[awarenessengine]

I think this is going to be THE SURPRISE this year, i.e. OS X being able to use software written for Windows, it's bound to happen sooner or later ;-)

[rickey939]

No, at least not through Apple. A "hack" down the line will not surprise me.

[RevEvs]

not officially.

it'll work via wine.

but never officially.

Steve: We now run all windows apps.

Mac Developers: oh well , why bother writing anymore apps

PC Devs: ah, no need to make a mac port.

It will be possible via VMWare or Wine, but never officially from Apple. As the apps would not have the correct UI or anything, and mac apps would die. the mac would die.

[awarenessengine]

I think it'll require a good bit more than a hack, something similar to Rosetta. This would be the solution for Apple - no more stuck out in the cold so to speak.

[awarenessengine]

RevEvs, that's the longterm plan for Apple - to become part of the larger crowd (what company wants to write for both platforms anyway) while doing what the others cannot do; make great products, i.e. Mac Mini's to compete with the likes of Dell and well designed systems that are head and shoulders better than the competition.

It's all a matter of convergence, and whether it happens this year or not, it'll happen.

[RevEvs]

dont be silly.

The greater plan is not to become a company selling nice hardware that runs Windows.

Why the hell would we want to do that? Mac software is amazing.

We will have Wine/VMWare or VirtualPC. That is all.

What benefits would there be for the user to be run windows software? a few games maybe? other than that we have our versions of what we need.

[JLL]

It's Apple's plan to be just another clone maker?

[Chuckit]

That would be really incredibly difficult to do well, building the entirety of Windows into the Mac OS and keeping it working correctly. I believe "unprecedented" is the word I'm looking for.

[EmmEff]

Unprecedented and undesired... if I wanted to run Windows apps, I'd run Windows.

[JKT]

<speculation>I wonder actually, if Apple came up with a way of enabling the running of Windows apps, but with a semblance of the Mac OS interface applied to them (so that developers wouldn't have to do too much work to at least use the Mac print/open/save dialogues etc). E.g. an equivalent to the Carbon API. There could be some value in that for them - it will still look and function too much like a Windows app so competitors that were Mac native would be preferable to most users, but for those apps where there just isn't any Mac equivalent? It now runs natively in Mac OS X.

If Apple wants to increase its market share, then this could be one way of doing it, and if Mac market share keeps increasing, then more people would want fully native Mac apps rather than clumsier Windows adapted versions... it could prove a good way to get people switching to Mac OS and getting the necessary market share momentum that would actually force developers to take native development seriously. Those that didn't would lose out financially to those that did.

In terms of purchasing investment - people would be getting a system that runs the software of all three major OSes for the price of one...</speculation>

[EmmEff]

Running others OSes' apps is just a way to dilute OS X and make it less appealing overall. We've got something here people and the goal is to sell it enough to make others want to do a wholesale switch.

If Joe Regular can't get his Windows software running on OS X, there should be (and in many cases, already is) a better alternative available to him as a native OS X app.

Running any other OSes' apps will present limitations, difficulties and a lack of UI consistency. Why make OS X worse for the experience?

[awarenessengine]

Apple done a great job of moving from OS 9 to OS X, that was some 10+ Million users, that were able to run their old Classic app's while developers came out with native versions.

Okay, now if you were to ask the majority of companies running Windows PC's what is stopping them from transferring to lower-maintenance computers, i.e. Mac's, it would be a matter of having purchased Windows software licenses as the main stumbling block to any move. Moreover, don't forget Apple is about to release a complete office solution to compete with MSOffice (save for the all-important spreadsheet, which will likely appear this year if not tomorrow).

So, the general idea here is to remove any stumbling block to Windows users to make the 'switch'. On top of this, go into any PC World or equivalent store today and 98% of the shop floor is dedicated to Intel/Windows. What company in their right mind wouldn't want to offer a solution for these users such as: "here is the best computer in the store, you can run most if not all of your current and future software (PC or Mac) on this Apple Computer".

Finally, don't forget, OS X was developed for Intel from day one, and do remember the Classic environment, which was as much alien to Unix is Windows is (and was only possible due to the PowerPC chips). So, a Windows Classic environment for OS X is HIGHLY LIKELY, and why do you think MS bought Virtual PC. It wasn't to help Mac users, it was to save their Windows branding, which day by day is becoming less important due to the Internet. People today aren't bothered about Windows or the Mac OS really, they place a bigger importance on the company image, i.e. Apple is known for ease of use, and going from Gates' recent CES blunders, he's trying to get on the Apple bandwagon. Unfortunately for Microsoft the just have no taste and are only good for 'copying'.

Really, the thinking behind all of this is 'THINK APPLE', not OS X, Windows, classic app's, etc......... The Internet has changed most of that and the whole computing world is going through convergence of many sorts. So, think Apple, or different! ;-)

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by awarenessengine

Apple done a great job of moving from OS 9 to OS X, that was some 10+ Million users, that were able to run their old Classic app's while developers came out with native versions.

Okay, now if you were to ask the majority of companies running Windows PC's what is stopping them from transferring to lower-maintenance computers, i.e. Mac's, it would be a matter of having purchased Windows software licenses as the main stumbling block to any move. Moreover, don't forget Apple is about to release a complete office solution to compete with MSOffice (save for the all-important spreadsheet, which will likely appear this year if not tomorrow).

So, the general idea here is to remove any stumbling block to Windows users to make the 'switch'. On top of this, go into any PC World or equivalent store today and 98% of the shop floor is dedicated to Intel/Windows. What company in their right mind wouldn't want to offer a solution for these users such as: "here is the best computer in the store, you can run most if not all of your current and future software (PC or Mac) on this Apple Computer".

Finally, don't forget, OS X was developed for Intel from day one, and do remember the Classic environment, which was as much alien to Unix is Windows is (and was only possible due to the PowerPC chips). So, a Windows Classic environment for OS X is HIGHLY LIKELY, and why do you think MS bought Virtual PC. It wasn't to help Mac users, it was to save their Windows branding, which day by day is becoming less important due to the Internet. People today aren't bothered about Windows or the Mac OS really, they place a bigger importance on the company image, i.e. Apple is known for ease of use, and going from Gates' recent CES blunders, he's trying to get on the Apple bandwagon. Unfortunately for Microsoft the just have no taste and are only good for 'copying'.

Except OS 9 is not Windows XP. You can't just say that since they could make Classic work for OS 9, it would work for XP.

Macs are "lower maintenance" because of the operating system, not the hardware. If you build OS X with the intention of making it compatible with Windows applications, either natively or in some kind of emulation layer, all you've succeeded in doing is creating an OS that is massively more complicated than both OS X and Windows.

There is no reason to go this route in the first place. Apple isn't on the rails, grasping for a life preserver. It has more brand recognition than it has had probably in the last 10 years. It doesn't need Windows compatability beyond things like making sure Microsoft Office is compatible across both platforms.

Moving to Intel was about securing a better processor roadmap, and keeping Apple's laptops competitive (and maybe about DRM for future media). If you want to try to install Windows on your MacIntel, that's your business, but it's not the business that Apple will be courting. They know that if people want to run Windows there are half a dozen other computer manufacturers out there that they can turn to. But Apple is the only one with OS X.

[awarenessengine]

One more thing about this thread and my points is that you've got to look at it purely from a marketing perspective and not as a 'Mac user', and that 95%+ of people don't really care what the computer is running.

[awarenessengine]

.dp

[Chuckit]

The only practical way they could make it perfectly compatible with Windows would be to start distributing Windows machines. I guess from a "marketing perspective" rather than the perspective of a "Mac user," this might be a good thing, and could even bring them up to Dell's level. But personally, I don't want that. I use Macs because I want to use Macs.

[awarenessengine]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Except OS 9 is not Windows XP. You can't just say that since they could make Classic work for OS 9, it would work for XP.

Macs are "lower maintenance" because of the operating system, not the hardware. If you build OS X with the intention of making it compatible with Windows applications, either natively or in some kind of emulation layer, all you've succeeded in doing is creating an OS that is massively more complicated than both OS X and Windows.

There is no reason to go this route in the first place. Apple isn't on the rails, grasping for a life preserver. It has more brand recognition than it has had probably in the last 10 years. It doesn't need Windows compatability beyond things like making sure Microsoft Office is compatible across both platforms.

What you said is true and only confirms some of which I mention about Apple's own Office suite, but large corporations often have legacy Windows app's that they could just no do without, i.e. vertical market software, such as order-tracking etc. This is the main challenge Apple faces with the corporate market, where companies have spent considerable sums on Windows software and are literally forced into using the Windows OS and maintaining costly yearly contracts.

You're right Apple isn't on the rails, but they've still only got 3% market share.

Let me put it this way. If Apple offered a classic Windows environment that allowed you to walk into your local PC World store (or whatever is your countries equivalent) and pick up any piece of software (maybe with the exception of games) - it would make your Mac more valuable.

[awarenessengine]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The only practical way they could make it perfectly compatible with Windows would be to start distributing Windows machines.

Now, that's just silly!

[goMac]

You won't see Apple consider releasing such a thing for a long time.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by awarenessengine

Now, that's just silly!

So you seriously think Apple's going to abandon the Mac platform and just start releasing Apple-branded Windows boxes?

[awarenessengine]

Another thing to think about are the Apple Stores. Think about all the people walking through those doors, able to buy 'any' bit of software they choose.

They'll come to prefer using Apple's native app's as opposed to the Windows clunkers.

[awarenessengine]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So you seriously think Apple's going to abandon the Mac platform and just start releasing Apple-branded Windows boxes?

Chuck, please read the thread from the start. I'm not talking about Windows boxes, I'm talking about Apple boxes capable or running 'any software', Mac or PC. Remember, Intel chips.

[kmkkid]

This won't happen because windows is closed source. Wine has a hard enough time just getting a few simple apps to run, nevermind some of the larger apps out there.

Apple made classic work, because they knew classic inside and out. Only MS knows all of the windows API's and codebase.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by awarenessengine

What you said is true and only confirms some of which I mention about Apple's own Office suite, but large corporations often have legacy Windows app's that they could just no do without, i.e. vertical market software, such as order-tracking etc. This is the main challenge Apple faces with the corporate market, where companies have spent considerable sums on Windows software and are literally forced into using the Windows OS and maintaining costly yearly contracts.

You're right Apple isn't on the rails, but they've still only got 3% market share.

Let me put it this way. If Apple offered a classic Windows environment that allowed you to walk into your local PC World store (or whatever is your countries equivalent) and pick up any piece of software (maybe with the exception of games) - it would make your Mac more valuable.

Originally Posted by awarenessengine

One more thing about this thread and my points is that you've got to look at it purely from a marketing perspective and not as a 'Mac user', and that 95%+ of people don't really care what the computer is running.

The problem is that you are looking at this from the user perspective, and not a marketing perspective. Your vision of an Apple computer that could run "any piece of software" on either Windows or Mac OS is a user's utopian fantasy--as kmkkid points out, the only way this could happen is if Apple had Microsoft's complete cooperation. And Microsoft has its own (quite profitable) OS to sell. Microsoft doesn't exist to sell Windows-compatible software, it's in the business of selling Windows.

From a marketing perspective, Apple gains nothing by advertising Windows compatibility. Or at least, they don't gain enough to offset the costs of engineering what would be a monstrously complicated OS that would have to continually be updating to react to whatever changes Microsoft makes on their side. Like I said before, there are half a dozen other PC manufacturers that Apple would be competing with for "Windows compatibility." To a customer for whom Windows compatibility was the number 1 priority, Apple would have nothing to offer that would fundamentally differentiate them from their competitors. From Apple's point of view, it's safer to stay out of that catfight. As long as there are applications that are compatible with both Windows and the Macintosh (and there are very few "killer" applications that are Windows-only), that is all the Windows-compatibility they need.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by awarenessengine

Chuck, please read the thread from the start. I'm not talking about Windows boxes, I'm talking about Apple boxes capable or running 'any software', Mac or PC. Remember, Intel chips.

Yes, but chips are irrelevant. Actually running "any software" would require running Windows, since most software requires Windows. So Apple would either have to completely rewrite Windows or it would have to start distributing Windows on its computers. Microsoft had a hard enough time of writing Windows the first time around, and it's much bigger than Apple, so that's out of the question.

In short, nobody has ever written something besides Windows that can run everything Windows can. It's a pipe dream.

[goose]

Well, I don't care about running all Windows apps. I would just like to be able to run Windows based games. Man, for the longest time (way back when) I wanted to play Half-Life/TFC on my Mac at home. I don't want to get stuck in that situation again....

[Dork.]

Ordinarily, I'd be on SpaceMonkey's side in this debate. I remember back when Rhapsody was not a music site, and "Classic" was called the Blue Box. There was a rumored (IIRC) Red Box that could run Windows apps just like Blue Box could run Classic Mac Apps. Although technically possible, it ultimately was shelved for many of the same reasons he cites: it brings Apple down to the level of another PC clone, although one with niftier features. Heck, back then all the Macs were beige, and they really would have looked like another PC clone company!

But there is one thing that might have changed since then: the proliferation of spyware and viruses on the PC platform. I know that many people are attreacted to the Mac because of the lack of viruses. Could it be possible for Apple (with the help of the WINE project, no doubt) to have done a clean-room implementation of some of the basic API's to run in an environment like Classic, only more secure, so that viewing a WMF file wouldn't make the world end? Sure, not all PC apps would be compatible right out of the box, but they may be able to provide basic compatability for simple apps that enable the average user to take the bulk of their software along with them to Mac land.

If Apple could provide a solution that enabled Mac users to run PC apps on their Intel boxes, but protected them from the viruses and the spyware, that would provide the extra value that would propel them above all the other clone makers. That's a big IF, of course. Just a thought.

[Chuckit]

If I recall, Red Box was supposed to be just like Classic —�if you had a Windows installation, you could run it from within NextStep.

[awarenessengine]

Ah **** it, it seemed like a good idea at the time! :-) LOL

We'll see what happens...

[Chuckit]

I actually think there is a good chance that Apple will try to incorporate the Darwine project the same way they've tried to incorporate X11, but as you can see with X11 apps on OS X, it's not going to just be "run anything." It's actually more difficult with WINE. That's what I was trying to say.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I actually think there is a good chance that Apple will try to incorporate the Darwine project the same way they've tried to incorporate X11, but as you can see with X11 apps on OS X, it's not going to just be "run anything." It's actually more difficult with WINE. That's what I was trying to say.

Not for the near future. Maybe they'll decide to release such a thing later, but WINE still has a ways to go.

[Chuckit]

Yeah, I meant eventually. Like X11.

[fred66]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Microsoft doesn't exist to sell Windows-compatible software, it's in the business of selling Windows.

That's not strictly true. Windows just happens to be the OS they need to run applications. Windows does not run the business world; Microsoft Office does. The operating system is pretty much irrelevant; what really matters is the applications.

If it sells more copies of Office .NET

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

From a marketing perspective, Apple gains nothing by advertising Windows compatibility.

They not only advertise it, they sell it in their shops and online store!

If Intel's virtualization technology pans out, then Apple could have Intel machines that run both OSs at native speed. And if it sells more copies of MS software, Microsoft will probably help them do it.

[theolein]

I think that awarenessengine has some very good points. Technically, porting the Cocoa environment to Windows is no Problem since, in fact, during the OpenStep days of the early 90's, OpenStep (Cocoa's direct predecessor, which is why all the Cocoa classes still start with "NS" for NextStep) ran on WinNT before it ever ran on a Mac (It also ran on HP-UX and Solaris). AFAIK, during the Rhapsody days, that part of the API, was called the so called Red Box, i.e. the porting of the Cocoa API's to Windows.

But there was also an attempt at the time, called Yellow Box, to get Win32 programmes run under OSX (Actually Rhapsody, OSX' predecessor, on x86). It was very similar to what VMWare is on x86 and what Blue Box , aka Classic is on PPC.

Being able to write Cocoa apps that will also run on Windows will open a huge market to Mac developers. Porting the iApps (and Safari) to Windows, would bring Apple more customers, especially if they are combined with gadgets like the rumoured Mac TV and set top box, just like the iPods did.

Of course it would be instant death for Office on the Mac, but Apple is also rumoured to be releasing a spreadsheet app tomorrow, so I'm not too sure that Apple won't take the risk.

But it would be a huge risk.

[awarenessengine]

If Intel's virtualization technology pans out, then Apple could have Intel machines that run both OSs at native speed. And if it sells more copies of MS software, Microsoft will probably help them do it.

I doubt Apple wants to sell more MS software, but this whole subject is about technical limitations and Apple's done some amazing stuff over the past 8 years so who knows?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by fred66

That's not strictly true. Windows just happens to be the OS they need to run applications. Windows does not run the business world; Microsoft Office does. The operating system is pretty much irrelevant; what really matters is the applications.

I took a Network Systems class taught by a guy who manages System Support for Bechtel--he also used to do similar work for Texas Instruments. It was my understanding from him that Microsoft makes its money in the business world by selling extended service contracts for all of its software, including Windows and its server software. So in that sense, neither Windows nor Office is any more more less lucrative for the company, but Windows of course is the necessary component. Without Windows there is no Office service contract.

My point was only that even if Apple could run Windows at "native" speed, there's no incentive for them to go out of their way to make it happen. Their ultimate goal is to sell more Macs, and in that sense the ability to run Windows isn't a selling point. Everybody can run Windows. If Apple openly competes with that market, they are only putting themselves at a disadvantage, because everyone else already has a head start on them. It would be like if Subway started selling Big Macs. Would some people buy Big Macs from Subway? Sure. But in the long run, Subway wouldn't be gaining any additional customers, because someone who orders one of Subway's Big Macs is just as likely to stop at a McDonalds the next time they need fast food.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by awarenessengine

I doubt Apple wants to sell more MS software, but this whole subject is about technical limitations and Apple's done some amazing stuff over the past 8 years so who knows?

We will tomorrow, and then I will gloat.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by theolein

I think that awarenessengine has some very good points. Technically, porting the Cocoa environment to Windows is no Problem since, in fact, during the OpenStep days of the early 90's, OpenStep (Cocoa's direct predecessor, which is why all the Cocoa classes still start with "NS" for NextStep) ran on WinNT before it ever ran on a Mac (It also ran on HP-UX and Solaris). AFAIK, during the Rhapsody days, that part of the API, was called the so called Red Box, i.e. the porting of the Cocoa API's to Windows.

But there was also an attempt at the time, called Yellow Box, to get Win32 programmes run under OSX (Actually Rhapsody, OSX' predecessor, on x86). It was very similar to what VMWare is on x86 and what Blue Box , aka Classic is on PPC.

I think you've got that the wrong way round. Yellow Box is Cocoa. The Red Box was the Windows compatibility layer, and yes, it required you to run Windows. At least, that's how it was supposed to work — I don't know anyone who actually had it.

Originally Posted by theolein

Being able to write Cocoa apps that will also run on Windows will open a huge market to Mac developers. Porting the iApps (and Safari) to Windows, would bring Apple more customers, especially if they are combined with gadgets like the rumoured Mac TV and set top box, just like the iPods did.

What does Cocoa for Windows have to do with anything? This was about running Windows on a Mac, not running Mac on Windows, wasn't it?

[awarenessengine]

Chuck, doubt it'll happen tomorrow, perhaps with the first Intel PMac: my predictions for tomorrow fwiw, is a major change to the Mini with remote control, updated front row, iLife 06 with iSpread (LOL), deals for video and something totally unexpected, as usual.

[Big Mac]

Can someone change the title of this thread to be a bit less misleading?

[Athens]

Fact is Microsoft owns Virtual PC, when that thing becomes Intel native, and Windows already intel native Virtual PC should run Windows dam near full speed because it wont have to emulate a CPU any more. I dont see why Virtual PC wont run things at 99% of real speed which would make even Windows games prob playable

[Athens]

Fact is Microsoft owns Virtual PC, when that thing becomes Intel native, and Windows already intel native Virtual PC should run Windows dam near full speed because it wont have to emulate a CPU any more. I dont see why Virtual PC wont run things at 99% of real speed which would make even Windows games prob playable

[fred66]

Originally Posted by theolein

Of course it would be instant death for Office on the Mac, but Apple is also rumoured to be releasing a spreadsheet app tomorrow, so I'm not too sure that Apple won't take the risk.

But it would be a huge risk.

Dunno about that. Folk would just run the Windows version on Macs wouldn't they?

[fred66]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I took a Network Systems class taught by a guy who manages System Support for Bechtel--he also used to do similar work for Texas Instruments. It was my understanding from him that Microsoft makes its money in the business world by selling extended service contracts for all of its software, including Windows and its server software. So in that sense, neither Windows nor Office is any more more less lucrative for the company, but Windows of course is the necessary component. Without Windows there is no Office service contract.

OK, my goof. I forget that when I say 'Office', everyone rightly assumes the desktop stuff. What MS really sells is the desktop stuff, the Exchange server and clients and the database.

On top of that, we have IIs a wodge of engines for web services, messaging etc. and the .NET framework.

All of that adds up to a bigger bundle than Windows and the server.

What Windows really does, is keep other platforms away from Microsoft's core markets, by being required to run their other stuff.

Port to Linux? They could make a lot of money doing it, but Linux already has all the enterprise stuff that MS has for Windows; porting their applications would serve only to legitimise the Linux platform and then folk would start to migrate to other, cheaper solutions.

The Mac doesn't really have much of an enterprise presence, so it's a nice, low-risk money-spinner for MS.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

My point was only that even if Apple could run Windows at "native" speed, there's no incentive for them to go out of their way to make it happen. Their ultimate goal is to sell more Macs, and in that sense the ability to run Windows isn't a selling point.

Why do you think that 96% of the computer buying public will not buy a Mac? Because they are worried that they can't take their apps with them.

Why do you think that that the Mac has relatively few developers? Because they can't write for it, AND take their code to the Windows platform.

If folk are happier to buy macs, then more Macs are sold. If more Macs are sold, then one of two things will happen:

1/. Developers will just develop Windows apps because hell, Windows apps will run everywhere.
2/. Developers will develop Mac apps because there are more Macs out there.

Apple can help with Number 1 and 2, by releasing Cocoa for Windows.
MS won't really care, because I imagine they'll get a cut for making it possible.
Intel is as happy as a pig in mud no matter what happens.

The only losers are the likes of Dell.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Everybody can run Windows. If Apple openly competes with that market, they are only putting themselves at a disadvantage, because everyone else already has a head start on them.

But what other machine can run Windows, Linux AND MacOSX?

[Greenrobotics]

Fred66...
96% of the public buys Windows for 2 reasons...1- because there is no incentive to sell Macs as a vendor and 2- consumers do not know the difference so they see Apple as a high priced PC , like Sony.
It has nothing to do with the portability of apps. It has all to do with this idea... If I am a service and sales organization, I can make money selling Windows because Windows machines need add on support and service. A real example... I buy a PC. Then I need to buy anti virus , ant spam, anti adware, and Microsoft Office , and extra memory, and a 3 year service agreement. The people seliing that stuff make a nice markup. I buy an Apple. I do not need the anti stuff.
What margin do I make selling Apple if I only sell the Apple?
And since Apple has their own stores,
I have to compete with Apple to sell Apple.
The answer is ... Less than I make selling the PC. Since Apple is easier to use, more complete out of the box, and self upgradeable ,I as a vendor have no aftermarket opportunities. So I as a vendor have less incentive to sell Apple than a PC. Combine this with the consumer who thinks that PC's cost less because the box is less (It is incomplete, but this is not apparent to the buyer) and the consumer who pays more in the long run because he/she happily concludes all computers are the same so cheaper is a reasonable buying strategy and you cover the 96% of the market.
Apple needs to market computers that APPEAR to be no more expensive than PC's yet don't require the after market support to get consumers to look OR they need to raise the cool factor so high that PC people develop technolust like they have for iPods. Or the profits for sellers must be really good to give them the incentive to push Apple, because you (the consumer) will buy what is pushed by your retailers.

[sushiism]

What would be the point? Every killer app on windows such as say Trillian has a far superior mac alternative with a much better interface (Adium). Only thing I could see people wanting would be games which consoles have much better and more original games on anyway.

[JHromadka]

Originally Posted by sushiism

What would be the point? Every killer app on windows such as say Trillian has a far superior mac alternative with a much better interface (Adium). Only thing I could see people wanting would be games which consoles have much better and more original games on anyway.

There are certain financial apps that I use that are not available on the Mac. As soon as WINE is updated fo Intel Mac OS X, I'm all over an iMac for testing.

[swatson]

my wife loves my mac. Wants one. She can't. She does transcription (a lot). Good luck finding a foot pedal (hardware) compatible with any mac transcription software (which isn't that great to begin with). I have done some exhastive searches - the only option is to buy old pedals/adapters/parts and construct my own. And even then who knows if it will work.

For her PC/windows we purchased a sony pedal; it came with software - up and running 5 minutes later.

There are a lot of people out there who aren't running "killer apps" but instead are running very specific apps (their own killer apps) for their needs/business. Those in my opinion the apps that are holding many switchers back.

I am a GPS enthusiast. I need some decent mapping software. Route 66 - yeah whatever - hasn't been updated in a few years. GPS + Mapping software for mac = frustration. How about Topographic maps. National Geographic makes topographic software for mac and pc, and the mac version has half the features.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by awarenessengine

One more thing about this thread and my points is that you've got to look at it purely from a marketing perspective and not as a 'Mac user', and that 95%+ of people don't really care what the computer is running.

Not quite true.

Almost every single customer who comes in to the store I work at cares about viruses and spyware, and every single one cares about universal drag-and-drop of anything to anything, and Exposé.

[alonsop]

There are a lot of people out there who aren't running "killer apps" but instead are running very specific apps (their own killer apps) for their needs/business. Those in my opinion the apps that are holding many switchers back.


This is exactly the problem. For home offices or in corporate environments, there are specific applications that run under Windows. It doesn't even matter if there is an equivalent or better Mac version. They need that application, because it's an industry standard or because it's what their co-workers use. There are issues such as file compatibility, all kinds of things.

In fact, as a programer I've written a couple of such applications. I could technically do a rewrite for Mac OSX, but nobody would pay for that, since they have Windows PCs.

I don't want or expect Windows apos to run directly on OS/X for Intel, but I do expect Wine to really work now, with no emulation performance penalty. This would be enough to tip the balance and get me into Mac land, although I would be running Windows a good part of the time. Still, I would immediately move browsing, mail, authoring, photo, and other work to OS/X.