chip speeds - Tech News - CNET...
I wonder... Intel is touting this breakthrough, which should affect chip design for all kinds of chips and on Sept. 4, Sun-Times reported that Motorola had firmed up the design and manufacturing processes for using Gallium Arsenide as a binding agent to greatly enhance capabilities into the 50+ ghz range. IBM discussed this process as a future breakthrough situation that would likely occur within 5 years... back in 1998, as reported on CNet.
i think they're referring to this article from Sept. 4: http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-mo to04.html
also, IBM discussed this in 1998 and estimated it would be about 5 years before it became commercially viable, which is still consistent with this report re: Motorola's process. It would also have favorable implications to ALL chip manufacturing, not just core processors. It's nothing new, theoretically, just new and revolutionary in a practical sense.