pcmag.com — a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.
Feb 16, 2006 View in Crawl 4
crunkFeb 16, 2006
Wow, what a load of bollocks, I should've checked that who it was by (Dvorak) then Id've known but it being the morning I blindly clicked. The more lightly scenario is that wine (including Darwine) will be quite a bit better in five years and a high percentage of windows programs will just run on osx (and Linux) anyway, if that happens ms might be reluctant to bring out programs for it, but it could be too late anyway.
abyss_908Feb 16, 2006
Well yeah makes since. OS X is slightly better software and looks prettier. Reason I don't run it as my 2nd OS is because Mac hardware sucks. There are like 3 Mac games. I would much rather build my own AMD mac then get one of the Intel ones. The second reason I don't run it is because Linux is better.
wdotFeb 16, 2006
People hate Windows, even though they use it daily. They complain about the bugs, the BSOD's, and everything else. Why they deal with it I have no idea. If Apple went Windows, there'd really be no reason to switch. It'd just be an expensive Windows computer, and there are cheaper alternatives.
mcbesqFeb 16, 2006
Can't wait for March 27, 2006.....
ibgarrettFeb 16, 2006
Since I'm way down the list I doubt anyone will read this far, but here's my theory.Leopard is due out in the December/January timeframe.Windows Vista is due out *koff* in roughly in the same timeframe.What if Apple was to include something like a Wine (which has been mentioned in a few posts) application that's fully integrated into Leopard? You'll be able to run Windows apps natively within the Mac OS.Now, given that Apple will spend this year migrating their entire product line over to Intel products, their hardware will be exactly like everyone else's.What if Apple was to say, that upon the release of 10.5 it will run on ALL fully qualified Intel architecture - from Apple or not. In addition to that, they will have a file transfer script built into the install that would recognize that a system may or may not have Windows XP/Vista installed on it (I'm assuming only Vista because of the new world firmware) that would grab all the applications, all the documents and prefs (minus virus' and spyware) and move them over to the Mac OS.So Joe User goes down to the computer store, fed up with Windows, *hoping* that Vista will resolve the issue. When he arrives - he's greeted at the store with an option. He can buy Vista for the $150-$200 OR he can buy the Mac OS for $150, retain his Windows investment in applications and move to an OS that is a little bit more secure and less vulnerable to the dark portions of the internet. Sure there are some pitfalls to the logic - but if you can imagine windows users actually having a choice - for the first time since OS/2 was abandoned (and let's face it - OS/2 wasn't really ready for prime time - it was good, but it wasn't as full featured as Mac OS X is).And as far as his argument that Apple is a hardware company first. That is true - however until the iPod came along, Apple could not afford to risk a. making the switch to Intel for fear of loosing ground while making the transition or b. loosing valuable sales of their hardware. Now, with the iPod, they can take that risk. The iPod will keep them afloat (and profitable) during the transition, at which time, they can also re-visit the licensing agreement. Even Dell said they would be happy to sell Mac OS X. Dell is a hardware whore and would sell anyone's products if they thought they'd sell more hardware units.Bottom line: If Apple can make the transition to being able to tightly integrate the Windows OS into theirs through the use of Open Source software (without taking a performance hit), the Mac OS suddenly becomes an extremely attractive product.I expect the Apple market share (assuming the above) to grow to as much as 20% in the next few years.
cwinansFeb 16, 2006
This guy is an idiot... how can anyone take him serious? I avoid anything written by him!
mcbesqFeb 16, 2006
The problem with making a Mac 100% Windows-compatible is that users will be able to screw up their Macs with the same ease as with an Windows box. The freedom to install any of a variety of widely-accessible programs creates the possibility of causing problems with the computer itself. It is the user's responsibiliity to use his/her judgment when installing programs.Yes, cars and computers are comparable. Both are complex pieces of machinery that require routine maintenance and a certain level of care to ensure maximum efficiency. Just as one changes the oil in one's car, takes it in for regular tune-ups and maintenance, and makes sure to use the proper octane fuel, the same type of care is required to maximize one's use of any computer. Does John Q. Public do a clean install at least once a year? Probably not. Does Jane Q. Public defrag at least bi-monthly? Probably not? Making the entire library of Windows applications available on a Mac is not the answer. I'm sure that if you put Gater (that always was my fave), Weatherbug, Norton, or any other garbage program onto a Mac, you'd see the exact same problems in no time. Good computing starts with the user. @ Wazzzup"Lack of a real virus threat (for now, at least), a decent security model, application continuity (every other app doesn't have its own skin and way of doing things - although Apple has been pushing this lately)"Real virus threat? That's what automatically updating antivirus software coupled with common sense is for.Decent security model? That's what a hardware-based firewall built into a router with the SSID turned off and WPA turned on is for.Every application having its own skin? Once again, I have a brain. Any decently laid-out UI will help me use the application. They don't all have to be shiny brushed-metal.
macdougFeb 16, 2006
Ridiculous conspiracy theorizing. Dvorak, you should be ashamed. Apple's DNA is in the OS, not the hardware - ditching that would be a body blow to *Apple's* morale, not just Apple's loyal user base.I could, however, see Apple incorporating some sort of Windows API layer into OS X, now that they're running on the same hardware. This would effectively be a Windows emulator running so close to the hardware as to be a parallel API, not a separate instance of an OS. Is this possible, technically? Dunno. But running Windows apps on a Mac that's booted into OS X would certainly be a huge threat to Windows proper...