Didn't Bill Gates say that Apple was the way computers should be built. I think he said OS X was a real innovation. Other os's , and their minor changes, were just window dressing.
On 6/12/05 5:01 PM, "Hugh Gibbons" <party@my.house.com> wrote:
> In article <BECBED71.46D04%dhalfpenny@blueyonder.co.uk>, > Daren Halfpenny <dhalfpenny@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Also, I can't see the new Macs, whether they run on Intel or not, running >> Windows straight out of the box - I may be wrong but what I can be certain >> of is that Apple will not allow X to run on a PC unless a PC-optimised >> version is marketed separately - the new Macs will be sufficiently different >> in the proprietary hardware to ensure that X cannot be transferred directly >> from an Intel Mac to an Intel PC. > > I have to disagree. I think this move signifies Apple's move away from > seeing itself as a computer company to seeing itself as a software > company. I think they may intend to go head-to-head against Windows. > I think everybody in the Mac world and many in the PC world see MacOS X > as a superior product to Windows of whatever version. But Microsoft > continues to clean Apple's clock year after year because their system > runs on the cheap, ubiquitous hardware as well as high-end hardware and > supports 90% of users' old software (almost 100% if they're upgrading > from a previous Windows version). If MacOS X is translated to run on > STANDARD PC HARDWARE, half the barrier to crossover is removed. This > is certainly a risky move, because there's no guarantee that the main > movement won't be the other way and spell Apple's doom. > > But Apple has to keep some things clearly in mind in order to avoid that > doom. > 1. OS X must remain clearly superior in the user interface. > 2. OS X must make at least as efficient if not more efficient use > of hardware. > 3. Apple/Intel machines must emulate G4 and G5 machines flawlessly > and blazing fast. > > If there's a discernible loss of speed, the new Apple machines will seem > like junk to Mac users. I think the chances of doing this are not good. > If they fail in this, we'll be forced to do a complete software > migration, almost as bad as the conversion to Windows. And if it's as > bad as all that, why not go all the way? > > If Apple wants to stand a chance of GAINING significant market share, > they must also: > 4. Make OS X work on standard PC hardware. > and > 5. Make OS X able to run most Windows software as-is. > > If they do all of the above, this is a terrific move for Apple and my > advice would be BUY BUY BUY. If they stumble on any of the 1st three, > you won't be able to sell Apple stock fast enough. > >> What bothers me more than anything though, is that we're going to see the >> poxy "intel Inside" logo plastered all over these machines and at the end of >> their ads which infuriates me enough already when I hear it... > > Just because they have Intel inside doesn't mean they won't also have AMD > in other versions. So they might want to de-emphasize the Intel chips. > > Me, I just want to see a definitive end to the PENTIUM brand. I still > have flashbacks of the original Pentiums with floating-point processor > problems every time I see it. Why oh why didn't Intel put that behind > them by giving the P2 a new name instead of recycling Pentium? > > ==> ALL COMMENTS IMO <==
