engadget.com— Interesting rumor from Engadget says that the next version of OSX may have native support for Windows XP applications, without emulation. It appears Dvorak may have been right, in a sense.
Mar 29, 2006View in Crawl 4
There'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)
"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.
By the way DaffyDuck, wouldn't "Besides, I doubt many Apple users would stand for such a downgrade" also be one of those generalizations you never make?I would also argue that Apple users stood for the "downgrade" to Intel chips, even though a good number swore that they wouldn't, and swore the PPC was an innately superior architecture, that Intel could never compete with. Also, keep in mind that the Yonah processor that Apple is using, is really nothing more than two Pentium Pros with a really fast clock speed and the newest SSE instruction set. So, it isn't even like Intel has suddenly surpassed the technology in the PPC out of nowhere. It is just that Apple decided to tell their customers that Intel was good now, and IBM was bad, and their customers decided they must be right.By the same token, I think that if Apple decided to start telling its customers that Vista was good, and *nix was bad, they would suddenly decide they must be right.
Sadly Apple is a hardware company, meaning hardware is the majority of their revienue stream. OS X is more of an advertisment for the hardware, than a thing that gathers profit. So why would Apple switch away fromt heir most lucrative area?
But 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.
Yes. 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!!!
wow 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...
zodiemanMar 30, 2006
There'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)
daffyduckMar 30, 2006
"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.
lmlloydMar 30, 2006
By the way DaffyDuck, wouldn't "Besides, I doubt many Apple users would stand for such a downgrade" also be one of those generalizations you never make?I would also argue that Apple users stood for the "downgrade" to Intel chips, even though a good number swore that they wouldn't, and swore the PPC was an innately superior architecture, that Intel could never compete with. Also, keep in mind that the Yonah processor that Apple is using, is really nothing more than two Pentium Pros with a really fast clock speed and the newest SSE instruction set. So, it isn't even like Intel has suddenly surpassed the technology in the PPC out of nowhere. It is just that Apple decided to tell their customers that Intel was good now, and IBM was bad, and their customers decided they must be right.By the same token, I think that if Apple decided to start telling its customers that Vista was good, and *nix was bad, they would suddenly decide they must be right.
xiuxiuMar 30, 2006
This spells the death for PC game exclusivity.Go apple!
omestesMar 31, 2006
Sadly Apple is a hardware company, meaning hardware is the majority of their revienue stream. OS X is more of an advertisment for the hardware, than a thing that gathers profit. So why would Apple switch away fromt heir most lucrative area?
omestesMar 31, 2006
But 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.
diggnationdevonApr 1, 2006
Yes. 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!!!
vandyApr 2, 2006
wow 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...