[geek707]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin I can't help but think that this kind of thing is ass backwards. This, combined with the use of commodity hardware, makes fancy styling and EFI the only differences between the MacBook Pro and your run of the mill Dell. I see the seeds of the Mac's doom in this. How long before Apple's just another PC selling company?

Nope.
People who buy Macs will keep buying Macs. Now people who are in a business environment, or need to run a app that is only available in Win, can have their Mac and run the Win stuff too. Word is that this will be built into 10.5. There are several other solutions out there, Q is another that looks very good, and will give you the ability to run both OS's at the same time. And don't underestimate Microsoft. They own VPC, and I will bet we see a killer version of that before the end of the year.
The Intel processor in the MacBook Pro is sweet, runs things like Photoshop faster than the G4 Powerbook even though it's not universal.
There are some weird things like losing the Firewire 800 that I don't understand, and there is no ExpressCard/34 hardware out that I can find yet, but it is really a nice piece.

 

[Trippytiger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sladeophile I just wish they could have done this without going with intel. I think that is a big mistake. But the people love it already, just take a look at their stocks. Up almost 6 dollars today, pretty killer... Slade

The new Intel chips are far more powerful and more energy efficient than the G4 and G5 processors they replaced - what's wrong with that?

Besides, this couldn't have happened at all if they hadn't switched to x86 processors.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danamr Nope. People who buy Macs will keep buying Macs. Now people who are in a business environment, or need to run a app that is only available in Win, can have their Mac and run the Win stuff too.

That's an excellent summary of Apple's short sightness. You finally have a chance of making huge headway into the OS market, but piss it away on short term hardware sales.

The Intel processor in the Mac may be "sweet", but it's the same mass market processor found in Dells, Sonys, etc. It may be faster than the old G4 PowerBook, but is at best only as fast as current PC laptops, and still a good amount behind the top desktop processors. The only hardware advantage that Apple has is that it's stuff is "prettier", which you pay a premium for. An even larger premium once you consider the cost of a full version of Windows XP.

Really, the only thing I see this doing is dooming OSX first party support. They finally have competitive hardware to go with an excellent OS. They have an excellent chance of grabbing mass marketshare by exploiting Vista's release and break with Windows XP. But by allowing Windows dual boot and eventual virtualization through Hypervisor, they just screwed OSX by giving everyone an excuse ("Just use Windows") to avoid the expense of porting. Bravo.

 

[geek707]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin That's an excellent summary of Apple's short sightness. You finally have a chance of making huge headway into the OS market, but piss it away on short term hardware sales. Really, the only thing I see this doing is dooming OSX first party support. They finally have competitive hardware to go with an excellent OS. They have an excellent chance of grabbing mass marketshare by exploiting Vista's release and break with Windows XP. But by allowing Windows dual boot and eventual virtualization through Hypervisor, they just screwed OSX by giving everyone an excuse ("Just use Windows") to avoid the expense of porting. Bravo.

Apple will never be more than a marginal seller in the computer market. There will never be a huge headway in hardware. That's not a problem because 4%-5% is a lot of computers, and they make a bunch more per unit than someone like Dell does.
Going with Intel allows them to make up the disadvantage that sticking with the Power PC put them at. They were getting their ass kicked in every market, and the laptop worst of all.
As for virtualization, I have to disagree also. I have had two laptops on my desk for the last two years. Why, because I prefer to us Mac as my daily working machine, but I need Windows to managage my companies network. There are apps that will never come to Mac, most GPS apps for example. This change allows the Mac user to take advantage of the lead in processor design that Intel has, keep thier safer prefered Mac environment, and create virtual windows machines to use when you can only use windows.
I don't see a down side for anyone other than IBM. And frankly if they had kept up with Intel and AMD they would not be where they are.

 

[averydonovan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trippytiger The new Intel chips are far more powerful and more energy efficient than the G4 and G5 processors they replaced - what's wrong with that? Besides, this couldn't have happened at all if they hadn't switched to x86 processors.

Actually, my understanding is that the Intel chips (the single-core one) takes nearly twice as much power as a G4 notebook chip. I had read somewhere that a G4 7450 takes around 8 watts and an Intel Core Solo around 15 watts. My iBook G4 12" comes with a 45-watt power adapter and getting 5 hours out of this machine on battery power is quite realistic, and I will be reluctant to give up this kind of battery life (which is the point of having a laptop for me) for an increase in performance in some apps, while many other apps run slower and in a more CPU (and thus more power-intensive) mode.

I will miss the PowerPC chips, they are very good chips and powerful number crunchers. Just a shame that chips like the G4 didn't keep up in clock speed and bus speed. The G5 probably never would have made it to notebooks since it was just too power-hungry.

 

[smeggy]

LOL, I might even get a mac mini now that I can use it as a windows machine. Could make a good little music server and I wont have to change software to use it. Frankly I couldn't give a toss about OSX or XP as long as I can use the programs I want.

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roastpuff Not really. You buy it for the simplicity and the reliability, but sometimes you wish you can run Windows for certain programs. This is kinda like having a Sennheiser that can become a Grado at the flick of a switch.

Well, as a PC user since I owed a PCjr, the only thing even tempting me to get a Mac is the OS. But I can't justify the cost of converting at this point. Hmmmm... I wonder if there is a solution here... maybe... maybe...

 

[uzziah]

that's just wrong

 

[Trippytiger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donovansmith Actually, my understanding is that the Intel chips (the single-core one) takes nearly twice as much power as a G4 notebook chip. I had read somewhere that a G4 7450 takes around 8 watts and an Intel Core Solo around 15 watts. My iBook G4 12" comes with a 45-watt power adapter and getting 5 hours out of this machine on battery power is quite realistic, and I will be reluctant to give up this kind of battery life (which is the point of having a laptop for me) for an increase in performance in some apps, while many other apps run slower and in a more CPU (and thus more power-intensive) mode. I will miss the PowerPC chips, they are very good chips and powerful number crunchers. Just a shame that chips like the G4 didn't keep up in clock speed and bus speed. The G5 probably never would have made it to notebooks since it was just too power-hungry.

I was thinking more of the G5 when I was talking about efficiency. I know that those are fairly power-hungry chips, but I wasn't aware of the power draw of the G4 processors. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that a 15W Core Solo will only draw 15W of power at max load - most of the time, it'll be running at its lowest speed and probably only using 2-3W (a complete guess) of power. From what I could find, the G4 doesn't do frequency scaling or voltage adjustments at all, which will make a difference for average everyday use.

And I'm sure things will only get even better when Intel rolls out their next next-generation mobile architecture, Merom.

 

[Alex Altorfer]

...if you were a software developer, would you still develop for Mac OS knowing that Apple machines dual boot and run the Windows versions of your software? If you develop only for Windows your costs are lower, and Mac users will run it anyways.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm a big Mac fan. I am eager to know whether the above premise has flaws in it.

It is true tha dual boot Macs are nothing new, but the ones released ten years ago had two motherboards in them and were quite a bit more expensive. These new ones will run both systems at no additional cost to the user. Is Apple shooting it's own foot? Is Steve Jobs out of his mind?

Why would a software house spend money developing a Mac version, if the windows version will do? Would you not concentrate your efforts in a Windows version only, which Apple machines now run anyway?

 

[geek707]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Altorfer ...if you were a software developer, would you still develop for Mac OS knowing that Apple machines dual boot and run the Windows versions of your software? If you develop only for Windows your costs are lower, and Mac users will run it anyways. Is Apple shooting it's own foot? Is Steve Jobs out of his mind? Why would a software house spend money developing a Mac version, if the windows version will do? Would you not concentrate your efforts in a Windows version only, which Apple machines now run anyway?

We will see. Steve Jobs has not been wrong so far.
For software, I don't see a big problem, the Mac developers with keep doing what they do, and the Apple users (Us) get the use of Windows programs that will never be ported to Mac.

 

[Alex Altorfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danamr We will see. Steve Jobs has not been wrong so far. For software, I don't see a big problem, the Mac developers with keep doing what they do, and the Apple users (Us) get the use of Windows programs that will never be ported to Mac.

Mac developers with keep doing what they do, even when developing only for Windows is cheaper and reaches 100% of personal computers?

 

[geek707]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Altorfer Mac developers with keep doing what they do, even when developing only for Windows is cheaper and reaches 100% of personal computers?

Sure. It's called legacy users. There are millions of Mac's out there running PPC, and they will be out there for years. They cannot run Windows. These people will not stop buying software.
Also rewriting software to run on Windows is a much more difficult process than recompiling a already written piece of software to universal binary.

 

[craiglester]

Now, if they can just get it so OSX can read *AND* write to the windows (NTFS) partition and vice versa.. they may have a point.. until then.. well its a bit useless isnt it..

wouldn't you need two copies of all your data? and you couldn't work on one file in both OS's cos the file systems wouldn't allow it?

I don't get it.. didn't SOMEONE in apple think of this?

And I always thought Mac user wouldn't WANT windows on their machines...

So it's ok for apple to say it's illegal to run OS X on anything but apple hardware now that they're running someone elses on theirs? Can you Imagine the fuss if Microsoft said it was illegal to run Windows on Apple hardware..

All in all it seems a bit weird to me. kinda pointless..

(oh and yes I've used both and and still prefer windows)

 

[tennisets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by craiglester Now, if they can just get it so OSX can read *AND* write to the windows (NTFS) partition and vice versa.. they may have a point.. until then.. well its a bit useless isnt it.. wouldn't you need two copies of all your data? and you couldn't work on one file in both OS's cos the file systems wouldn't allow it? I don't get it.. didn't SOMEONE in apple think of this? And I always thought Mac user wouldn't WANT windows on their machines... So it's ok for apple to say it's illegal to run OS X on anything but apple hardware now that they're running someone elses on theirs? Can you Imagine the fuss if Microsoft said it was illegal to run Windows on Apple hardware.. All in all it seems a bit weird to me. kinda pointless.. (oh and yes I've used both and and still prefer windows)

It's not pointless at all. You can't run OS X on anything but Apple hardware. Lot's of people (myself included) like OS X, but don't want to give up certain Windows applications or functionality. Now, we can have OS X but still have Windows to fall back on for those certain applications (like games). It's the best of both worlds.

You wouldn't need two copies of your data. If there's a certain Windows application you use, you would store files created by that application on the Windows partition. Why would you ever need any file on both partitions?

This development is not intended (for the most part) for users who already have Apple computers. They obviously decided they didn't need anything from Windows. But there are a lot of people out there who would like to use OS X, but that just don't want to give up certain features of Windows. I'd love to use OS X, but I need Windows for gaming. Now, I can have both on one machine. What's the harm in that?