The move is smaaaart from a commerical point of view, and ultimately it is good for the future of the unix desktop.
We know that OS X is well within the public eye. We know that M$ will push Vista into the public eye. We know that Vista is going to very challenging to adopt for the end user, and for many it won't offer obvious benefit over XP. We know that OS X has been doing much of what Vista does for a while now, on lower hardware than what Vista demands.
But I claim that OS X is still alien to those who are not willing to venture past the familiar Windows interface. As Vista is pushed into the public eye, it will be known as the future of that familiar interface. Everyone will eventually will be faced with the choices that come with change and technological advancement. By making OS X look like Vista, OS X first looks much less alien to those who are afraid of moving past Windows. Through superficial means, consciously or not, OS X enters the choice matrix . Then the end-user looks at the hardware costs. He looks at the $600 price tag for a Mac mini, versus the >$1200 price tag for a Vista desktop. He also notices that the hardware is prettier and is basically better designed. The choice then is between two OSs with apparently similar desktops. One has the Microsoft name and certain important programs, but with lots of bugs The other has the Apple name, with its big fanbase and iPod associations and reputed stability and security. For even the novice, the Vista desktop and the Apple desktop become directly comparable. And then for most, the Apple desktop with OS X makes more sense, and it is purchased. That's the commerical side.
For the *nix desktop side.. Software developers notice that Apple hardware and software sales are increasing. The few remaining Windows-only companies like AutoDesk realizing that they are not taking advantage of a market. As these professional programs are ported, the OS X desktop userbase (and there *nix desktop userbase) increases. This means more documentation and an increasingly popular platform for software development. It also means that our beloved OSS programs will have guaranteed place. If and when we need a commercial app, we won't need to switch desktops and computers. Ultimately, the experience becomes power pleasant and productive.
For some things you NEED SCSI, for others you don't. That much is obvious.
Large files/streams that require heavily mixed-mode I/O beat the balls off of SATA. E.g. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my partial understanding of SATA is that if many writes are cached and a read enters the queue, the cached writes are trashed.
so if you are working with check-in/check-out I/O type such as Samba profiles, SVN stuff, or (Samba|N)FS on a small-medium number of small-medium size files, or web stuff, SATA offers best price/performance ratio, with RAID or whatnot.
If you are working with large files that get a lot of unpredictable I/O, or databases, you really want SCSI.
Slashdot Mirror
The move is smaaaart from a commerical point of view, and ultimately it is good for the future of the unix desktop.
We know that OS X is well within the public eye.
We know that M$ will push Vista into the public eye.
We know that Vista is going to very challenging to adopt for the end user, and for many it won't offer obvious benefit over XP.
We know that OS X has been doing much of what Vista does for a while now, on lower hardware than what Vista demands.
But I claim that OS X is still alien to those who are not willing to venture past the familiar Windows interface.
As Vista is pushed into the public eye, it will be known as the future of that familiar interface.
Everyone will eventually will be faced with the choices that come with change and technological advancement.
By making OS X look like Vista, OS X first looks much less alien to those who are afraid of moving past Windows.
Through superficial means, consciously or not, OS X enters the choice matrix .
Then the end-user looks at the hardware costs.
He looks at the $600 price tag for a Mac mini, versus the >$1200 price tag for a Vista desktop.
He also notices that the hardware is prettier and is basically better designed.
The choice then is between two OSs with apparently similar desktops.
One has the Microsoft name and certain important programs, but with lots of bugs
The other has the Apple name, with its big fanbase and iPod associations and reputed stability and security.
For even the novice, the Vista desktop and the Apple desktop become directly comparable.
And then for most, the Apple desktop with OS X makes more sense, and it is purchased.
That's the commerical side.
For the *nix desktop side..
Software developers notice that Apple hardware and software sales are increasing.
The few remaining Windows-only companies like AutoDesk realizing that they are not taking advantage of a market.
As these professional programs are ported, the OS X desktop userbase (and there *nix desktop userbase) increases.
This means more documentation and an increasingly popular platform for software development.
It also means that our beloved OSS programs will have guaranteed place.
If and when we need a commercial app, we won't need to switch desktops and computers.
Ultimately, the experience becomes power pleasant and productive.
For some things you NEED SCSI, for others you don't. That much is obvious.
Large files/streams that require heavily mixed-mode I/O beat the balls off of SATA. E.g. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my partial understanding of SATA is that if many writes are cached and a read enters the queue, the cached writes are trashed.
so if you are working with check-in/check-out I/O type such as Samba profiles, SVN stuff, or (Samba|N)FS on a small-medium number of small-medium size files, or web stuff, SATA offers best price/performance ratio, with RAID or whatnot.
If you are working with large files that get a lot of unpredictable I/O, or databases, you really want SCSI.