What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
320 Comments
- FearNLoathing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11His argument is not compelling at all. He is comparing Apple to IBM, in that IBM dropped OS/2 for Windows. That is pretty funny, actually, because IBM lost money after that and eventually sold off their PC manufacturing business. I think it is far more likely that Apple would sell OSX for x86 before it sold Windows machines.
- panique, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Dvorak is a master troll, don't feed him any page hits.
Apple will destroy Windows before switching to it. Dvorak obviously has failed to read about how it is still impossible to boot Windows on a Intel-based Mac. If Apple were going to switch, they probably would have provided the necessary firmware to boot the OS, no? - motionblur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Dvorak is entertaining to read and nothing more.
- Hydro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Apple won't do it. They stand out because they're the "PC's Done Right" company. If they destroy that image by shipping Windows, then they destroy any credibility they might have had. And what about all the improvements and builting-up of OS X to be a complete, anyone-can-use-it desktop? Why throw that all away? It'd be easier just to build a Windows API emulator.
- xedeon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What the hell!! what is Dvorak smoking?? gimme some!
- videolab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If they did such a thing they would destroy their loyal user base.
- infinitespecter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4THAT was the compelling argument that he was talking about on TWiT? There is almost nothing compelling about that argument at all. His entire basis is that some people won't switch because their peripherals don't work. He then goes on to make a rather off point remark about how Linux users can't figure out how to use their DVD burners... why? In the days of OS 9, everything he said makes perfect sense. But in this day and age, with OS X having support for a multitude of peripherals in one way or another, it simply doesn't.
- khollen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work."
GOD, i know. it would be SO FRUSTRATING if apple bothered to maintain its own os. imagine all the complaints they'd have to suffer, what with all of those peripherals we can't use and what-not.
you'll recall, i'm sure, how apple actually went bankrupt in 2003 because there were no drivers available for canon, epson, xerox, hp, lexmark, or brother printers for os x.
...no, wait. that didn't happen. every major printer manufacturer just went cross-platform and developed os x drivers right alongside the windows drivers. um...
or that time that apple had to go out of business in 2004 because none of the major digital cameras would work with their software.
...oh, my bad. that didn't happen either, because iphoto works with virtually every single digital camera on the market.
no, wait, i'm quite sure apple completely closed up shop in 2001 because of all of that software incompatibility, since there was no video software that would work with any of the major video cameras.
...oops. sorry, final cut pro and imovie can take virtually any firewire dv signal and go to town on it.
well, i'm quite sure not being able to use wacom tablets will...no, wait, they're cross-platform too. there was that whole "no decent teleconferencing" prob-... never mind. but their lack of AIM is -- no.
but--oh, wait! look at all of the losses they took after adobe dropped premiere for the mac! NOBODY makes movies on apple machines anym -- all three "lord of the rings" movies? really? oh.
no, wait, exchange server! ha! can't connect to an exchange server, CAN you?! ...oh. they fixed that in office 2004 service pack 2? damn. well, now that internet explorer's been dropped for the mac, they're DOOMED! oh, nobody noticed? really? it was last month. you'd all already switched to safari or firefox last year? um. hm.
well, still, macs SUCK, and i KNOW they suck because of all of the hardware and software incompatibilities you always hear so much about from people who troll apple threads specifically to point out those wacky hardware and software incompatibilities. (like "call of duty 2" -- no, wait. they have that too. DAMNIT).
...i'll actually think of something that can't be done on a mac ANY DAY now, boy howdy. so just you wait. - geekologist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6No way in hell. We will never live to see the day. In fact, no one will.
- br0ken1128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I can't buy this for a moment..
The mac is not the mac because of the hardware, the mac is not the mac because of the software... the mac is the mac because of both pieces combined..
You ship a mac with windows as the os, you better make that some damn sexy hardware with some awesome features, otherwise it's just another computer by another vendor..
I bought my powerbook for several reasons.. I liked that brushed metal case, I liked the glowing apple logo, I liked the way the keys lit up when it got darker in the room.. and I loved that sexy operating system, especially coming from a unix background...
am I a mac fanboy? .. nope, my primary computer is a PC, my work computer is a PC .. they are work horses, and very practical .. but I love my mac experience.. put windows on it .. and I won't love it anymore. - pdavis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Steve Jobs would sooner piss on a spark plug as to ship a Mac with Windows. Apple is not IBM.
- po6ot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Don't feed the troll.
- osmaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Dvorak's calendar must be reading April 1st or something...
- JTMON, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Dvorak likes to make multiple dumbass predictions, not make you think. Nobody in their right mind would think this way. At the end of the article he states how Apple could just tweak the GUI and leave the gruntwork of the OS to Microsoft. That statement show exactly how out of touch with reality he is. To think that apple would allow MS to handle the back end..something MS already does badly..but then we'll brand it with an apple gui? This is one of the dumbest articles Dvorcrap has come up with lately. And please, comparing IBM OS/2 to OSX at this point is apples and oranges, no pun intended. OS/2 was NEVER as big and as widely used as OSX is, it was always more of a business OS. Add to the fact that we aren't in the beginning of computing anymore, the landscape isn't even the same. He even states that "Linux never took off" as if it's not still growing and is an old throwback. ***** YOU DVORAK.
- jrkagan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse'. There is no evidence that people want to use these things." -John C. Dvorak in the San Francisco Examiner, February 1984
- Wilersh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What a troll you can be Dvorak. These arguments are hardly "compelling". The holes in them are so obvious I won't re-hash them here. Dvorak just loves being contrary by predicting wild ***** all the time. Once in a great while he actually turns out right but the vast majority of the time he lands a turd.
- theuber1337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Am I the only one that likes the windows gui more than OSX??
No, but digg is full of Mac Panthers. God, I hate them more than I hate Apple. - darthsnoopy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ugh, there's so many things wrong with this article, I dont know where to start. Dvorak is known for sensationalism, but often times he's the guy that uses Monty Python logic to explain where the Tech world is heading...
(paraphrased monty python)
What do you burn? (wood)
What else do you burn (witches)
Then what are witches made out of (wood)
And wood does what (float)
So that means if we tie the woman to a chair and throw her in the water...if she floats...shes a witch!
paraphrased Dvorak
Have there been hardware makers that dropped thier OS to switch to windows (IBM, OS2)
Since Apple's buzzword product right now is hardware, that must be all they care about (go ipod)
Therefore Apple is a hardware maker
And since Apple switched to x86, and they're a hardware maker....then....
I think that makes Steve Jobs a witch? I dunno, call me confused...or call me...Darth Snoopy - celticeric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If a Mac runs Windows and has Intel under the hood that makes it a PC. I can't see people paying Apple prices for a PC.
If the new MacIntel can boot Windows I predict that few people will install it. Even less will setup a dual boot. Only us nerds care about such things. The ordinary user (Apple users especially?) want computers to just work out of the box without any tweaking, partioning or installing. Apple knows this. That's why it won't damage it's business model by officially supporting Windows on MacIntel and why it won't ever licence OS X for beige box PCs. - moron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dvorak - Makes lots of predictions about everything, usually wrong, but when he does get one right, no one is louder and more vocal about his brilliant predictions!
- chriszma666, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Wow. This man is retarded.
- marsbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think this is genius. If it doesn't happen its simply because of egos between Jobs and Gates/Balmer. As for their businesses its the best thing both companies could do.
Jobs has shown in the past that he only cares about providing the best user experience. He doesn't give a rats ass about the kernel or any of the low level parts of his products. He would "switch" to the Windows NT kernel with an Aqua shell rebuilt with WMF just as quickly as he dumped OS9 and PPC if he felt it made a better, more profitable Mac. The end user will hardly notice the difference, it will still have the same rich user experience in Aqua only it will be built using WMF. You'll have one kernel supporting two desktop environments (NT supporting Vista and Aqua). Its the same concept as the linux kernel supporting Gnome and KDE.
Its good for Apple because they increase the compatibility of tons of hardware and software while getting rid of tons of cost in maintaining a kernel team. They keep their user interface (Aqua) team and their competitive advantage by still building the same great user experience.
Its good for Microsoft because they're being forced to open up a lot of their interfaces because of EU rulings so they might as well license the kernel to other companies instead of have them use the linux kernel. The longer people use the NT kernel the better it is for MS.
Both companies are strong proponents to IP. They don't give a damn about free software other than thinking about how to kill it. A lot of UNIX/BSD/Linux fan boys think Apple built OSX for them. Guess again! I agree with Dvorak on this one. Best move for both companies. If it doesn't happen its because of egos. - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think it'll happen any time soon, but I do see it being possible. As many Mac users have said, Windows would have to be able to run on EFI. Check. Vista does that. Mac users also like the interface of MacOS. Check. That too could be done with Vista (or presumably a later incarnation of Windows). The argument that Apple would then be forced to compete with Dell in the low-end is dumb as well. Apple already competes with Dell. For so many college students, their decision process is "Hmmm, Dell or Apple?" Also, you don't *have* to make low-end computers to be a PC manufacturer. Look at Alienware, Falcon, Lenovo, etc. They don't make low-end machines but they are PC's. There's another argument down the drain.
The only real arguments I see are that Windows is insecure compared to OS X. That's true right now, but we'll see what happens when Vista comes out. Also, there's nothing stopping Mac from licensing and customizing Windows and making it more secure by default than it is/will be. Another good reason why this won't happen is that it would be another change in the core OS. However, we've seen before that Apple isn't scared of doing just that with the shift from OS 9 to OS X.
Again, I don't think it'll happen...at least not any time soon. However, he does make some good points. - swraith1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple sells their machines because of their OS. They do not sell machines with the Apple OS as an after thought. Apple will not drop Mac OS X and this comes from some a Windows only person. Garbage. No digg. No facts.
- sman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I fail to see how anyone could predict this. A lot of people switch to Apple workstations from PCs because of OSX, not for the hardware. At least that is what me and many of those I know who made the switch say was our primary reason. You can read countless articles/blogs/etc about why people strayed over to the OSX desktop. Generally it is was due to user experience which is difficult to define, but includes more than just hardware. In fact, the average user could care less about what is running in that box beside/on/under the desk. They only care about what they see on the screen and whether than can do what they want with the tools provided. I still keep my linux/windows machines handy, but prefer the OSX experience for daily grind that no one has been able to emulate or improve 100%. Just my 2 cents. Regardless, Dvorak is always entertaining to read.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is so unconvicing that it is laughable. First off, the amount of work they would have to do to switch (again) to a Windows based OS and keep older applications running on new machines would be about as much as goes into maintaining OS X as it is.
OS X is already a pretty "complete" project. They don't NEED to do much to it. They will, just to keep moving units, but they don't have to. They could sell 10.5 against Vista for it's entire lifespan with only minor work. They seem to feel fast and constant innovation is in their best interest, though, so I won't be suprised to see 10.6 and .7 before Vista gets replaced.
And his "arguments" that Apple won't be able to tweak the hardware and the software to keep working together so well... why not? OS X STILL only runs an Apple computer (officially at least, and who cares about the people doing it otherwise?), so they can still tweak all they want to make things work well. The idea that peripherals are all of a sudden going to stop working with Intel based systems, like Dvorak seems to speculate it idiotic. If it works with PPC Macs it's because it has drivers to do so. Same goes for Intel Macs (and Windows and Linux machines).
Dvorak once again has shown how very, very little he knows about computers and technology as a whole. - smoknyreyz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2dude needs to lay off the crack
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He predicts things like that because he's an addle-brained hack!
- steppjr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3“By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work.”
I think this is why you will never see OSX for sale as an OS at your local Best Buy! Does not matter if it is Intel or IBM making their CPU’s if they keep there OS on there own hardware then it is still proprietary. - lerover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree this is nonsense. What will allow Apple to sell "high margin" computers if OS X is not on them?
Also, I didn't get his argument about non-functioning DVD players etc. I actually bought my Mac after a few days of battling *both* Windows and Linux trying to get them to use the scanner and the printer I'd bought earlier. - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't listen to Dvorak. He's a *****. Everything he writes now is sensationalist crap.
He treats every idea he has as a fact. - robojames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2either way, won't matter much once GoogleOS is released.
- Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So Apple is going to go after the 95% of the market that thinks Apples hardware is too expensive?
Hmmmm - galfridus73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Read what he wrote before you assume he's on crack:
"To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive. Apple popularized the modern GUI. Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft? It would help the bottom line and put Apple on the fast track to real growth."
Essentially, he's saying that he sees Apple putting OS X out with Windows underpinnings, rather than BSD, but it will still look like a Mac.
I wouldn't be surprised, but I think it's more likely that Apple will more heavily embrace WINE and Linux before embracing Windows. If Apple can create "THE" Linux distro with WINE fully integrated, and can figure out how to address DirectX properly, then there's no need for Windows.
Let's all remember how unlikely we all thought it was that Palm would put out a Pocket PC-powered Palm device. Yet they did. - idesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow. That was a terrible article with no hard facts, just massive amounts of opinion and fluff.
vista a collabo between apple and MS???? uh no. Theres beta versions and developers building software for that OS. To lift the curtain and say 'gotcha' would piss off so many developers who put in so many hours... ridiculous! - Chip_whitly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is nothing more than a Internet media stunt, it gets people talking about him and keeps his "career" alive.
- lennon2600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Dvorak rules, he's a good writer who likes to get people talking about these kinds of things.">
A good writer? Wow, your standards must be quite low. Also, just to add a bit to the fire, Dvorak is talking nonsense. Apple and Microsoft aren't buddies (Apple uses Office because the business world is dominated by the suite, and Apple would be stupid to turn their back on the largest computer market in the world - yep, that's right, check the numbers for yourself), and anyone who knows even a bit about Jobs is that he's not one to go the way of the green when it comes to his first baby (Apple). He's a geek; he's stated time and time again that he loves harmony between person and machine. When was the last time anyone knew of anyone who fell in love with a Dell? The accounts of iMac destruction are few. Market share also means quite little. Apple has about 5% and Jobs has an alleged money pot of a few billion. Even if the company grew its reach to 10, 15, or 20 there's a chance that he could be up there in the top 10 or top 5 richest. AND, Apple's switch to Intel makes it more appealing for developers to go through the hassle (less hassle now, supposedly) of making mac compatible shtuff.
All in all, I've never really liked Dvorak or his opinions because they tend to showcase his ignorance and make me wonder why PCMag decides to employ this guy and run his weak, empty, and unsubstantiated jargon. Actually, come to think of it, I hardly think of PCMag as an org worthy of praise or much attention. Most geeks can put two and two together and come away with items and ideas much better than the fluff between endless streams of advertisements. - Khillian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is easy to call Dvorak a fool, but apple has always shocked people by making some stupid moves. Look at this old article saying how apple will never switch to Intel dated from the year 2000.
http://www.macopinion.com/columns/tangible/00/12/14/ - Blizaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1haha... I read the article and all I can say is that I've now lost ALL respect I had for Dvorak :(
What a piece a nonsense.... - degree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Am I the only one that likes the windows gui more than OSX??
Whenever I am forced to use OS X (which is on a daily basis) I feel like biting the screen..I cannot stand the GUI at all. It is also not at all intuitive if you are even the least bit adept. Doing stuff on a mac takes longer than on a pc. Maybe if you were a grandma, about to die, and still confused about cellphones mac would be sweet, but besides that its all a bunch of trendy scenesters who think glowing apples on the back of their laptops are sweet. - vindio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is that turns out to be true, the latest Apple commercial about the Intel chip "trapped in a crappy windows box" won't exactly be remembered as "prophetic".
- sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Also note that getting rid of MacOS would defeat the point in owning an apple. The benefit is having a stable and secure operating system that's easy to use, free of malware, and (unlike windows) doesn't suck.
It boils down simply:
Mac = GOD for general use and multimedia work
Linux = great for general use (albeit with a learning curve) and the only way to go if you're programming.
Windows = The only option for gaming, extremely efficient at ***** up and crashing. - plex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apple will never switch to Intel chips... wait a minute
- chime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. Dvorak's lameness never ceases to amaze me. Does he really get paid for crap like this?
I don't use Macs primarily but some of my coworkers do and they absolutely depend on OS X for its features. The Mac OS X is a very good operating system and it integrates quite well with Linux/Samba and Windows/Active-Directory. I doubt any Mac graphic designers will ever switch to Photoshop on Windows. While Apple may not make a lot of money on selling OS X, that's a pretty substantial draw. What will Apple gain from becoming a hardware company? If you just want to run Windows, why would you ever buy an expensive Apple x86/x64 machine? You're better off getting a cheap $300 Dell. While Mike Dell underestimated Apple's potention, Apple cannot compete with Dell in the low-margin cut-throat PC-vendor business. Apple has always been about price and quality.
And how stupid is the concept of "executive software layer?" He is suggesting that Apple make the hardware that runs crash-prone Windows OS that offers some kind of a virtual layer that will eventually run the UI built by Apple? Apple already does something like that and it is much better - Apple hardware running the quite stable/secure BSD running the Quartz/UI = OS X. And Apple can charge extra money for the OS X. Why would Apple let MS get $50-$100 per PC for Windows when BSD is free? Apple still has to do the work on the UI-end and various applications that interact with the hardware.
To call this article stupid is akin to giving Nobel Prize in Literature to Britney Spears. - sgirard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dvorak just wants to drive more traffic to his blog: http://dvorak.org/blog .
Really, haven't you all figured out that he writes this stuff for the controversy it generates? I have nothing against Dvorak - I enjoy listening to him on TWIT - I just believe he uses Mac user's fanaticism as a tool to generate controversy and keep his name in the press. - TellarHK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dvorak predicting the Intel switch isn't *****, considering my -cat- predicted a switch to x86 after looking at the Freescale/Power roadmap, Seriously. He looked up at me, his big green cat eyes flashing in the light and meowed pretty clearly.
"Holy *****, this processor line is going noplace fast. No major speed increases in the last two years? At all? And nothing desktop-worthy in two more? Wow. Talk about rats on a sinking ship. They'll probably pick AMD, because AMD will gut pricing for the prestige boost."
Unfortunately, my cat doesn't quite grasp the difference between AMD's output levels and Intel's, so he got that part wrong. Stupid little bugger sometimes. - ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1interesting read, but dear lord I hope Dvorak's wrong. The main reason I shelled out 2 grand for this Mac of mine is for OS X. If I wanted a windows box, i'd buy a windows box.
but lets not get rude. Dvoraks a smart guy, lets not flame him because he wrote this article. thats just silly. - WhackingDay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Dvorak is an idiot. Why he still gets press is amazing. He's the tech news equivalent to Skip Bayless of ESPN.
- scooken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dvorak is an instigator, this was merely a ploy to inflame the Apple faithful.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dvorak must be on crack.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 320 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is