[ryarber]

Just thinking about this, I think there are loads of potential uses for a intel based mac that folks are not talking about. Everyone seems to be arguing the merits of the decision. Well, that is history folks. Intel is just around the corner for us. While I don't see it making one bit of difference as to how the MacOS runs, I do see there is a lot of upside to the move.

The most obvious advantage being the ability to run MacOS and Windows at native speeds. Thinking about this, it seems to open a lot of doors for Apple. I can envision businesses buying an Apple box and running both MacOS and Windows. MacOS for security purposes in being able to surf and check email without having to worry much malicious software, and Windows to run their business apps that won't run on MacOS. This could really help us to break into the businesses in ways we've never been able to do before. Since I have no technical knowlege, would it be possible for a machine to dual boot into both MacOS and Windows, and not have Windows running in a VM (or Red Box)? If so, is it possible that you could switch between the two environments like we do with fast user switching now?

What I believe this should be all about for us Mac users is preserving the platform that we love and encouraging others to develop useful software for us. Porting software could be much easier now that there is a common architecture (I have no idea, but seems logical). If this move is successful in growing the marketshare of the macintosh, then we'll see more apps.

There are enough "I'm mad as hell and I'm switching to Linux" threads. I was wondering what people see as the potential upside to this historic move.

[nonhuman]

Have you ever run a dual-boot system? It's a real pain in the ass to have to reboot when you want to use those one or two Windows apps.

And no company is going to want to fork over the cash for two proprietary OSs on every machine.

And the security of OS X will be moot because most people will just stick with Windows since they have to use that for their business apps anyway.

[PurpleGiant]

I also think the move has great potential. Virtual PC is currently available for Windows, to run another copy of Windows (or Linux) in a virtual machine.

The 'Intel' version of Virtual PC would be able to run at full speed, and without the need for dual-boot. This alone has me excited about the move.

Apple Computers: Run Mac, Windows or Linux.
'PC' Computers: Run Windows or Linux.

[ryarber]

I'm not talking standard dual boot systems here. I'm wondering if it can be done where you can switch environments like you do in fast user switching. I've run Linux with Windows before and I agree it is a pain. If it can be done, I could see MS doing it for an Intel Mac.

I would pay extra for added security. We just bought 20 new Dells for my office. Our fear is people going out grabbing their email and bringing stuff into the system that we don't want. If we could train people that in order to use their email, they should switch to a different environment to do it, that would alleviate a lot of headaches for our IT guy.

Security is the biggest selling point of the MacOS now. Since the PPC's haven't lived up to expectation, we can't boast speed any more, so about all we have to sell it on is security. I certainly think security of our systems is important, and hardly moot.

[legacyb4]

Ditto. Right about now, I wonder if Steve is kicking himself for not having taken over VPC since it could have been built into the system and with the new Intel-Macs, you could run Windows apps as needed a la Classic mode.

Originally Posted by PurpleGiant

The 'Intel' version of Virtual PC would be able to run at full speed, and without the need for dual-boot. This alone has me excited about the move.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by PurpleGiant

Apple Computers: Run Mac, Windows or Linux.
'PC' Computers: Run Windows or Linux.

Developers: Don't bother to code for OS X because Mactel users can run the Windows version in a virtual machine anyway.

[ryarber]

Originally Posted by legacyb4

Ditto. Right about now, I wonder if Steve is kicking himself for not having taken over VPC since it could have been built into the system and with the new Intel-Macs, you could run Windows apps as needed a la Classic mode.

Actually, I don't think Virtual PC would be necessary at all to do this and would only be a hinderance. Virtual PC is emulation and we're now talking about a virtual machine, or running windows natively on a Mac. If he had bought Virtual PC, I imagine he'd be kicking himself right about now. I'll bet Connectix execs are wearing a pretty big smile now. They just sold MS a load of crap that is now worthless. I don't think MS needs to buy Virtual PC to know how to get windows running on intel chips.

[ryarber]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

Developers: Don't bother to code for OS X because Mactel users can run the Windows version in a virtual machine anyway.

I don't see your point. MacOS will still hang on to their small marketshare and there will be people willing to develop for it, just as there have been for the last 20 years. You heard MS and Adobe at the keynote.

This, IMHO, gives us more advantages to lure developers to our platform. One is that the platform that most apps work best on just opened up to the Mac. Maybe a lot of the code in these apps will be portable and it will be easier to achieve feature parity with those apps we salivate over in windows (eg. Quicken for me). Second, if this works out like we all hope, people that are buying iPods may look at the platforms and say, hey I'll get a Mactel machine because I can take full advantage of all the iPod features using the MacOS, but I'll still be able to run my old windows software. It is a no-brainer. Then, we've sold more hardware, and it could/should increase marketshare. Hence, increased interest in the platform.

Apple could even leverage the iPod features more with this setup. At present, in order to sell more iPod units, Apple had to more or less give them feature parity on Wintel. Now that folks won't have to worry about losing their old apps, etc. that they have on their Wintel machine, it will be a lot easier for folks to shell out the money for an Apple machine.

We've had this discussion time and time again here. Is Apple a hardware company or a software company. They make their money on hardware sales, not software ala MS. Anything that will drive Apple hardware sales is going to be good for the company. Driving the hardware sales of Macs is also getting our software, which we all know to be superior, into the hands of more people. This will drive new app development.

Why does Intuit make a crappy version of Quicken for Mac? Because 96% of computers run windows only and 3% run MacOS. Why pour good development dollars toward that kind of market. Those users are, right now, tied to their particular platform. In the future, users will have a choice if they buy Mactel. Isn't that what life is all about, choices?

Why would users buy a Mactel machine? To run OS X, of course. If they run windows also, that is irrelevant. Some people may run out and buy a Mac because it matches their living room furniture better. Some of those people may put windows on it and not run MacOS. Who cares. Apple just made a sale and is gaining on the likes of Dell and Gateway. The MacOS has a new customer. My suspicion is that, even though they have intel inside, Macs will still be more expensive than cheap PC's eg. eMachines and Micron. Maybe a few dollars more than a comparable Dell. People have always been willing to pay a premium to run MacOS.

I, for one, am very excited to know that soon I'll be able to own 1 machine that I can use at home and and work and it will do everything I want it to do. ONE MACHINE. I'm about to wet myself.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by PurpleGiant

The 'Intel' version of Virtual PC would be able to run at full speed, and without the need for dual-boot. This alone has me excited about the move.

There is a version of Virtual PC that runs on Windows right now. It doesn't run anywhere near full speed. Why do you think VPC on Mac using an Intel processor would be any different than it is right now?

[ryarber]

Originally Posted by discotronic

There is a version of Virtual PC that runs on Windows right now. It doesn't run anywhere near full speed. Why do you think VPC on Mac using an Intel processor would be any different than it is right now?

Ummm, because it is native to x86??? Isn't speed loss due to translation? Why do classic apps run fast in OS X? Won't PPC apps take a speed hit under Mactel with Rosetta?

If we will have to take a speed hit to run Windows, then I'll settle for dual booting. Maybe what I have isn't doable at this point in time, but I envision the possibility of having Windows and MacOS running in their own environments with the ability to switch via a utility eg. fast user switching we are all familiar with on MacOS currently. Surely this is doable, but I imagine it would take a lot of work to figure out how to share the resources, etc.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Have you ever run a dual-boot system? It's a real pain in the ass to have to reboot when you want to use those one or two Windows apps.

And no company is going to want to fork over the cash for two proprietary OSs on every machine.

And the security of OS X will be moot because most people will just stick with Windows since they have to use that for their business apps anyway.

I think he's talking about something similar to VPC but maybe they can make hooks or something that can enable it to run at full speed without having to Dualboot like a conventional Dual Boot machine. If they could the possibilities could be endless and the need for 2 machines over. Also it would give web developers NO excuse to not make their sites NOT Mac compatible. It would have to be since they could now not have to buy a seperate machine to develop on. They can also then develop on their favorite platform.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by ryarber

Actually, I don't think Virtual PC would be necessary at all to do this and would only be a hinderance. Virtual PC is emulation and we're now talking about a virtual machine, or running windows natively on a Mac. If he had bought Virtual PC, I imagine he'd be kicking himself right about now. I'll bet Connectix execs are wearing a pretty big smile now. They just sold MS a load of crap that is now worthless. I don't think MS needs to buy Virtual PC to know how to get windows running on intel chips.

Ahem. Virtual PC is critical to XBox360 backward compatibility. M$ didn't lose anything.

[hyteckit]

Switching to Intel chips all about Red Box.

[ryarber]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Ahem. Virtual PC is critical to XBox360 backward compatibility. M$ didn't lose anything.

Good point. However, I can see MS writing software that is native to this environment. I can't see people running computer software on their TV's if they're also having to suffer that kind of speed hit. I doubt people will be running current windows programs on XBox 360, but rather ports of existing products. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't one of the reasons you can't game very well in the current VPC that they couldn't or wouldn't port the Active X API's to VPC, hence PC games wouldn't run well in this environment??? That would be a problem for backward compatibility wouldn't it?

[ryarber]

Originally Posted by typoon

I think he's talking about something similar to VPC but maybe they can make hooks or something that can enable it to run at full speed without having to Dualboot like a conventional Dual Boot machine. If they could the possibilities could be endless and the need for 2 machines over. Also it would give web developers NO excuse to not make their sites NOT Mac compatible. It would have to be since they could now not have to buy a seperate machine to develop on. They can also then develop on their favorite platform.

If they could make classic API's run in MacOS X, why can't they make Windows API's run under OS X for intel? In an "environment" similar to the way classic runs on OS X? Sitting as a layer on top of the Darwin kernel as Classic, Carbon, and Cocoa do now. I guess the main problem I see with this is that Classic didn't have hardware access like Carbon and Cocoa do. This would be a definite drawback for anyone wanting to run Windows. IOW, if you couldn't access your scanner, printer, etc. from a windows classic environment, what is the use running it?

Is there a way to share, or alternate access to these hardware resources? eg. in an environment where you could switch between the two systems and run them simultaneously without having to boot? ie. if you were in MacOS, then it has access to the hardware. If you switch to your windows environment, MacOS access is suspended and Windows is given access to your system resources. This might be a problem if you were trying to burn a disc or something like that, but MacOS faces similar issues now with fast user switching.

Also, what will become of the MacOS Classic environment now? Will the intel chips run classic apps in MacOS X? Will it be too much for Rosetta to handle? Will they be able to port the Classic API's over to MacOS X intel as they did with Carbon and Cocoa?

[lngtones]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

Developers: Don't bother to code for OS X because Mactel users can run the Windows version in a virtual machine anyway.

Lame developers who don't understand the Mac and are porting their code to the M.A.C: Don't bother we don't want your lame port.

I think the porting issue is overblown.

Repeat after me. "I am an armchair business analyst. I get my facts from 14 year old boys posting on the internet".

The first path to happiness is acceptance.

[macaddict0001]

Leapord will probably not run on a dell box and windows will probably not run on on a mac with intel chip.

[yukon]

There are huge draws to an Intel Mac. For one, there's now more customizability. If you don't like your CPU, then you can spend less than before to upgrade it, we're still talking about Intel chips though so it will still have a substantial cost. This turns Apple into a motherboard with OS company, so as long as Intel is using the same socket you can upgrade your Apple motherboard much more easily on eBay. Next is speed, Apple doesn't have to worry about processor speed taking a dive, if Intel's products continue the way they've gone then Apple can then make a chipset/socket939 for AMD processors (depending on the Intel contract). Suddenly you can run WINE without recompiling apps, you could run something like VMWare to do that "user switching" into Windows or Linux, as someone mentioned Apple could try to revive the "Red Box" from Rhapsody (OpenStep by Apple essentially) which would run Windows applications, in any case there won't be any applications that you "just can't run" (though people will still complain about the rebooting or any incompatibilities). There are lots of advantages, from a marketshare and profit margin standpoint Apple should have never gone PPC.

There are a number of disadvantages of course, I'll list a couple. Apple used to make "PCs" in the sense they were still "Personal Computers" but not really the lowest-bidder crufty PCs....now Apple will make an IBM PC Clone with a special MacOS-Enabling BIOS, additionally I have no idea of exactly how they're going to prevent people from somehow hacking it to make MacOS X run on other chipsets and flashed BIOSes (Apple supposedly said it to the music industry, "None of this (DRM) technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have PhDs here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content."), dongles can be emulated and BIOSes can be flashed. Along with that the potential speed decreases, no longer will Apple be "ahead" in speed, there will be no more CPU advantage to the Mac, no more bragging about gigaflops, my G4 may be slow at 450mhz but it still beats my friend's P4 in specific benchmarks like flops....OS X is great but it's slow in comparison to other systems that do things in less stable and elegant ways. Someone here has reiterated the "OS/2" lesson, that having a quality emulator for Windows alongside your own software can make it that there's no point in developing native software, this is often used as an argument against WINE on Linux....it's only a worry if it's perfect emulation of current Windows software with a low speed penalty (low enough for games) and works well enough with other software on the system.

[Sarc]

I don't se why M$ wouldn't release a version of Windows that's compatible with the Mactel. It makes sense, after all their bussiness is selling copies of windows.
Now for Apple the thing is far more complicated since as we all know, most of Apple's revenues come from hardware sales, making a copy of Mac OS X that runs on any PC much less likely.

[thunderous_funker]

MacTels will not be off-the-shelf parts. Nor will you be able to upgrade them with off-the-shelf parts (the mobo and CPU anyway).

Its still going to be a closed system just like it is now. The user experience will be identical.

The differences will be:

• no more boom/bust performance cycles
• no more supply problems (at least from the CPU standpoint)
• i doubt prices will drop significantly but expect more bang/buck
• Intel has got chips to do absolutely anything Apple can dream up. The product line can be as diverse as Apple wants it to be. Hell, they can even do a handheld if they want to.
• laptops, laptops, laptops, laptops.

[yukon]

1. Intel has it's boom/bust performance cycles, the P4 right now is in a bust and it has been for a while, speed increases over 3ghz were negligible, the P4 3.7 was actually slightly slower than the P4 3.4ghz, the P4 core fizzled out after sacrificing MIPS for the all important clock speed so now they're backtracking to the P3 core (updated as the Pentium M, part of the Centrino setup with chipset). I don't know what they're calling the new desktop chipset, I haven't bothered with Intel for a while, was disgusted with them from the point of a PC user.
2. No more supply problems, Apple can even go to AMD if Intel fails.
3. CPU speed will increase for most tasks.
4. If IBM thought Apple was useless, then Intel won't do whatever Apple wants. If it's going to be a "closed system" as you say with no "off--the-shelf...cpu", then Intel won't make anything apple can dream up, though this is still a huge PR win for Intel and it's x86.
5. laptops, oh yeah. the Pm runs much cooler than the P4, way cooler than the G5, and probably beats the G4 in battery life (it did in my research a year ago).

I totally agree on three out of five of your points. I think the Intel thing is really a mixed bag, personally I don't like the tradeoff but there are good tradeoffs involved that will make a lot of people happy with the Mac again.

[thunderous_funker]

Points well taken but I don't think you can seriously comopare Intel's cycle to PPC's cycle over the last fear years. Intel has steadily gotten faster and faster and faster. PPC has a quantum leap, then nothing for years.

Apple will finally be working with a chipmaker that actually cares about the PC market and is constantly innovating for the PC market. Most of IBM/Moto's great ideas have nothing to do with PCs and that isn't changing.

The biggest anchor on Intel has been MS. As noted by others and in other threads, MS has forced Intel to maintain all kinds of legacy garbage. PC makers are not innovative at all. Look at FlexAT and all the various form factor innovations that went absolutely nowhere because no "me-too" PC makers bothered. Imagine what Apple can do with FlexAT.

Apple is not going to sacrifice their superior hardware/software integration by going with generic parts. That would be suicide. If suddenly Apple starts selling thousands of biz desktop PCs, they might consider some licensing deals with Sony or somebody. I don't think Apple intends to license or even really wants to license, but if demand for their hardware goes through the roof I'm sure they'll accept that problem as a blessing and deal with it.

For me the only real drawbacks of this deal (after getting over my initial shock and awe) are that PPC has some advantages right now that are persuasive. Obviously Apple knows that and that's why they are insisting that PPC products are in the pipeline for the next 2 years. I don't know Intel's roadmap, but obviously they showed Apple something for 2007 and beyond that quieted those fears.

For the immediate future, Apple gets the best of both worlds. PPC for high-end and Centrino for laptops and Minis (and maybe iMacs). That's a huge win-win.

[mitchell_pgh]

IMHO, the real attraction is Apple being able to compete better with Windows.
- We very well could see MUCH faster Windows emulation on Mac x86 hardware.
- Less potential R&D costs (let Intel/ATI/etc. do more chips and let Apple focus on the OS)
- Regular CPU updates (When it was IBM, only Apple was placing pressure on IBM... with Intel, EVERYONE is pressuring them)
- The potential for more games (easier to port [still no direct X, but you know what I mean]

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Apple is not going to sacrifice their superior hardware/software integration by going with generic parts. That would be suicide.

Just to clarify, I think Apple will go with more standard parts especially on their motherobards. The x86 archatecture will remove the burden from Apple to add such stuff as DDR2, PCI Express, High Def audio, etc as they can use high quality off the shelf solutions from such people as ATI, etc.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ryarber

Good point. However, I can see MS writing software that is native to this environment. I can't see people running computer software on their TV's if they're also having to suffer that kind of speed hit. I doubt people will be running current windows programs on XBox 360, but rather ports of existing products. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't one of the reasons you can't game very well in the current VPC that they couldn't or wouldn't port the Active X API's to VPC, hence PC games wouldn't run well in this environment??? That would be a problem for backward compatibility wouldn't it?

I think what you are both missing here is that VirtualPC runs under Windows. MS bought VirtualPC to compete with VMWare, not becuase of Windows Emulation on the Mac. I suppose the mac version brings in enough $ to justify keeping it afloat, but VirtualPC, for Microsoft, was always about server virtualization within Windows.

And where are you getting your VirtualPC on the XBox thing. Is there a factual basis for this or is it a guess? I've not seen anything about this.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Just to clarify, I think Apple will go with more standard parts especially on their motherobards. The x86 archatecture will remove the burden from Apple to add such stuff as DDR2, PCI Express, High Def audio, etc as they can use high quality off the shelf solutions from such people as ATI, etc.

I agree. When I say "off the shelf" I'm not talking about OEMs, I'm talking about Fry's Electronics.

You won't be buying Mac mobo/cpu upgrades at Fry's any time soon (if ever). I don't think that's gonna happen.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by yukon

no longer will Apple be "ahead" in speed, there will be no more CPU advantage to the Mac, no more bragging about gigaflops.

No more having to convince a potential switcher that a $448 2.8GHz Dell is slower than a $1,499 1.8GHz PowerMac.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ryarber

Also, what will become of the MacOS Classic environment now? Will the intel chips run classic apps in MacOS X? Will it be too much for Rosetta to handle? Will they be able to port the Classic API's over to MacOS X intel as they did with Carbon and Cocoa?

Classic's a thing of the past for Mactels. Not that that should come as much of a shock, though.

[thunderous_funker]

Classic is a thing of the past right now. Seriously.

[Millennium]

The extra security isn't as much as one might imagine. Hardware virtualization apps like VMWare and VPC/Windows have to run as root, in order to get the necessary hardware access. Emulators get around this problem by not using the actual hardware, but of course that brings a speed hit with it.

Think about that for a moment. in order to run Windows inside OSX/Intel, you're going to have to give it root access to the OSX side. Does this sound secure to anybody?

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The extra security isn't as much as one might imagine. Hardware virtualization apps like VMWare and VPC/Windows have to run as root, in order to get the necessary hardware access. Emulators get around this problem by not using the actual hardware, but of course that brings a speed hit with it.

Think about that for a moment. in order to run Windows inside OSX/Intel, you're going to have to give it root access to the OSX side. Does this sound secure to anybody?

About as secure as having it run natively....... actually, more so, since the virtualization app can sandbox the entire virtual environment. Besides, VPC already elevates it's privileges on OS X to give itself the "Virtual Switch" feature (it has to load a kext. Something only root can do).

I don't see the cause for paranoia here.

[EDIT: added kext parenthetical]

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

No more having to convince a potential switcher that a $448 2.8GHz Dell is slower than a $1,499 1.8GHz PowerMac.

This is probably the biggest issue that the "Betamax is superior" geeks here are missing. Marketing isn't about performance, it is about the perception of performance. The fact that Apple had to explain their performance indicates that they were always bucking a wave of consumer resistance by having to argue with the customer. That translates into lost sales.

Moreover, Intel has spent over a decade on a massive branding campaign to convince the public that having an "Intel inside" is important. Apple might lose a little bit of its niche status, but it does so by joining a brand that has recognition. Combined, this should translate into switchers being more willing to take the plunge, which is a lot more important than keeping people who are tempted by Linux. Certainly Apple seems to think so judging by the introduction of the Mini.

Personally, I couldn't care less which vendor provides the chip so long as the machine works nicely and isn't subject to the hassles and security holes of Windows machines. Provided it does that, I'm happy.

With one exception: What's the betting that Microsoft will make me buy a new version of Office when I retire my Quicksilver 2002? I just bought Office 2004 (edu license) 2 months ago. I'm guessing no free or even reduced price Office upgrade for me.

[thunderous_funker]

Office is the one peice off software that I consistently don't pay for.

There. I said it.

[mitchell_pgh]

Hmmm... I wonder how many people would buy an iMac 17" LCD 2.6GHz Intel system for $1299 if they knew that they could always switch back to Windows (or Linux) if they didn't like OS X. Hmmm...

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Office is the one peice off software that I consistently don't pay for.

There. I said it.

I always seem to be back at "school" when I purchase.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Hmmm... I wonder how many people would buy an iMac 17" LCD 2.6GHz Intel system for $1299 if they knew that they could always switch back to Windows (or Linux) if they didn't like OS X. Hmmm...

I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters.

There are only 2 things driving the home PC market: games and digital hub.

The only thing driving the biz market has been MS Office. Apple has gained serious attention as a real solution to the biz problem of getting Office without all the compatibility, stability, security issues plauging XP. Now that Apple is "Intel inside" that buying decision gets even more appealling.

Apple Home PC strategy will stay the same but will benefit from "Intel Inside", performance and hopefully pricing.

But I think the biz prospect is really what is driving this decision.