[P]

"Hell has frozen over"

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Thats exactly the same problem Vista is going to have, why make a vista version if the XP software works good on it.

Do you understand what do you say? Vista is still Windows with backwards compatibility and it is based on existing Windows code. This means that there is no such pressure to get developers on board as soon as possible. They can continue their work as before and be sure that their software will still work. Vista specific features come here as an added bonus.

This is not at all the case with Mac OS X. The compatibility is ZERO with previous code, and for many (those not on Xcode) it will be a dangerously hard task to deal with. Anyway, Xcode or not, there is no comparison with what happens on the other side.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

There will always be a demand for osX native software

Be not so sure if Windows runs like a champ on the Intel-Macs.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

and if Apple's marketshare go's up to 5-10 or even 20% (not unrealistic) native software is going to be developed, maybe more than we want.

5-10-20%?! OK, now wake up, the dream is over.

[Peter Bonte]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Do you understand what do you say? Vista is still Windows with backwards compatibility and it is based on existing Windows code.This is not at all the case with Mac OS X. The compatibility is ZERO with previous code, and for many (those not on Xcode) it will be a dangerously hard task to deal with. Anyway, Xcode or not, there is no comparison with what happens on the other side.

osX is what the next Windows wanted to be, a new operating system with some form of good backwards compatibility. Vista didn't make it that far and is just a spiced up NT6.

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Be not so sure if Windows runs like a champ on the Intel-Macs.

Yeah ok, then we lose but for the first time the competition is going to be fair and on comparable hardware. To run Vista a lot of users are going to upgrade there computer, if all (or most) of these computers can run osX the battle is almost won. just a "compatible with osX" sticker is enough.

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

5-10-20%?! OK, now wake up, the dream is over.

I bet you were saying the same thing about iTunes and the iPod.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

osX is what the next Windows wanted to be, a new operating system with some form of good backwards compatibility. Vista didn't make it that far and is just a spiced up NT6.

You still seem out of reality. How is OS X backwards compatible with anything old Mac-like, when to run the old applications you need Classic? Mac OS X has zero native backwards compatibility. Mind you, "native" is the keyword. And this was and is a good thing, since we got rid of the old issues once and for all. Apple could afford to do it, because of its tiny market share. Microsoft just don't.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Yeah ok, then we lose but for the first time the competition is going to be fair and on comparable hardware.

And Apple better have a really well optimised version of OS X for Intel, since by then the excuses on hardware ground will be over.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

To run Vista a lot of users are going to upgrade there computer, if all (or most) of these computers can run osX the battle is almost won. just a "compatible with osX" sticker is enough.

I am not sure if I follow you. Are you suggesting Apple should license OS X to other computer vedors and make the "OS X on any x86 hardware" dream a reality?

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

I bet you were saying the same thing about iTunes and the iPod.

No, actually I had neither positive or negative opinion on that matter. At the time, the iPod was not an essential part of Apple's market presence, as it is now. Computer hardware however, was and still remains the primitive element in Apple's profile as a company.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Windows co-exists with other OSs just fine. I run Windows on Linux or Linux on Windows and I can have both OSs installed on the same disk.

Windows does not co-exist "just fine", even in your situation. The only way to do what you've done is to install Windows first, repartition your disk with third-party tools, and then install Linux because Linux (not Windows) knows how to co-exist. You might also have to manually configure your boot loader to get it working smoothly. And if you ever upgrade your Windows partition, it'll overwrite your boot sector and you'll be back to a Windows-only setup (until you fix it) because Windows always assumes it's the only OS on your system.

Oh noes, one whole line in boot.ini and a bootpart file!
It takes more manual editing to load Windows from grub than Linux from NTLDR.

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Right, talk about killing it while still in its mama's belly. Apple makes an enormous effort to get developers port their software on the upcoming OS-X-on-Intel platform. And also to port their own software.

Dassault has expressed zero interest in porting CATIA to OSX.
Valve has expressed zero interest in porting Steam to OSX.
There's no baby to knife.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Thats exactly the same problem Vista is going to have, why make a vista version if the XP software works good on it. There will always be a demand for osX native software and if Apple's marketshare go's up to 5-10 or even 20% (not unrealistic) native software is going to be developed, maybe more than we want.

I think this is why MS is backporting WPF to XP (and already has it running with stuff like codename Max). They want to have developers target Vista, knowing that it will be backward compatible.
I also think we're going to see the death of third party development environments soon. Visual Studio on Windows and Xcode on OSX are going to be the only real options for forward and backward compatibility.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Yeah ok, then we lose but for the first time the competition is going to be fair and on comparable hardware. To run Vista a lot of users are going to upgrade there computer, if all (or most) of these computers can run osX the battle is almost won. just a "compatible with osX" sticker is enough.

The current builds of OSX require SSE2... there is very little hardware (if any) that supports SSE2 but not the expected Vista minimum requirements. MS hasn't targeted high minimum requirements in the past; consider that XP, released in 2001, only requires a 233Mhz Pentium and 64MB RAM.

Vista is expected (final requirements will come next year) to want a modern CPU (P4/PM/K8), 512MB RAM, and a WPF capable video card. Now replace P4/PM/K8 with G4/G5, and WPF with Quartz Extreme. Huh, sounds kinda like the current preferred configuration for OSX (with anything less you run with degraded features and performance).

[Peter Bonte]

My 2cent is that clones just need to ad a sticker "compatible with osX" to supported hardware (with or without osX as default), thats easy enough for the customer and it may well become a quality label. Having the option to run Win, osX and Linux natively on the same machine is a big selling point no mater how you look at it and SSE2 won't be a problem next year.

I haven't seen the Vista beta's live but for what i read and see on the net its years off to become the next generation OS it pretends to be, perfect for Apple to fill the vacuum. And don't forget all the ipod users who would love to run osX on there machine just for there music needs (no viruses and stability) so it may well be that osX for intel will support as much old hardware it can bare. If its good for the iPod then Apple may take very strange decisions, we'll see the next few years i guess.

[Peter Bonte]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

You still seem out of reality. How is OS X backwards compatible with anything old Mac-like, when to run the old applications you need Classic? Mac OS X has zero native backwards compatibility. Mind you, "native" is the keyword. And this was and is a good thing, since we got rid of the old issues once and for all. Apple could afford to do it, because of its tiny market share. Microsoft just don't.

I totally agree that Apple did what it had to do and dump native backwards compatibility but how is this different to a Mactel with some sort of windows support? The PC needs a total overhaul to a new and non bloated OS and osX is momentarily the best option for this as MS has chickened out.

[Chinasaur]

"Dassault has expressed zero interest in porting CATIA to OSX."

What are you talking about? CATIA is a mainframe app. OS X never will be. Completely different markets and platforms.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Chinasaur

"Dassault has expressed zero interest in porting CATIA to OSX."

What are you talking about? CATIA is a mainframe app. OS X never will be. Completely different markets and platforms.

CATIA hasn't been a mainframe-only app for quite a while. V5 runs on Windows on x86, HP-UX on PA-RISC, AIX on Power, IRIX on MIPS, and Solaris on Sparc. It's very portable and the lack of an OSX port is both surprising and annoying.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by mduell

Dassault has expressed zero interest in porting CATIA to OSX.
Valve has expressed zero interest in porting Steam to OSX.
There's no baby to knife.

Oh, yes, there is. Adobe for example is commited. But they said that their Intel-Mac software won't be available before the end of 2006. Now, if Apple releases the first Intel-Macs in spring 2006 (and it seems they will, perhaps even in January-February 2006), it is possible and understanable for Adobe to be reluctant to port the software, if they find out that Windows runs without hiccups on this Intel-Mac, like a genuine PC.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

I totally agree that Apple did what it had to do and dump native backwards compatibility but how is this different to a Mactel with some sort of windows support?

OK, from your comments and in particular the following one,

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

My 2cent is that clones just need to ad a sticker "compatible with osX" to supported hardware (with or without osX as default), thats easy enough for the customer and it may well become a quality label. Having the option to run Win, osX and Linux natively on the same machine is a big selling point no mater how you look at it and SSE2 won't be a problem next year.

I gather that you don't understand one thing. You clearly suggest the return of the clones. This will be the end of Apple as a computer hardware company. They tried before and they almost died. No one of course can know what they are planning, perhaps they will do it and become just a software company (something like Apple Pods and Software, instead of Apple Computer). But if they do it, it is certain that they could not be more than a computer software company (in the case where they survive).

Now, the issue with having the possibility to run Windows in parallel with Mac OS X on the same machine, has only to do with Mac software (for Intel processors). If Windows runs like on a common PC, the Mac software (for Intel) is going to die. That's all I am saying. OS X's "superiority" is going to do nothing to save the day. Market share is king in such things.

[Peter Bonte]

triple post

[Peter Bonte]

double post damn Macnn slowness

[Peter Bonte]

Some time ago Jobs said that Apple is moving more to be a software company so i tend to agree but i also think it can compete in the hardware market just fine, its practically the biggest computer hardware company and if it uses this advantage together with a limited portfolio (no 1000's different configurations) it can certainly compete and be profitable. There is no PC mini for the same price (yet), there is no PC iMac, there is no quad intel desktop for the same price, Apple can compete!!

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Now, the issue with having the possibility to run Windows in parallel with Mac OS X on the same machine, has only to do with Mac software (for Intel processors). If Windows runs like on a common PC, the Mac software (for Intel) is going to die. That's all I am saying. OS X's "superiority" is going to do nothing to save the day. Market share is king in such things.

Market share will rise so 3p development will grow, running windows, linux or whatever won't change this. Mac would be dead already if what you are saying were true, its much harder to support osX op PPC than on intel yet its happening. I'm going to repeat it, the 100$ laptop proposition was a clone license so why would Apple not license to other company's? Its marketshare there after now, not monopolizing hardware.

I do have a bad feeling for the PPC, its going to die faster than we like to see unless PS3 gets supported or something but i don't think that will happen. Still buying a G5 iMac so me and the kids won't be tempted to run Windows.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Some time ago Jobs said that Apple is moving more to be a software company so i tend to agree but i also think it can compete in the hardware market just fine, its practically the biggest computer hardware company

Apple is lucky when they make it into the top 5 list for computer OEMs in a given quarter. Dell (#1) and HPQ (#2) each sell about ten times as many computers as Apple does in a quarter.

[CharlesS]

ThinkSecret seems to disagree with AppleInsider about this. They say the Intel machine to be released this January will be an iBook, which seems to make a little more sense.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

There is no PC mini for the same price (yet), there is no PC iMac, there is no quad intel desktop for the same price, Apple can compete!!

The iMac as it is now, it is really a strong product without something similar in the PC land. However, there are cheap and fully equipped desktop PCs in the price point of the Mac mini (and more powerful than this one). The mini's goal is not to compete with those, it is just a bait for PC users to try the Mac OS X experience, without taking the risk of a big hardware investment. As for quads, look for Opterons, not Pentiums.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Market share will rise so 3p development will grow, running windows, linux or whatever won't change this. Mac would be dead already if what you are saying were true, its much harder to support osX op PPC than on intel yet its happening. I'm going to repeat it, the 100$ laptop proposition was a clone license so why would Apple not license to other company's? Its marketshare there after now, not monopolizing hardware.

I am sorry to say that all these are just statements without any argument to support them.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

I do have a bad feeling for the PPC, its going to die faster than we like to see unless PS3 gets supported or something but i don't think that will happen.

We don't know yet what will happen. PPC (and POWER if you wish) processors go strong in server and supercomputer land, and from all evidence this will extend to gaming consoles. It is true though that, with Apple's retirement there will be no PPC in the desktop arena. The very few non-Apple PPC hardware (see Genesi) will remain, well, just very few.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Still buying a G5 iMac so me and the kids won't be tempted to run Windows.

Lucky you.

[Peter Bonte]

Originally Posted by mduell

Apple is lucky when they make it into the top 5 list for computer OEMs in a given quarter. Dell (#1) and HPQ (#2) each sell about ten times as many computers as Apple does in a quarter.

In a quarter Apple sells 1.100.000 computers and (edit) 5.000.000 iPods, DELL about 6-7.000.000. Apple made about 300.000.000 $ profit, DELL about 600.000.000. per quarter
Apple market cap : 53,57B
DELL market cap : 71,56B

Apple is not that small anymore and has a far better R&D then any computermaker, we all know that. For what its worth i see a big turnaround the next 2 years and i'm going to sit back and enjoy the show.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/apr/13results.html
http://www.crn.com/sections/breaking...leId=173601777

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

In a quarter Apple sells 1.100.000 computers and 500.000 iPods...

Didn't you drop a zero in that iPod number?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

In a quarter Apple sells 1.100.000 computers and 500.000 iPods, DELL about 6-7.000.000. Apple made about 300.000.000 $ profit, DELL about 600.000.000. per quarter
Apple market cap : 53,57B
DELL market cap : 71,56B

According to this article from MacWorld, in Q4 2004:
Dell sold 12 times as many desktops as Apple in the US.
Dell sold 6 times as many laptops as Apple in the US.
Dell sold 10 times as many desktops as Apple worldwide.
Dell sold 5 times as many laptops as Apple worldwide.

Since the number of laptop and deskop units were about equal in late 2004, overall Dell sold over 8 times as many computer as Apple.

I think sales is a better way to measure the size of a corporation than market cap (consider that a giant company like Walmart only has a market cap of $200b). Dell sold $53b in the last 12 months, while Apple sold $14b.

[Simon]

An important difference is that people who buy Apple most often stay with Apple. Dell is completely exchangeable. As soon as they don't make the cheapest offer people switch. That's what gives Mike Dell a headache and lets Steve Jobs be the pompous ass he is.

[dale]

To tell you the truth, I don't personally give a hoot how many PC's Dell sell. They aim at the budget end of the market, appealing to people who make purchasing decisions based on price alone (in Corporate speak – more computing units for your budget, at home – junior on the internet for the least expenditure).

Most readers of this forum are already enlightened to Apple's offering in the computing market (both software and hardware) and I suspect covert good design above price alone.

It is good to see that Apple's market share appears to be rising, not just to make me feel good about the decision I have taken to purchase an iMac (switching from an ancient Dell PC), but to see that others are becoming enlightened to the alternatives to the easy choice (cheap PC running familiar windows). So long as Apple remains a viable hardware and software manufacturer, churning out the same quality H/W and S/w it is at the moment, I wouldn't care if market share was falling. It means little to me, more to SJ's ego.

To add my opinion of the January announcements, I expect:

1.) New ibooks with Intel
2.) New Mac Mini (Intel based, with Frontrow and remote)
3.) late Q1 2006 - New Intel based Powerbooks

My rational - the consumer orientated (cheaper) products are less likely to have the pro applications installed on them. They are likely to appeal to the consumer market that would benefit from a ported version of the iLife suite.

I think the Intel Mac Mini may grow in size to become a little media centre and may even be available in black so that people can colour coordinate with its likely home - the living room. You could connect a $99 TV tuner to complete it, and upgrade this tuner to HD once it goes Mainstream. In my opinion, it makes no sense to embed a tuner of any kind at this point in time.

A late Q1 2006 PowerBook release will allow the Pro Application developers to catchup with development. I see the Powerbook, Power Mac (and possibly iMac) as their intended platforms for Pro applications.

In terms of number of processors, does it really matter so long as they are quick and good value?

My guess:

June/July 06 – Intel Powermacs
October 06 – Intel iMac (maybe with with HD tuner for the Christmas market)

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

Problem is, Intel is expected to deliver the dual-core version by January. The single core will ship roughly two months later. And we all know how badly Apple wants to be first...

The roadmap has single-core Yonah coming out in January. ie. Single-core and dual-core Yonah will be released at about the same time (if not the same day).

Originally Posted by CharlesS

ThinkSecret seems to disagree with AppleInsider about this. They say the Intel machine to be released this January will be an iBook, which seems to make a little more sense.

I would have expected the PowerBook to be updated close to the same time as the iBook. Why? Because a 12/13" iBook with Yonah single-core 1.66 GHz would be faster than a 17" PowerBook G4 1.67.

While I could see Apple releasing a new iNtel iBook at MWSF, I'm thinking it might replace the 12" PowerBook, and we'd get updates of the 15" and 17" soon too. What supports NOT updating the PowerBooks is the pro-app factor. However, the PowerBooks are the most in need of a speed upgrade (esp. if an iNtel iBook would be faster than them).

BTW, I think the Mac mini has a strong chance at seeing Intelification at MWSF. I don't see the iMac going Intel (dual-core) until the second half of 2006, and the Power Mac/Xserve (dual-core and dual dual-core) in 2007.

[Peter Bonte]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

The iMac as it is now, it is really a strong product without something similar in the PC land. However, there are cheap and fully equipped desktop PCs in the price point of the Mac mini (and more powerful than this one). The mini's goal is not to compete with those, it is just a bait for PC users to try the Mac OS X experience, without taking the risk of a big hardware investment. As for quads, look for Opterons, not Pentiums.

Can't compare a mini to a desktop (only with a mini computer, same size with dedicated GPU ram) and i didn't find an el cheapo quad opteron either. Aside from there laptops Apple is giving value for money and isn't overpriced at all. 90% of DELL offerings are indeed not available on the Apple side but licensing would solve this.

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte.

Market share will rise so 3p development will grow, running windows, linux or whatever won't change this. Mac would be dead already if what you are saying were true, its much harder to support osX op PPC than on intel yet its happening. I'm going to repeat it, the 100$ laptop proposition was a clone license so why would Apple not license to other company's? Its marketshare there after now, not monopolizing hardware.

I am sorry to say that all these are just statements without any argument to support them.

Its always a gamble, we can never predict how the developers and the public will react. Apple has offered a license to the 100$ laptop project so effectively creating a clone market if it was accepted. The NEXT os ran on all sorts of hardware and his Stevenes used a Sony Vaio for many years after the takeover. Not to mention Apple software running on Windows, OSS and cellphones.

Apple hardware is not sacred anymore so i really expect to see clones or compatible hardware somewhere next year.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Can't compare a mini to a desktop (only with a mini computer, same size with dedicated GPU ram) and i didn't find an el cheapo quad opteron either. Aside from there laptops Apple is giving value for money and isn't overpriced at all. 90% of DELL offerings are indeed not available on the Apple side but licensing would solve this.

Of course the mini is a desktop.

Its always a gamble, we can never predict how the developers and the public will react. Apple has offered a license to the 100$ laptop project so effectively creating a clone market if it was accepted. The NEXT os ran on all sorts of hardware and his Stevenes used a Sony Vaio for many years after the takeover. Not to mention Apple software running on Windows, OSS and cellphones.

Apple hardware is not sacred anymore so i really expect to see clones or compatible hardware somewhere next year.

There is about a 0.00001% chance of Mac clones in 2006.

[Simon]

Well, Anand...

Intel announced in August that the single-core Yonah would arrive after the dual-core. And that came from Intel not some PC kid with an ad-overloaded website.

Unless, just maybe, they - much to Apple's liking - changed their schedule.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

Well, Anand...

Intel announced in August that the single-core Yonah would arrive after the dual-core. And that came from Intel not some PC kid with an ad-overloaded website.

Unless, just maybe, they - much to Apple's liking - changed their schedule.

Your juvenile insults of that site notwithstanding... The new roadmap is from October.

[Anand]

Originally Posted by Simon

Well, Anand...

Intel announced in August that the single-core Yonah would arrive after the dual-core. And that came from Intel not some PC kid with an ad-overloaded website.

Unless, just maybe, they - much to Apple's liking - changed their schedule.

What is that for? I don't even have a post in this thread!

[Peter Bonte]

Maybe iBook and powerbook gets intellized to but not the G5 machines, they had just a major update. All i hope for is an intel Mini with Frontrow.

[P]

It is possible that there will be both Intel and PPC Powerbooks at first - remember that the last Powermacs that could boot into Classic were around for a long time. I think that having any sort of Pentium M-derivative in the iBook and a G4 in the Powerbook is going to be a hard sell - the Pentium M is both faster and uses less power, unless Apple is crippling it something wicked. There is less need for this in the iBook and Mac mini lines, because the people most in need of PPC are Pros who have a large number of old apps to support.

I agree that the mini would be a perfect match for Frontrow.

[Peter Bonte]

Drool I'm also putting CenterStage on it and then find some games that are playable with a Keyspan remote, tips are welcome.

I have it all worked out in my head, gona make a remote controlled filemaker runtime just to start apps. A selection of websites for the wife, widgets, games, anything that works with the remote. Really aiming it at all age family intertainment, i'm just waiting for the mini (intel or ppc) with frontstage.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Anand

What is that for? I don't even have a post in this thread!

Oops. That wasn't pointed at you buddy!

Eug quoted an article on the anandtech website. That's what I was referring to.

[Eug Wanker]

Here is the actual Intel mobile CPU roadmap:

Q1:
Dual-core Yonah with 2 MB L2 cache (up to 2.16 GHz)
Single-core Yonah with 2 MB L2 cache (1.66 GHz)

Q2:
Single-core Yonah with 1 MB L2 cache (GHz unknown)

[dale]

Interesting that MS is pushing a 50% off offer on new Mac purchases. I wonder if they have an intel/powerPC version coming out in January to meet the market entry of the intel Macs (probably iBook and Mini) and are trying to clear down stock levels.

I do appreciate, however that the production cost of software is significantly less than the production cost of hardware and that this may be just a genuine festive promotion. Does anyone know if Microsoft did something similar last year?

[dale]

my previos post should have stated a 50% off offer on MS office.

[macnn2]

Originally Posted by Peter Bonte

Can't compare a mini to a desktop (only with a mini computer, same size with dedicated GPU ram) and i didn't find an el cheapo quad opteron either. Aside from there laptops Apple is giving value for money and isn't overpriced at all. 90% of DELL offerings are indeed not available on the Apple side but licensing would solve this.



Its always a gamble, we can never predict how the developers and the public will react. Apple has offered a license to the 100$ laptop project so effectively creating a clone market if it was accepted. The NEXT os ran on all sorts of hardware and his Stevenes used a Sony Vaio for many years after the takeover. Not to mention Apple software running on Windows, OSS and cellphones.

Apple hardware is not sacred anymore so i really expect to see clones or compatible hardware somewhere next year.

I believe Stevie used an IBM Thinkpad.