PhrstBrn Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I know this is semi-old news, but what are people's thoughts about this? For those who are not familiar: Apple has made an agreement with Intel to start using their x86 chips. Currently they are using PowerPC processsors. This is a big change, since programs made for PowerPCs will not run on x86's without emulation, which greatly reduces performance. This change will take place over the next two years. My thoughts? I'm personally in favor of the change. Although I will agree that the x86 architecture is old and could use a total overhaul, this should create some healty competition. Since programs will more easily ported from Windows to Mac now, more programs will be available for Macs. I believe this will help increase the sales of Macs (in my opinion, MacOS X is far surperior to Winblows), which will in turn force Microsoft to work harder to make Windows a more competitive product. At this point, it seems Microsoft doesn't care if their product sucks, because people are still buying it. If more people start to think "Hey, you can run Mac OSX on an Intel!", Microsoft will have to work harder for their customers. I'm hoping this in turn will help encourage Microsoft to improve their Windows product. I firmly believe that the majority of consumers stay away from Macs because they run unfamiliar hardware. If you make the hardware the same, consumers will be less afraid of the change. I know this sounds silly, but it's the truth. Most people probabbly don't know what a PowerPC is, and most people won't buy stuff that they're unfamiliar with. However, I'm sure everybody knows what "Intel" and "Pentium" are. Overall, I think this is a good move that will increase the sales of Macs and create some competion for Microsoft. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hulk12 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 No biggie IBM will strike back and pick up some other OS. Microsoft will continue to have it's hits and misses. And Linux will always remain on my bedroom PC. SimplyMEPIS :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyro Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I doubt it will make much difference. The price and performance of MAC's may be slightly affected by it, but for the end user I doubt much will change. It will still not be possible to run OSX on a PC, so the change is really fairly minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonda Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 No biggie IBM will strike back and pick up some other OS. Microsoft will continue to have it's hits and misses. And Linux will always remain on my bedroom PC. SimplyMEPIS :) Lol, I like the way you put that sounds like a commercial or something, good writing style! As for the topic... only time will. I don't think people are so much concerned with the hardware as the software. They would have to learn the new OS, and then they would have to go out and buy new software for it.... Say they already have MS office, or a windows-only webcam.... they wouldn't want to waste money and have to go and buy more new stuff. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixl_Jj_Ixl Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 idk, ive always known of apples bein crapy comps :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaN Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 idk, ive always known of apples bein crapy comps :lol: In other words youve never known anything? ~Dan64AuSince 27 Aug 2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhrstBrn Posted June 10, 2005 Author Share Posted June 10, 2005 idk, ive always known of apples bein crapy comps :lol: Holy crap. You don't have to worry about spyware. You don't have to worry about viruses. You get an awesome and easy to use GUI. You get a dummy proof system. You get an EXTREMELY stable system. But yeah, you're right. I love dealing with Windows crashing. Computers that don't require hours a week to keep running are pretty "crappy", imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I have no idea how much this will affect the actual market, but I must disagree with some of the original post to some extent. Windows will probably still not run on a mac, correct. However, you did claim that programs running on Windows could now be ported to Mac OS more easily. I don't think that's true: while the underlying processor architecture is going to be similar, the interfaces you have with the architecture, which are provided by the OS, will still be incredibly different (unless Apple will announce they'll start supporting the Win32 API, but I can't really see that happening). You also mentioned that old apps will run on an emulation layer. While that's true, apps can also simply be ported to the new architecture - something which doesn't even require all that much work. Apple is currently spreading development kits with Macs running dual P4's, for $999. Do note, the developers will have to return the comp in 1 year or so ;) (it's a lease) (As for the people going 'Macs suck', please shut up and know what you're talking about first... Microsoft wouldn't secretly be running Macs in some of their offices if they sucked that much.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric2203 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 You don't have to worry about spyware. You don't have to worry about viruses. Yeah because it's not targeted. Don't make it sound like it protects you. Plus that statement is not 100 % true. It's more "you don't have to worry as much". Hannibal, regardless of whether Macs suck or not, the reason MS has some is to observe the competition. Just like Apple has Windows systems somewhere, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhrstBrn Posted June 10, 2005 Author Share Posted June 10, 2005 You also mentioned that old apps will run on an emulation layer. While that's true, apps can also simply be ported to the new architecture - something which doesn't even require all that much work. True, but that also assumes the author of the program actually wants to port it. I agree, programs have already been ported from PowerPC to x86 in HOURS (ex. Mathematica), and it shouldn't be a big deal. However, if you have an old program that you use all the time and it's been virtually abandoned, you're not going to be able to get an x86 version, even if it just involves a simple recompile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Hannibal, regardless of whether Macs suck or not, the reason MS has some is to observe the competition. Just like Apple has Windows systems somewhere, I'm sure. Why would they run anything that their competition makes when it sucks? They hold at least 90% of the market, they have absolutely no reason to do so. Neither Windows nor Mac OS suck by definition, which is why people keep them around. Heck, Microsoft ran Linux on one of their webservers once (they corrected that pretty soon when people found out though, haha. Bad publicity. Same reason why the employee who posted pics of iMac's being delivered to MS headquarters was fired that same week). I'm sure Apple and MS are smart enough to steal eachother's good things, which is why they keep those machines around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseTSM Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I think this will be good for the company. There will be a transition phase but thats still a lot better then not releasing new computers because IBM is to busy selling chips to companys to use in new game consoles. The only part that I disagree with is the point of X not able to run on pcs or XP running on Macs, because it already can. Steve jobs has already got a version of tiger that runs on pcs and I'm sure that leopard will as well. My 2 cents. My Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric2203 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Why would they run anything that their competition makes when it sucks? Didn't I just answer that ? To observe the competition. Every company out there knows what their direct competitors are making and buys their products to study them. It's common practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Why would they run anything that their competition makes when it sucks? Didn't I just answer that ? To observe the competition. Every company out there knows what their direct competitors are making and buys their products to study them. It's common practice. It was meant to be a rhetorical question. I guess we disagree about it then, because I feel that companies will not run software they think sucks, and the users think sucks, and offers no real competition to them. Looking into the market share, Macs are no real competition for Windows-based computers, especially because switching is so expensive. So, if you were to say macs suck, there would be no reason at all for MS to use them. After all, they'd suck, be of no threat to MS at all etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric2203 Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I don't quite understand your reasoning, but ok... Every company thinks their products are the best and that the others all suck... And of course they'd say that. Doesn't mean they don't keep an eye on what the others do. Don't wanna get caught with a good feature the others have and not them. Don't know, but it's common sense to me and that's how it's done in the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Every company thinks their products are the best and that the others all suck... And of course they'd say that. Most sane companies realise full-well what's lacking in their application, which parts suck and which parts don't. They're also (usually) honest to themselves as to what extent competitor's applications suck. I've never heard a Mozilla developer say Opera sucks, or vice versa. They do seem to have this thing about IE, though (hey, they've got good reasons for that one ;) ). Thinking the competition sucks just because they're competition makes you unrealistic and naÃÆÃâÃâïve, and will lose you market share. Microsoft takes Apple serious because they make a decent operating system. They wouldn't do so if it was, a home made 3-month-old hobby project, which crashed every other boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric2203 Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Microsoft takes Apple serious Exactly. That's why MS has some Macs. That's exactly what I've been trying to say. By the way, you do know that MS makes Macs products too, right ? Office for Mac... etc. So they kinda need some in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 By the way, you do know that MS makes Macs products too, right ? Office for Mac... etc. So they kinda need some in there. Yes, I'm aware of that. Ironically, IE for Mac beats WinIE on standards compliance hands down ;). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now