Apple

[Texsox]

The only thing holding Apple back is being locked into proprietary hardware. If Jobs takes the gloves off and has Leopard ready for all intel based systems then we would be ready for a fight.

 

This had me thinking. Who/What is Apple? Hardware? Software? OS? Balance of the three? It's not Motorola chips anymore. Would Apple be Apple if Dell started making computers that ran on the Mac OS? Would Apple be Apple if they offered a choice of Mac OS or Windows on their hardware?

Would Apple exist if everyone was smart enough to use a PC?

[FlaSoxxJim]

This had me thinking. Who/What is Apple? Hardware? Software? OS? Balance of the three? It's not Motorola chips anymore. Would Apple be Apple if Dell started making computers that ran on the Mac OS? Would Apple be Apple if they offered a choice of Mac OS or Windows on their hardware?

Would Apple exist if everyone was smart enough to use a PC?

 

Maybe it was done wrong, but 10 years ago the Jobs-less (I think Scully was in charge) and fairly directionless Apple opened up the hardware and for a short couple of years comapnies like SuperMac were making some pretty sweet 0.40 Mac clones. For a while, the fastest macs and the only multi-processor Macs were not Apple boxes. I had one as my desktop box for a couple of years until the switchover to the Motorolla PowerPC chips and the arrival of the 7600/8600/9600 line (I think I have the timeframe right).

[southsideirish71]

This had me thinking. Who/What is Apple? Hardware? Software? OS? Balance of the three? It's not Motorola chips anymore. Would Apple be Apple if Dell started making computers that ran on the Mac OS? Would Apple be Apple if they offered a choice of Mac OS or Windows on their hardware?

Would Apple exist if everyone was smart enough to use a PC?

 

You can run windows on an apple with Bootcamp or as I do with parallels virtual marchine under OSX.

 

To me when they went with the Intel Architecture they should of opened it up and allowed it to run on other systems. That would of helped OSX jump to a new level and would help with corporate acceptance. Apple has some of the most talented engineers, and some of the worst marketting strategic planning guys on earth. Microsoft has won this battle with the best marketting group on earth.

 

Now on another note, I have been able to get Apple OSX to run on a Dell and also in a virtual session on vmware. It works relatively well.

[Balance]

In college, I was an avid Mac user. When I started working in the legal profession, however, everyone was using PCs. I converted to the Dark Side.

 

Every now and then, I go to the Apple Store on Michigan Avenue, I look around, and all the Apple machines look great. But the OS has changed since I was a Mac user; it looks so unfamiliar to me.

 

I'd definitely consider going back to a Mac when I get a new computer. But I'd have to be absolutely sure that I could work with Windows files (mostly Word and Excel) seamlessly.

[southsideirish71]

In college, I was an avid Mac user. When I started working in the legal profession, however, everyone was using PCs. I converted to the Dark Side.

 

Every now and then, I go to the Apple Store on Michigan Avenue, I look around, and all the Apple machines look great. But the OS has changed since I was a Mac user; it looks so unfamiliar to me.

 

I'd definitely consider going back to a Mac when I get a new computer. But I'd have to be absolutely sure that I could work with Windows files (mostly Word and Excel) seamlessly.

 

I currently have a Macbook intel with a a core duo proc, I run XP under a parallels virtual machine session that has my office apps, and some of my windows based apps on it on my 22 inch wide display, and my mac apps under the laptop display. With the virtualization extensions under the newer processors I get pentium 4 performance in my virtual xp session which works great. If you didnt know it you would think its running under its own machine. Now that being said, I wouldnt run a major math program like some advanced analyitics tools or CAD under a virtual machine. But for office apps and some proc intensive tools, they work fine under my virtual machine.

 

Now the next version of parallels which is in beta has support for coherence, which will allow you to not have a virtual session up, but just have shortcuts natively on your mac to run microsoft apps under the veil of Apple.

 

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/coherence/

 

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/beta_testing/

[Balance]

I currently have a Macbook intel with a a core duo proc, I run XP under a parallels virtual machine session that has my office apps, and some of my windows based apps on it on my 22 inch wide display, and my mac apps under the laptop display. With the virtualization extensions under the newer processors I get pentium 4 performance in my virtual xp session which works great. If you didnt know it you would think its running under its own machine. Now that being said, I wouldnt run a major math program like some advanced analyitics tools or CAD under a virtual machine. But for office apps and some proc intensive tools, they work fine under my virtual machine.

 

Now the next version of parallels which is in beta has support for coherence, which will allow you to not have a virtual session up, but just have shortcuts natively on your mac to run microsoft apps under the veil of Apple.

 

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/coherence/

 

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/beta_testing/

Well, that's good news. I think. Right?

 

In other words, for my purposes, which is word processing, spreadsheets, and the like, current Macs can run Windows software (Word, Excel, etc.) without anything being "lost in translation?"

[Rex Kickass]

Mac Clones ran PPC as well IIRC.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Mac Clones ran PPC as well IIRC.

 

You know, you're right, because one of the other clone vbendors was called Power Computing. I think maybe they pulled the plug with the move to the G3 processors.

 

I currently have a Macbook intel with a a core duo proc, I run XP under a parallels virtual machine session that has my office apps, and some of my windows based apps on it on my 22 inch wide display, and my mac apps under the laptop display. With the virtualization extensions under the newer processors I get pentium 4 performance in my virtual xp session which works great. If you didnt know it you would think its running under its own machine. Now that being said, I wouldnt run a major math program like some advanced analyitics tools or CAD under a virtual machine. But for office apps and some proc intensive tools, they work fine under my virtual machine.

 

Now the next version of parallels which is in beta has support for coherence, which will allow you to not have a virtual session up, but just have shortcuts natively on your mac to run microsoft apps under the veil of Apple.

 

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/coherence/

 

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/beta_testing/

 

I just yesterday took delivery of my spanking new 17" dial core macbook pro, and I'm on the cusp of deciding whether to go with parallels or BootCamp. I'd rather not have to restart to switch between OSs, but like you i fear doing anything very processor intensive under emulation.

 

in particular, I'll need to be able to run Windows to access a Smithsonian Institution Metaframe application server either through either Citrix or VPN, then uss a .ica networked version of IE to manipulate the contents of some Smithsonian web servers. I'm scared of running a virtual machine to run yet another virtual machine, but actually working on a cheap iron Windows box makes me queasy.

 

Prolly go BootCamp for starters, as long as the beta is still free anyway.

[BobDylan]

This had me thinking. Who/What is Apple? Hardware? Software? OS? Balance of the three? It's not Motorola chips anymore. Would Apple be Apple if Dell started making computers that ran on the Mac OS? Would Apple be Apple if they offered a choice of Mac OS or Windows on their hardware?

Would Apple exist if everyone was smart enough to use a PC?

 

Any software will work better with hardware that is designed for it (or the other way around). This is a lot of what Apple does. This way too, they're able to overprice the hell out of their products. There are PC's out there just as powerful as the Apple's, but cost 20% less. What I love about PC and Windows is that I can shop around and find the computer I like the most. I can find a keyboard that feels comortable with my hands. I can buy a lap top that is so easy to upgrade that I just unscrew a single panel on the bottom and I can replace the HD or RAM like a snap. I can go to pretty much any electronics retail store and find exactly what I need for my PC, and I can shop around for deals. With Mac, a lot of this is taken out of the equation. But the Apple OS does work great. It's less buggy than Windows, certainly, it's more "user friendly" certainly, but it's not consumer friendly. In whole, the reason I don't like Macs is because I have a very limited selection, the right click is entirely hidden -- and most Mac users can't explain to me how to use it -- and I think their version of the "toolbar" is very subpar. I also feel like I can locate files faster on my Windows XP than I can the Mac OS because of the start button.

 

At this point I don't think it'd be very smart for Apple to put their OS on the market like Windows. I've never seen Apple more powerful than it is today, and it seems the only place they can go is up. If they can convince businesses, or even design machines specifically for the office jockey, then Windows might have to do something newer and different. If Apple were to put its software out on the market, users might find the same problems they do with Windows. The hardware has to be up to par for the software to work as intended. In Apple's case it is up to par, and they're designed to work together. If you take that out of the equation, the Mac OS might not be so user friendly, it might be buggy ... and in the end, it might be terribly devastating to the company which lives on its reputation of working so well. In the beginning I'd have called Jobs an idiot. I never expected Apple to make it this far up. I think it'd be stupid for them to change their entire business strategy at this point.

Edited February 2, 2007 by BobDylan