What is Digg?86 Comments
- doctornakul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Dvorak is not right on this one, at all. He said that Apple will be switching over to a licensed Windows OS. Even if what the article says happens, that wouldn't be what Dvorak suggested. Just because a Mac can run x86 code, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden it's running windows. Look at WINE, for example. It is clearly not licensed by MS, yet it can run CS or Doom. What's happening is that Apple is getting support for Windows programs _despite_ Microsoft. They aren't getting it from MS at all. This would allow you to run OSX all the time, actually hurting XP & Vista sales, not augmenting them as John C. suggested....
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This has been said for about a month now. Thanks for the tenth confirmation. and no, dvorak is still not correct, the mac will SUPPORT windows, it will not however (never) do away with the Mac OS in favor of Windows.
This should be fantastic news for mac fans. this basicly means compatibility with nearly everything. - AmoralYoda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9For the record, BAPCo is a consortium of companies (including Intel, HP, Dell, AMD, NVidia, Transmeta, Microsoft, and ATI) that works to produce Windows benchmarking tools like SYSMark. As Ars points out (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060329-6482.html), Apple's inclusion in this group is likely due to their desire to have these tools ported to Mac OS X. This would allow Apple to publish benchmarks directly comparing the performance of OS X and Windows. This scenario is far more likely than Apple adding a WINE-like compatibility layer to their os.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well, I think PC's are still the best choice for the types of games I like. Civilization, Simcity, Master of Orion, etc. These types of games are difficult to do on a game console.
- lmlloyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Apple would sooner file bankruptcy and close down the company than switch to windows."
I remember quite a few people saying EXACTLY the same thing about Apple switching to standard PC hardware, yet that is exactly what they have done. This has been the trend of Apple for over a decade. They moved to PCI over NuBus, they replaced ADB with USB, they dumped SCSI for IDE, they are starting to replace Firewire with USB 2, they got rid of their proprietary Ethernet connection to go with a standard RJ-45, they got rid of their proprietary monitor connector to go with DVI, they added a multibutton mouse, and they have just gone with Intel chips instead of the PPC. There is no real hardware difference between a modern Apple and any other Intel machine today, except for a fancy case.
All the hardware hallmarks that made Apple "better" are now gone, replaced across the board with their PC equivalents. Why would software be any different? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Thanks for the tenth confirmation. and no, dvorak is still not correct, the mac will SUPPORT windows, it will not however (never) do away with the Mac OS in favor of Windows."
Never is a strong word that has a habbit of comming back and biting people on the ass!
Perhaps "Never in the near future", but not just an outright "never". - lmlloyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You know, I find it odd that no one else has suggested this, but I would like to point something out.
OSX is largely just a presentation layer on top of BSD.
The biggest feature of Vista is the separation of the presentation layer from the OS.
Could it be that in fact what Apple is planning, is to make an OSX-style presentation layer on that would run on top of the Vista core? It would basically be what they have done with OSX, but just replacing the BSD core with the Vista core. It would still give them product differentiation, and preserve that "user experience" that macheads are so fond of going on about, and even let them keep their proprietary software locked to their hardware. The upside, of course, is that it would then allow them to run all Vista software, and vendors would no longer have to keep two entirely different code bases for software that they want to sell for Apple and Windows.
Now I know a lot of Apple fanatics are going to scream that this is impossible and will never happen, because OSX is so much better than Vista will ever be. However these are the same people who swore that Apple would never use Intel chips, would never replace Firewire with USB, and would never get rid of the "amazing" Altivec instructions.
Think about it. Developers would love it because the same code would run on either standard Vista, or Apple's version. Hardware manufacturers would love it because it would mean one set of drivers. And best of all, (for the companies involved) it would boost both Microsoft's market share, and Apple's marketshare at the same time. The only downside would really be for companies like Dell and HP. Well, and of course it would make it that much harder for companies selling Linux as well, and would probably not be the best for the consumer, because at that point Microsoft would have something like 100% marketshare. It would also allow Apple a much higher margin on their systems, because they could just let MS do the heavy lifting of compatibility and testing, while they focused on making their custom apps and marketing.
I mean really, they are already using 100% standard PC hardware, how much of a stretch is it that they would move to a special Apple version of the standard PC OS? - craigeth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4this has nothing to do with dvorak. alex lindsay said something about windows apps running natively on os x in twit 46.
- gypsumfantastic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Almost certainly, this means that Mac OS X will have a hypervisor, allowing it to host Windows as a Guest OS. They may even find a way to do it "headless" so that Windows' Windows appear to be inside Mac OS X, when actually they aren't.
This is not surprising, since the Merom/Conroe Core Duos due to sprout across Apple's line in the autumn will have support for Intel's VT instructions, designed for exactly this purpose. And Apple is nothing if not a proving ground for untested Intel technologies these days. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Don't bring weathermen into this, while they aren't always completely correct, the majority of their general predictions do come out true. ..The weather is too complicated to get it right every time.
- Faasnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Could be something. There was this digg (http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_joins_industry_benchmarking_group) about Apple joining BAPCo.
- matt0baba, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7yea but ur forgetting that if that ever happens I ,a mac owner will have to buy a firewall and antivirus programs cuz then all the hackers will focus on Macs and not windows anymore...i like it this way...that i dont get a virus because i am in a shadow of all the pc users
- arnaudh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No one makes money off browsers (Opera is an exception, but they have a tiny niche of a market).
And Apple's margin is done on their hardware, not on their OS.
There goes your theory. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Sorry, i agree that it is a strong word, that is why i used it. I'm sticking with Never.
- Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Dvorak? Right?
- raremage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5For me, the point is I get to run OSX as my native OS, but can still run apps that I need to do my job - things like Project and Visio, for example - without the need for a VM. These apps are s l o w in a VM to start with, even leaving out the fact that I don't want the hassle of loading a VM up at all if there is an easy way to avoid it.
I'm sure someone will call out about WINE, and that's fine, but glitchy and limited for the moment. If native support were added, there'd be no need for me to ever turn to a WinTel system or a VM. - drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5And Steve Jobs himself said he'd never run Disney. Surprise!
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"what Apple should do, is to say that their new version of Mac OS X will run on any PC, that they will support this many drivers"
Firstly, 'saying' something doesn't make it happen. Secondly, the problem is supporting 'many drivers' is it's not a particularly easy task. One of the inherent stability issues with Windows in the past is it had to (and may still have to with Vista - I'm not sure) support random 3rd parties drivers running in kernel space.
Apple currently targets VERY specific hardware setups with OSX. Short term, I'd be surprised if Apple had the expertise to broaden OSX to support the myriad of hardware Windows does.
I too would like to see OSX on a broad PC platform, but there are practical aspects in the way at the moment. - AmoralYoda, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Does anyone really think Apple will sully their pristine OS with Windows? Not to mention the added level of complexity this would add to end users (Who would they call for support when Windows destroys their system?). Windows-on-a-Mac would give developers even less of a reason to port/develop programs for the Mac. If Apple was serious about the enterprise market, they might add this feature for those customers, but I can't see it happening.
- kolop1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7 Umm.... If you want to do that just buy a PC. Why have a Mac?
- lmlloyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"lmlloyd, you said it yourself. the mac products are now similar to all the other PCs in terms of hardware. so, what makes them different, what makes a mac a Mac? Apple's OS. without it, it would be exactly what you said: an intel laptop with a fancy case."
Yeah, but that is kind of my point. Back in the "old days" what made Apple different was their hardware. Any major Apple user would go on about the technical superiority of the actual hardware over a PC. Then Apple slowly moved over to largely standard hardware like IDE, PCI and USB. At that point the Mac people started talking about how what really made the Mac special was the PowerPC and the Altivec instructions. None of their market really cared about the hardware difference, or the fact that Apple had given up on designing their own hardware in favor of more mainstream approaches, because the PPC was the "soul" of the machine, and that was all that mattered. Now they are using Intel chips, and all you hear is that processor doesn't really mater, Altivec didn't really matter, what made a Mac a Mac was always the OS.
My point is that I think that just like every other transition Apple has been through, their core user base would really have no problem jumping to saying that the OS didn't even matter, what made a Mac a Mac was always the interface and the software. I mean you already hear a fair amount of that right now. I don't think that the people buying Macs really care about any part of the computer, they just want something stylish and that works the way they are used to. As such, I think that as long as Apple keeps their look and feel, and their brand strength, they can pretty much get away with selling anything, including a rebranded Vista with an OSX interface.
The people who are buying Apple computers are looking for reasons to like them, so as long as you make sure there are at least a few reasons, they will grasp onto those, no matter how minor they are. - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Why would you want to put a nice os on expensive and no better apple hardware? OSX on x86 hardware (e.g. my motherboard I can run to frys and buy) - yeah, nothing else needed, runs like a champ, no problems. no need for 10X the pirce of the "better" hardware.
- TheFoundry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let me know when they start putting AMD chips in a mac and then I might get interested.
- Fentekreel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Looking at your example with wine....
Whats not to say that apple isn't trying to incorperate cedega/wine into their os? It would be a milestone for the oss community. I'm honestly suprized that apple hasn't had more of a hand in both of those projects considering the FreeBSD is the backbone to osx anyways.....Not only would it benifit apple but everyone for that matter that has the ability to install either of these two applications.....i wish the best though :) cuz if i can rune win applications through osx via wine or whatever....man the possiabilitys. :) - xraycat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Yeah, slick idea, install OS X on every PC compatible so you can hate Apple. You know, you people kill me. "Anything to ***** Microsoft!" is the motto on this adolescent, "cutting-edge, Web 2.0, non-MS news site." Get real and grow up. MS software is so far engrained into small, medium and large businesses throughout the world that no matter what Apple or Linux comes up with, MS is not going anywhere. And many people here keep rooting for that snot nosed *****, Jobs. Trust me, if you think Billy Gates is bad, Steve Jobs is no joy. Next time, before you post, pull your head out of your ass."
Those are my thoughts exactly! - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Being on the board of directors != running Disney
- quinnk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I think it's highly plausible that this has been Apple's strategy for a long time - move to Intel chips and become a (stylish) clone manufacturer, and provide a very workable alternative to Windows. The move for schools and businesses from Dells and other manufacturers' boxes would be even easier if licensing of Adobe products, Office, etc. were no longer an issue, due to compatibility between the operating systems.
Perhaps the reason this concept is so foreign to us is because no one has, to my knowledge, ever tried to make what is effectively a Windows clone - to Microsoft what the early clone PCs were to IBM.
I personally would love to run my Windows apps in OSX on a standard PC - apps not available for Mac, but a better OS, on a cheaper machine. - Magnitude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Imloyd:
Isn't what you're suggesting exactly what Dvorak forecast? He calls the OSX-style presentation layer you describe as an 'executive software layer'.
Quote:
"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" - captainjy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yeah, slick idea, install OS X on every PC compatible so you can hate Apple. You know, you people kill me. "Anything to ***** Microsoft!" is the motto on this adolescent, "cutting-edge, Web 2.0, non-MS news site." Get real and grow up. MS software is so far engrained into small, medium and large businesses throughout the world that no matter what Apple or Linux comes up with, MS is not going anywhere. And many people here keep rooting for that snot nosed *****, Jobs. Trust me, if you think Billy Gates is bad, Steve Jobs is no joy. Next time, before you post, pull your head out of your ass.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Really what Apple should do, is to say that their new version of Mac OS X will run on any PC, that they will support this many drivers, etc, etc... and then Steve Jobs showcases a Dell computer, a Gateway computer, HP Laptops, all running the new OS, and then Microsoft will be so screwed.
I know a lot of people would drop windows with an option like Mac OS X.
Then apple could become #1, and Internet Explorer wouldn' t be the 80% of internet browsers anymore, and web developers would live happily ever after, developing for Safari and Gecko based browsers. - xraycat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2lmlloyd has it pretty much dead on. People have to realize that Apple is just a computer company, they aren't saviors of the PC world or anything. They are out to make money and will do it be any means necessary. They don't care what they are selling as long as it it selling.
There is a reason they switched from their proprietary hardware to now using regular PC components. They can now grab their hardware from the same huge bin as any other OEM, mark it up and make their cut. The reason people don't all go out and buy a Mac is two reasons: 1) they know the hardware is more expensive and are not really getting anything different than any other PC and; 2) They don't want to learn a new OS or lose the use of the programs they have come to know. Now that they are getting the hardware from the same place as everyone else the excuse for more expensive hardware should fail (as long as the mark-up that Apple creates isn't outrageous)
If Apple wants to continue to make more money they will once again adapt, this time on the software side. I HATE Apple but if they release their own version of a Windows kernel I would definitely use it. I don't think they would have the same type of OS because Apple is not going to whore out their software to run on just any hardware, they still want to maintain their status as a high-end manufacturer and I assume will have a select list of hardware components that will be compatible with their software. - crashingechelon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2To me this would be nice, since i run a PC and a MAC and i do have print sharing issues, but my networking and file sharing seem to be working fine. The only thing I wonder about, is if this is just for the new intel macs that are running OSX10.5 or if it'll work on the PowerPC macs too that have OSX10.5.
- ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with that is that OS X has a lot lower of requirements. Until 10.4, you could run it on almost any PPC mac. 10.4 requires Firewire and a DVD-ROM drive now, but it's easily hackable to get around that.
- tjl2015, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I believe Apple should embrace windows, rather than force people to jump through hoops to try to get windows on their Intel boxes. I would probably purchase such a machine.
I am tempted to buy a Mac, try it out. However, I continue to use Windows. Why? Because it works with everything I use. It just works. It has many flaws, but it works. OS X may very well be better designed and have fewer security flaws. From my perspective though, it just lacks the versatility of Windows. As an end user, I can grab any random piece of hardware or software, whether it be some obscure peripheral from Comp USA or a tiny freeware app from the bowels of the net. They just simply work. I don't have the the time to go searching in vain for proper versions and drivers. If Apple simply created an out-of-the-box dual-boot machine, they could completely eliminate this advantage Windows has.
They don't have to sully their brand to do it either. I'm sure they could implement it quite well. Maybe you could have a big-old slider on the front of the box. It would glow blue when on OSX, Red when on XP. This would be perfect. I could probably use OS X for 90% of the stuff that I do. Then, when I come across some app that requires windows, fire up the XP partition and get on with the day.
Doing this would allow them to greatly expand their market share. More people would buy computers from Apple knowing that if they needed to, they can still run windows-only processes. This would mean that there would be a larger percentage of people with access to OS X. As the number of people with access to OS X increased, companies would be more and more likely to make their software and hardware compatible, thereby decreasing the only advantage I believe Windows has. - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think that Apple would desert their vintage hardware customers and will probably support OSX in maintenance mode for a number of years.
- bcdowell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5FTFS: "It appears Dvorak may have been right, in a sense."
um...NO...
I'd say there is a HUGE difference between -switching operating systems- and supporting programs written for other OS's...
and besides, would they even bother working on 10.5 if they were planning on using windows? Would they have even bothered -creating- OSX in the first place if apple had future plans of adopting a new OS? - curtisj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The technology that they are referring to will probably be much like the existing Virtual PC software for apple which allows windows to be emulated on the Mac OS. It cannot be thought of as Dvorak like plan to dump OS X!
It is beneficial for mac to have this, as web developers for example can view what sites will look like on the windows platform without having a windows machine. Or perhaps use an application that is not available on Mac OS.
The only difference is that this will not be 'emulation' per sa, as the new macs are using x86 anyway. This 'new' addition to OS 10.5 should be looked at as no different from Virtual PC or Q - rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Apple would sooner file bankruptcy and close down the company than switch to windows."l
I believe that the Stockholders of Apple Computer would object to that. Apple Computer is a publicly traded company and the CEO and the board will do what the stockholders want them to do or will leave the company.
I think that Apple Computer will pull a major coup and will be the first company to release Vista and have the exclusive rights to sell Vista for a short period of time.
That's a Win-Win scenario where everyone benefits. As an Apple Computer Stockholder I know that's my vote. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"However these are the same people"
I hate when people say that....because usually it's not the same people. It's the kind of generalization I never make.
Also, your idea about Apple switching to a Windows core is a bad idea. I'm not sure if you've really thought about what that entails. Basically, OS X would look and function just like Vista except it would have a Aqua theme. I think Stardock already has this area covered. Besides, I doubt many Apple users would stand for such a downgrade. Windows viruses on a Mac? No thanks. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2lmlloyd, you said it yourself. the mac products are now similar to all the other PCs in terms of hardware. so, what makes them different, what makes a mac a Mac? Apple's OS. without it, it would be exactly what you said: an intel laptop with a fancy case.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The virtualization technology will allow Windows to run in a protected code space, preventing the kind of issues that you mention.
This would be a goldmine for Apple and I have no doubt we'll see it in the very near future. - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If this is true a lot of people will buy macs.
- anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Dvorak is insane (the blogger not the keyboard designer)
- zodieman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There's absolutely nothing wrong with built-in virtualization. I for one welcome it. The abilty for me to fire up a saved Windows session inside OS X is very appealing for the times when I need it. I prefer that then direct booting into Windows considering the disk partitioning required for that.
I don't play games so I don't need top-of the-line GPU performance for Windows, the performance that a VMWare-like system is plenty for most people who need it.
Bring it on Apple (and advertize the fact will ya? Haven't seen a decent Mac ad in years) - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes. I agree with the above comment. I promise to buy a mac when they actually put good hardware inside. They're Intel chip they have in there isn't even 64-bit!!!
- vandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow this makes no sense. supporting windows apps in os x would kill all development of cross platform programs. why spend time and money on developing two versions of an app when you can sell just as many licenses while developing for windows only? the switch from classic to os x apps was a shift enough. i didn't like having to boot classic to run apps that didn't get ported. if this happened, after a few years time, all the apps i use would be windows apps, with none of the elegance or usability of mac. so why on earth would apple openly support the destruction of their own operating system when it is what gives a huge advantage over anything microsoft can steal and ship out to a highly competitive commodity based pc hardware market? i did not find one logical explanation as to why apple would allow that...
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well, I'm sure Apple would bundle iTunes with their Microsoft system.
- omestes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0But what would this do for Apple? They make most of their money from hardware, not OS X. If there is no reason to buy an Apple built box, then no one would, and Apple would lose a ton of cash from it, even if they get a higher OS level market share.
People, it seems, are so used to dealing with the MS style model (OS and software = money, even Linux fits into this software model) that that they don't know what to say, or understand, Apple's model.
Apple could double their OS share, but if they lost their hardware base they would still be losing money. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1>>"Yeah, slick idea, install OS X on every PC compatible so you can hate Apple. You know,
>>you people kill me. "Anything to ***** Microsoft!" is the motto on this adolescent,
>>"cutting-edge, Web 2.0, non-MS news site." Get real and grow up. MS software is so far
>>engrained into small, medium and large businesses throughout the world that no matter what
>>Apple or Linux comes up with, MS is not going anywhere. And many people here keep rooting
>>for that snot nosed *****, Jobs. Trust me, if you think Billy Gates is bad, Steve Jobs
>>is no joy. Next time, before you post, pull your head out of your ass."
>Those are my thoughts exactly!
dont worry. they have medication for that now... sorry *feeling like a silly bitch.* - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1>I remember quite a few people saying EXACTLY the same thing about Apple switching to
>standard PC hardware, yet that is exactly what they have done. This has been the trend of
>Apple for over a decade. They moved to PCI over NuBus, they replaced ADB with USB, they
>dumped SCSI for IDE, they are starting to replace Firewire with USB 2, they got rid of
>their proprietary Ethernet connection to go with a standard RJ-45,
the switch to intel wasnt really about switching to better or intel for need of a better
processor. these things apple developed concurrently. and some are better technologies.
SCSI is way better than IDE. but CPUs all got faster and could do IDE ok. firewire is
magnitudes better than USB 2. in practical applications it can take 10 times as long to
do a transfer via USB 2. but devices are getting smaller. with fewer places to put
connectors so on the stuff that doesnt need firewire-USB2 is fine. but on high end
cameras and stuff firewire is the only thing to have.
so ya... apple always puts better stuff in their computers but isn%u2019t afraid to dumb them
down if that makes sense. but to say they are switching like its a move up... that would
be misleading. -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is