mikesown Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I think that apple needs to use the switch to their advantage. The reason I didn't buy a mac was because I couldn't play games or run any other windows applications. If apple is smart, I think they will contribute a LOT of code to the darwine project including a directx/quartz compatibility layer. Would you guys buy a mac if it flawlessly ran all of your pc applications and games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Jobs Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 I think that apple needs to use the switch to their advantage. The reason I didn't buy a mac was because I couldn't play games or run any other windows applications. If apple is smart, I think they will contribute a LOT of code to the darwine project including a directx/quartz compatibility layer. Would you guys buy a mac if it flawlessly ran all of your pc applications and games? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, I wouldn't buy a Mac if it flawlessly ran all PC applications and games... because I already own two Macs even without that ability. The Intel switch is simply icing on the cake if I can get all the hot games when they come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opieum Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 As far as I can tell all my favorite games and even some of my not so favorite games are already on the mac natively. If you are talking gaming Mac already is one of if not the best gaming platform out there if only due to their ability to handle multimedia real well. The best rated games usually make their way onto Mac OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Jobs Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Well, you are correct to some extent, but the companies porting the games do a very crummy job. The ports rarely take advantage of hardware features such as dual processors and rarely use Altivec. If you were to compare a game with its PPC counterpart, the PPC version would require higher system specs in order to reach the native speed. Doom III for example, will only run on a G5 computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJP Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 When Apple switches to intel you can run Windows next to OSX just like you now already can. So u keep using Windows for all you games, and use OSX for other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Well, you are correct to some extent, but the companies porting the games do a very crummy job. The ports rarely take advantage of hardware features such as dual processors and rarely use Altivec. If you were to compare a game with its PPC counterpart, the PPC version would require higher system specs in order to reach the native speed. Doom III for example, will only run on a G5 computer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> they do a crummy job porting the games because they assume the market that wants the 'quality' game has windows xp. and yes i can spell 'assume' the windows 'game factor' may remain after the x86 switch but if apple lets loose the OS for x86 retail and focuses on laptop production its only a one or 2 generation-lasting advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 since the thread topic is 'what apple should do', ill chime in. i think apple should release OS X for desktops similar to microsoft windows BUT not make it compatible with most laptops but fully compatible with apple laptops and make appledesktop>apple laptop syncing similar to itunes and ipod syncing so that OS X on your desktop works better with your laptop if its an ibook. that way apple could focus on laptop production, with intel processors apples laptops would be the creme of the crop and they could own the laptop market like they own the mp3 player market all while making money from OS X licenses. in a few years i think apple would be untouchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
licensedlunacy Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 I agree with that, apple should realease it for the desktop and make it not praticularly compaitble with non powerbook laptops, however, I think that it is unlikely that they would do something like that, because they do not seem able to let go of even just their desktop hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixcamic Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 I agree with that, apple should realease it for the desktop and make it not praticularly compaitble with non powerbook laptops, however, I think that it is unlikely that they would do something like that, because they do not seem able to let go of even just their desktop hardware. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Does EVERY topic have to degrade into this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opieum Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 I think the overall point of this topic is to "Think Different" That means embracing a new idea of how apple does buisness. No it does not mean overhaul their entire buisness practice. BUT If you think about it this has been 5 years in the making. So think different for a moment. 1. There is certainly a transition involved. So making the hardware exclusive for a time makes sense for them as that is their current strategy. 2. They will likely move over to generalizing (release to retail) OSX86 so it can be installed on your everyday PC. This acts as a marketing tool for selling the real deal Macs. The only catch for them is they have to keep the prices competitive. This was their almost downfall with the original "clone wars" they had back in the day when Jobs was not at the helm. 3. Intel provides a way to use a standard (as proprietery hardware standards may be better at times they tend to be more expensive and fall prey to open standards ex. RDRAM, IPX, PPC) Like the x86 architecture. This drives price per unit for Macs down but increases overall profitability for them. 4. The laptop argument wont work. The chipsets in laptops are usually derived from chipsets in desktops. Not always but often. Apple doesnt officially have to support it but it would leave people without a laptop choice. 5. Consider what this would do to the industry as a whole. Dell wants to make Apple computers...guess what? They (Dell and anyone else) need to make computers that look as good as Macs or are esentially a better looking more "fashionable" design. Believe it or not this is what attracts Joe Average to buy a system. For you support folks out there you know this is true. My own expereince has people with little computer knowledge picking computers because they "look good" Based on that assumption they think it runs good too. Using a car mentality on a computer. So think different the market is changing and so should the mentality of the people who still think Apple is a "Hardware company" They are somewhat but they are more a lifestyle and software company as well as a hardware as well. Look at their ads and product catalogs for proof of that I wont validate that here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blahsucks Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 GAH! GAH! GAH! Apple is not going to unlock OSX for all PCs! Why does every thread that has anything to do with Apple as a company degrade into this? See, it's sort of difficult for a lifestyle company to do much about people's lifestyles when their computer is utter {censored} that will not run OSX. Apple is a technology company. Period. They have an OS, they make hardware. The whole point of this thread is to to discuss whether Apple would support Darwine! This has nothing to do with OSx86 en masse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Like The Wind Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 The whole point of this thread is to to discuss whether Apple would support Darwine! This has nothing to do with OSx86 en masse. Actually OSX being on x86 would remove darwine from the picture and thrust apple directly at wine/cedega usage but hey who really cares right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiebeest Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 ...while making money from OS X licenses.in a few years i think apple would be untouchable. Then what? Another M$ to monopolise the market? I don't think that would be an improvement. Does EVERY topic have to degrade into this? Why do you consider this to be a degredation? (1.) I think the overall point of this topic is to "Think Different" That means embracing a new idea of how apple does buisness. No it does not mean overhaul their entire buisness practice. BUT If you think about it this has been 5 years in the making. So think different for a moment. 2. They will likely move over to generalizing (release to retail) OSX86 so it can be installed on your everyday PC. This acts as a marketing tool for selling the real deal Macs. The only catch for them is they have to keep the prices competitive. 5. Consider what this would do to the industry as a whole. Dell wants to make Apple computers...My own expereince has people with little computer knowledge picking computers because they "look good" Based on that assumption they think it runs good too. Using a car mentality on a computer. So think different the market is changing and so should the mentality of the people who still think Apple is a "Hardware company" They are somewhat but they are more a lifestyle and software company as well as a hardware as well. (1.) The 5-years in the making certainly to me suggests more than a strict ppc to x86 architecture switch because they could have made the switch much earlier. I have found myself thinking:"Why wait until Tiger, when they secretly made x86-versions of Panther and before? In fact they could have made the switch as early as with the introduction of os X. But they didn't. Why?" I think the answer is Micro$oft. M$ dominated (and still does) the x86 market and supplied Apple their office suits for the ppc Mac's. That way they could co-exist, because they served different architectural markets (ppc v.s. x86). If Apple would thred the x86 back then with os X that wasn't good enough yet, M$ would've squashed them like a bug for trespassing on what they consider to be their turf. and that would have been the end of it, no doubt there. Os X was allready a great eye-candy with it's initaily 10.0 release, but not enough mature yetas a product to compete with Windows on their x86 turf. But as time passed, os X evolved up to an os that seemed to offer features that were way ahead of M$ corrent os's. That was the case with Windows 98 (which still was the os used by the masses at the time of os X's release on March 24th), it certainly was the case with it's horribly failed successor Windows ME. And even when M$ released their much better, more stable, next-gen os Windows XP on october 25th 2001, Apple was on par, if not ahead, with their os X.1 (Cheetah) release on October 15, 2001. Successively Apple released 10.2 (Jaguar) September 05, 2002, 10.3 (Panther) November 09, 2003, constantly improving the os X-line. While M$ kept prosponing XP's much anticipated successor; Longhorn (Vista) Apple released the next version of os X: 10.4 aka i[]Tiger[/i] on April 28 2005, which ridiculously enough with it's release already had most of the features M$ was struggling to implement in Longhorn (remember those slightly provocative slogans such as 'Introducing Longhorn' & 'Redmond, start your phocopiers' when Tiger released?). The x86 seemed ready for the taking. What Apple needed was a proper strategy to do so. Apple must have noticed by then that their os X was superior to their x86 Windows counterparts. Not only did each os X release boast new features (Exposé, Quartz Extreme, PDF, PNG instead op ICO's, fast user switching, Rendezvous, UNIX-besed stability, Spotlight, Dashboard, Core Image, ), they also actually improved speed on earlier versions (while each version of Windows introduces not only more leaks & bugs but highter system requirements)! Every single major revision of Mac OS X has been faster than its predecessors when running on identical hardware. Jumping several major revisions is practically like getting a new machine. It's impressive, and unprecedented. Again, so why keep theirselves limited to relatively small ppc market, when they could swith to x86 with a better product than Micro$oft that not only was technologically advanced, but also was easier to use and even looked better (as you state .5 as car mentality to which I'll respond below)? 2. Generalizing/retailing the os X software for vanilla x86 pc is the key to a broader audiance. Up till now Mac's are quite pricey, making it sorta exclusive for a certain adiance that has both the funds and the knowledge to appriciate os X over Windows. Creating the want starts with exposing targeted costumers to the product. This ain't gonna happen if is X solely functions on pricey MacIntels. 5. I too see Apple more as a lifestyle than a specific hardware/software compagny. They sell a hype. Not only does it have to look good (car mentality), but don't underestimate the power of mouth-to-mouth advertisement, which is only going the happen if the massess got exposed to the product. Which won't be the case when os X is solely compatible on the much less common Mac's. See the pattern here? Another thing that makes the x86 pc's such a succes IMO is it's freedom of choice. The possebilities to vary. Want this brand mobo, that processor and that GPU? No problem...(sorta, as long as the os supports it properly). Apple should come to terms with that too in order to compete with M$ , despite their understandable philosophy of restricting the hardware contributes to the stability of the software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blahsucks Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 Aieee... someone should start a Flamewar Thread, or preferable a Flamewar subforum under Opinions. I refuse to argue with this constantly repeated mantra. Anyway, I think Apple could benefit by launching their own WINE release. They've done it before with their: Server bundles (all sorts of servers, packaged into the OS) X11 Web browser Sysutils (over half of which are BSDlicensed or GPLed) This might be a very lucrative path. Even better, Apple could bundle the entire system, similar to what has been done with Rosetta. However, Apple would have to perfect the widgets and window management, simply because it's not like them to release an unpolished, X-based app like Darwine and its helpers. Darwine is nice at this point, but it can only get better as more people use it and develop it. Even if Apple doesn't do this, Darwine will be constantly improved and possibly even forked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts