Microsoft spends a HUGE amount of money supporting different chipsets (VIA, Intel, etc) CPUs (AMD, Intel, Transmeta, Via, etc), bus architectures, video cards, etc. That's a lot of QA, testing, etc.
Apple has to do MUCH less of this, because the OS comes preinstalled on their boxes.
If Apple let random folks install their OS on random "beige boxes", many people would have a sub-optimal experiences and will conclucde "OSX is the sh1tz".
I think Apple's better off tacitly allowing XP to run nicely on their hardware, but not to worry about the other way 'round. Even die-hard Mac haters may like to buy Powerbooks to run XP on. And who knows, they may at least give OSX a whirl.
...will even care about this. It's not like I'm going to take my wonderfully stable Windows XP Pro installation, that runs 98% of all software out there (either Windows, or Un*x software via Microsoft SFU or Cygwin), and replace it with some flakey old NeXT software....
There's a great picture of a corpse plant here. It's in 3D, so you'll need red/cyan glasses to view it. (Image was processed with the Callipygian 3D software that was featured on TechTV.
Apple is a HARDWARE company. They never were able to make software. In fact, after two failed attempts at writing an operating system, they had to acquire technology from NeXT, CMU, and BSD to scrape something together.
Never? Hell, even Solaris can panic, but it's once in a blue moon. Assuming it's not a hardware problem. A better way to put it is that Windows panics, oh, 100 times more often and OSX. Using PCs and Macs at work and at home for many years, that number is about right.
Maybe so, but statements like that aren't likely to get me to want to "switch" or even to be interested in your alternative platform. My little Shuttle AMD 64 system sitting here has been working flawlessly since it arrived at my door via UPS 6 months ago. It has never "blue screened" or crashed on me.
So when I hear "Mac People" say that I'm an idiot because my platform crashes all the time, I just sit and think to myself "gee--that guy really likes his self-selected persecuted minority" not "wow! I want to switch."
You're not helping your "cause." And why do people get so wrapped up in defending a consumer product?
Apple used to claim that a Pentium was like a snail. They can't do that anymore.
Apple still claims that OS-X never crashes. Mac users will say the same thing in public. However the Big Secret is that on Mac-centric bulletin boards (like this, for instance) you see that there are many "kernel panics" (the equivalent of a Windows BSOD).
I give Apple credit for putting up a nice, friendly message that "your computer needs to be restarted" instead of a blue screen with scary numbers on it. That way, Mac users believe that they simpley have to reboot because Macintosh said so, and there's nothing "Wrong."
4) Windows hacked to boot on new Apple x86 hardware
There won't be much of a need to "hack" Windows. Just make sure you have drivers available for any custom hardware, and you can boot. Windows XP runs on a huge variety of hardware and CPU combination as-is.
Dell will happily sell you a workstation, server or notebook which is 100% compatible with Windows XP.
What edge do Apple have other than OS X?
Disclaimer: I don't use Macs. I prefer Windows XP, because the development tools are MUCH better.
That being said, the advatage Apple should have over Dell is that they design and manufacture all the components--hardware and software. In theory a Macintosh should work perfectly....
"We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
And for good reason! Apple's core advantage is that they control the entire experience--hardware and software. Though I run Windows XP 99% of the time, I can readily admit that Microsoft has a big challenge supporting thousands of different hardware configurations--motherboards, chipsets, videocards, peripherals. It costs a lot of money to do all this QA, and poorly designed third-party hardware and software can kill a system.
Apple would be foolish to give up this advantage! And if, while not supported, XP users by Apple brand laptops to run XP on, that won't hurt Apple!
What hypocracy! When Apple wanted to "prove" that Intel was slower, they used GCC. Now that they need to use Intel, they're using the manufacturer's recommended compiler and getting better results.
Apple real strengh will be in its ability to provide a box where hardware and software come from one vendor--perfect compatbility. Microsoft has a real problem with poor-quality 3rd party drivers and software causing problems.
It really doesn't matter what CPU Apple uses and if Intel provides the best price/performance, that's what they should use.
Apple's unfortunate mistake was to make the CPU matter at all. They should have never made a big deal about that. Now they have to unbrainwash millions of Apple users who toss around terms like "megaHertz myth", "pipeline", "Altavec", "Power-Hungry", etc. Apple had those "Toasted Pentium" ads. For the few % of people who actually do work that rquires detailed knowledge of the architecure, this whole ad campaign was puzzling.
Steve Jobs could not have been telling the truth two years ago when he made those outlandish claims of P5 vs Pentium. And everyone knew it. Before the P5 was available, he was even sticking to the story that the P4 was faster than a Pentium. Even Mac loyalists didn't believe that one.
I live about a mile from Apple HQ. I expected to hear people muttering "AltaVec, Risc vs Cisc, Megahertz myth" and seeing their brains explode! Apple's past story makes no sense.
This may turn into a Good Thing! Apple may lose the "zealots" that scare people away from the platform, and have real people who just want some sort of iLife or editing appliance. If they shake the zealot contingent, good riddance!
Also, if people figure out a way to boot and run XP on their hardware, this can't hurt Apple's bottom line. They make a lot of $$$ selling hardware, too.
Apple has invested too much convincing its userbase that Intel is somehow "evil." This will hurt them.
I remember before the G5 was announced when most sensible people agreed that the PPC P4 was no longer competitive with Intel's latest. Apple kept telling its users "megahertz myth", etc, and talking about "pipelines". Then they switched to the P5 architecture--finally competitive with Intel. That made all their statments during the end of the P4 era suspect.
When the G5 was announced I was watching Steve live. He said something about 3 GHz in a year. I'm still waiting.
Mac users have it in their head that Intel is bad. That will confuse the Mac loyalists. I remember a conversation I had a few weeks ago. There was a Mac user working on Photoshop. He shouldn't care what CPU his computer used as long as it was fast enough. He was watching me do some custom video stuff on an Intel computer.
"I thought the Intel was bad for video", he told me. "It'th got a thegmented architecture." (Lisp was because of a tounge piercing, which seems more common among Mac users.) Now, I don't know where he heard that, or why it matters to him how the Intel chip addresses memory. But somehow he was duped--sucessfully--by the Apple PR machine that Intel is inferior.
Apple has an advantage because of their "closed box." By controlling both the hardware and software they can select the best technlogy available and integrate it. For low power, and perhaps for dual core, Intel may be the best choice. I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel used effectively by Apple for:
Ipod is an ugly, overhyped, expensive, unreliable, disposable piece of junk.
As a former iPod owner I agree with you. That's why I switch to a SamPod. And my Sampod has SCREWS in the back so I can open it and get to the battery. And it "just works" with Windows. Plug it in, and it'll sync with WMP 10.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA05-136A.ht ml
2. Periodically change your CPU architecture, forcing all your loyal users to buy new hardware (and software)
3. Profit!
...do have a low TCO! You don't have to keep upgrading them if it works for you.
Apple has to do MUCH less of this, because the OS comes preinstalled on their boxes.
If Apple let random folks install their OS on random "beige boxes", many people would have a sub-optimal experiences and will conclucde "OSX is the sh1tz".
I think Apple's better off tacitly allowing XP to run nicely on their hardware, but not to worry about the other way 'round. Even die-hard Mac haters may like to buy Powerbooks to run XP on. And who knows, they may at least give OSX a whirl.
A ToshPod killer! I was wondering when the cloners would notice this device and try to take some of Toshiba's share of the pie.
...vi and emacs to see which one is faster and takes less resources, and declare a "winner" once and for all?
There's a great picture of a corpse plant here. It's in 3D, so you'll need red/cyan glasses to view it. (Image was processed with the Callipygian 3D software that was featured on TechTV.
My first Mac G5 had 9 fans! It was noisy as heck. I finally sold it after I got tired of the noise, the pokey performance, and the instability.
Apple's since switched to liquid cooling, and fixed many of the crashers, but they lost me in the process.
Apple is a HARDWARE company. They never were able to make software. In fact, after two failed attempts at writing an operating system, they had to acquire technology from NeXT, CMU, and BSD to scrape something together.
Maybe so, but statements like that aren't likely to get me to want to "switch" or even to be interested in your alternative platform. My little Shuttle AMD 64 system sitting here has been working flawlessly since it arrived at my door via UPS 6 months ago. It has never "blue screened" or crashed on me.
So when I hear "Mac People" say that I'm an idiot because my platform crashes all the time, I just sit and think to myself "gee--that guy really likes his self-selected persecuted minority" not "wow! I want to switch."
You're not helping your "cause." And why do people get so wrapped up in defending a consumer product?
...and will offer stiff competition for the Goodyear Blimp!
I look forward to a real shell being a standard, shipping part of the OS!
I tend to use SFU + Bash on XP. In fact, I stopped running FreeBSD at home when XP and SFU came out. It's a better Unix than Unix.
Apple still claims that OS-X never crashes. Mac users will say the same thing in public. However the Big Secret is that on Mac-centric bulletin boards (like this, for instance) you see that there are many "kernel panics" (the equivalent of a Windows BSOD).
I give Apple credit for putting up a nice, friendly message that "your computer needs to be restarted" instead of a blue screen with scary numbers on it. That way, Mac users believe that they simpley have to reboot because Macintosh said so, and there's nothing "Wrong."
Here's an opportunity! Be the first person to add a definition for "blumpy" to the Wiktionary.
There won't be much of a need to "hack" Windows. Just make sure you have drivers available for any custom hardware, and you can boot. Windows XP runs on a huge variety of hardware and CPU combination as-is.
What edge do Apple have other than OS X?
Disclaimer: I don't use Macs. I prefer Windows XP, because the development tools are MUCH better.
That being said, the advatage Apple should have over Dell is that they design and manufacture all the components--hardware and software. In theory a Macintosh should work perfectly....
Rerelease XP for PPC / 970! Microsoft can say: *We* haven't abandoned you. I'm sure they still do the builds internally.
And for good reason! Apple's core advantage is that they control the entire experience--hardware and software. Though I run Windows XP 99% of the time, I can readily admit that Microsoft has a big challenge supporting thousands of different hardware configurations--motherboards, chipsets, videocards, peripherals. It costs a lot of money to do all this QA, and poorly designed third-party hardware and software can kill a system.
Apple would be foolish to give up this advantage! And if, while not supported, XP users by Apple brand laptops to run XP on, that won't hurt Apple!
Then a simple "loss" wouldn't be a Big Deal!
(All mine are, as are my laptop harddrives, in case a laptop "goes missing")
What hypocracy! When Apple wanted to "prove" that Intel was slower, they used GCC. Now that they need to use Intel, they're using the manufacturer's recommended compiler and getting better results.
It really doesn't matter what CPU Apple uses and if Intel provides the best price/performance, that's what they should use.
Apple's unfortunate mistake was to make the CPU matter at all. They should have never made a big deal about that. Now they have to unbrainwash millions of Apple users who toss around terms like "megaHertz myth", "pipeline", "Altavec", "Power-Hungry", etc. Apple had those "Toasted Pentium" ads. For the few % of people who actually do work that rquires detailed knowledge of the architecure, this whole ad campaign was puzzling.
Steve Jobs could not have been telling the truth two years ago when he made those outlandish claims of P5 vs Pentium. And everyone knew it. Before the P5 was available, he was even sticking to the story that the P4 was faster than a Pentium. Even Mac loyalists didn't believe that one.
I live about a mile from Apple HQ. I expected to hear people muttering "AltaVec, Risc vs Cisc, Megahertz myth" and seeing their brains explode! Apple's past story makes no sense.
This may turn into a Good Thing! Apple may lose the "zealots" that scare people away from the platform, and have real people who just want some sort of iLife or editing appliance. If they shake the zealot contingent, good riddance!
Also, if people figure out a way to boot and run XP on their hardware, this can't hurt Apple's bottom line. They make a lot of $$$ selling hardware, too.
- Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"
- Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves"
These books explain how Consciousness and "Free Will" may have evolved (and, by inference, how thay can exist on a computer, too.)I remember before the G5 was announced when most sensible people agreed that the PPC P4 was no longer competitive with Intel's latest. Apple kept telling its users "megahertz myth", etc, and talking about "pipelines". Then they switched to the P5 architecture--finally competitive with Intel. That made all their statments during the end of the P4 era suspect.
When the G5 was announced I was watching Steve live. He said something about 3 GHz in a year. I'm still waiting.
Mac users have it in their head that Intel is bad. That will confuse the Mac loyalists. I remember a conversation I had a few weeks ago. There was a Mac user working on Photoshop. He shouldn't care what CPU his computer used as long as it was fast enough. He was watching me do some custom video stuff on an Intel computer.
"I thought the Intel was bad for video", he told me. "It'th got a thegmented architecture." (Lisp was because of a tounge piercing, which seems more common among Mac users.) Now, I don't know where he heard that, or why it matters to him how the Intel chip addresses memory. But somehow he was duped--sucessfully--by the Apple PR machine that Intel is inferior.
Apple has an advantage because of their "closed box." By controlling both the hardware and software they can select the best technlogy available and integrate it. For low power, and perhaps for dual core, Intel may be the best choice. I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel used effectively by Apple for:
- Headless Servers
- A Mini-Mac "ilife" machine
- Some sort of Tablet machine
That would make a lot of sense.As a former iPod owner I agree with you. That's why I switch to a SamPod. And my Sampod has SCREWS in the back so I can open it and get to the battery. And it "just works" with Windows. Plug it in, and it'll sync with WMP 10.