I agree.

That is certainly a joker in the deck. Phil Schiller was quoted as saying something like Apple won't support running Windows on Intel Macs but if someone else comes along and does that Apple won't be upset. A nice easy, legal, commercially supported way to have a dual boot system would be interesting indeed. And if you could buy it in an Apple Store, well, that would be even more interesting!

I certainly like the idea to be able to dual boot my future (2007-2008) Mac into either Leopard or Longhorn (while i would primarily use Leopard). Running Windows apps at native (or near native) speeds will be a big plus for me as there are some CAD programs out there only available for Windows, and running them in Virtual PC isn't really even a feasible option at the moment.

I like the idea that the OS won't change (besides being compiled for an intel processor, but i seriously doubt i'd be able to tell the difference).

I am quite eager to actually use MacOS X powered by an Intel processor, to see how fast it feels. Initial reports, although against a signed contract with Apple, have leaked about the performance of the 3.6 GHz P4 machines, and they are saying that "the thing is fast".

This leaves me optimistic about the performance of these processors in the future.

I also like the fact that we'll probably see more frequent, major upgrades from Intel in the MHz region, whereas with IBM, updates have been slowing to a crawl and this was evident by the insignificant speed bump to 2.7 GHz from 2.5 in about a year.

Education Market Bonanza
 

The education market will love dual boot. No more MAC or WIN debates. Stubborn teachers glued to their win apps, who are in the majority in our board, can boot Longhorn. Enlightened teachers will boot Leopard. Students can learn both OS on the same hardware. Software written for only one of the OS will be accessible from all computers. Education IT departments will only need to stock parts for one brand of computer.

When dual boot is possible, Apple will clean up the education market for good. There will be no reason to buy a winbox.

Once they have the entire education market, the apple brand will be implanted on every young mind in every developled nation in the world, even if they do see a WIN destop on it every once in a while.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

And let's not forget Linux...
 

When Mac OS X is shrinkwrapped for generic PC's (as it certainly will), Linux heads with their investment in PC hardware and self build boxes will have the world's best GUI running on a Unix shell at their disposal. How to take over the entire computer market in three steps - genius.

yeah - it looked really good in the keynote speech... Steve made a point of firing up a range of iApps (Safari, iPhoto, iCal) and they all looked great. I was assuming he had a G5 powermac under his desk, as he has done since they came out! That was a P4 3.6Ghz single processor machine....

If you havent watched the keynote yet, i recommend you do so. Much better to have first-hand info (albeit from SJ and his blinding charisma).

Hmm. No way I would dual boot. I would stick with Wine or its equivalent so that Win apps were running on top of OSX. If I needed any win apps, that is...

Oddly when people (even in this forum) talk about NeXT's past and how it failed when going up against Windows they never note the fact that NeXT never went up against Windows.

NeXT was never able to make a product that could be sold in the desktop market.

Why? Apple Computer Inc.

When Jobs left Apple and took a ton of people with him, Apple sued.

The terms of the settlement were that NeXT would not accept anyone from Apple for an 18 month period and that NeXT Computer would never compete with Apple in their key market... the desktop.

Well, you can't go after Windows (a desktop operating system) when you aren't supposed to compete in the desktop market.

NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP were never able to compete. Not because they weren't way better than Windows, but because they couldn't be sold within that market.



As for the topic at hand...

I don't think that any of us is really going to know what the future is bringing until late 2006.

This is a bottom-up transition, and Apple isn't planning on replacing the G5 until mid 2007 (the G4s are on the chopping block first). If Intel has something in the works that is better than a G5, odds are that we aren't going to know about it for another year or so... and that it won't be shipping until mid 2007.

Might be fine for older, computer competent students, but when using computers with younger or less experienced students (and some teachers) anything but native will cause confusion.

Maybe your reason not to boot windows natively is the risk of viruses. Our board has slapped Deep Freeze on all its win boxes. With Deep Freeze viruses, spyware etc are gone after a restart.

I completely agree.

Yes, and I really dont like windows - its layout with the taskbar at the bottom means that having 10-15 apps open simultaneously makes the taskbar useless (as you cant spot which button corresponds to which window, and cant click a button to bring all the windows of a single app to the front).

But viruses and spyware are a really good reason for just running Win apps, not the whole OS. Maybe longhorn will change that. XP stopped the whole 'windows crashes every 5 mins' problem... so maybe there is hope for wintels yet??

Doubtful. Windows' security problems stem from the very roots of the OS, and I don't think a simple service pack (as many Windows enthusiasts are saying Longhorn resembles more of a "Service Pack 3" type of upgrade than anything else) is going to fix.

True, the dock and expose make OS X far superior.

What I hate about Windows is the CTRL ALT DELETE - END TASK infinite loop. I've always been able to exit a crashed Mac app with a single Command Option Esc - Force Quit routine.

I agree. Its a silly idea to link every part of the OS with every other, meaning that a single compromised system can let a malicious hacker/program gain 'complete control over your system'. Seems like 99% of the Windows updates quote the same line...

...oh and XP is really just a shell for running IE, which seems to be involved in every part of the GUI... if IE crashes (or you restart 'explorer.exe') the whole desktop, taskbar, windows explorer windows and IE windows all die.....Gates is an idiot for this (IMHO - but lets not start a flame war, ok?) and is reliant on his market share for maintaining loyalty to windows. Its rare to hear someone saying 'i choose windows cos its good' - they all say 'but everyone runs windows, so should I'. First thing a potential switcher asks - 'But what about compatability?'

While I am on my rant, I think the best thing the anti-monopoly lawyers here in europe and over there in the US could do would be to force MS to release the technical specs and open source drivers for:
-NTFS
-all the office formats, so they dont have to be reverse-engineered
-windows networking

Then compatability wouldnt be an issue, and people could make a REAL choice between Windows, Linux, OSX etc.

It was recently announced that future MS Office products will use an XML-based format and that this XML format will be made public. Apparently there will be upgrades to even the current versions of MS Office to allow use of this new format.

I had heard about the new ".docx" xml format, but not that it would be made public... I hope they are true to their word.

I think one of the most interesting analyses on the Apple-Intel deal is offered by Robert Cringely

He asks five very fundamental questions that others seem to have overlooked:

1.) Whatever happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
2.) What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
3.) Where the heck is AMD?
4.) Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
5.) Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?

Based on that, he offers a VERY interesting train of thought.
His conclusion is, well - radical! (Read it for yourself.)


With best regards,
ArcticStones

Whoever evaluates this move should be aware of the recent adoption of

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees..._abbrev=office

a really open standard.

M$ seems to run yet another smokescreen-PR-strategy like they did in the past on other occasions.
If they were about open standards, we'd know it...

To evaluate the Cringely story, you should consider that, while the oddball ideas tossed around are interesting food for thought, it is slighly pitiful that he quotes http://p2pnet.net/story/5134 where you can find a long quote from http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelxbench.html simply omitting that the performance tested was not the hardware, but the Rosetta-performance.

Using skewed quotes to make your point is not exactly what you'd expect from an honest columnist.

I doubt Apple will abandon their 64-bit development. Apparently, the low end Macs will get Intel processors first, with the high end Machines changing over towards (or during) 2007. My guess is, by then they'll have figured out a way to make the Itanium (or whatever the latest 64-bit chip is at the time) run with Mac OS X. Also, when new 64-bit chips come out, the Itaniums (and other current 64-bit chips) will become more affordable, and may be used in iMac level systems. Who knows? Maybe they'll change the whole line to give users more headless chocies like the Mac mini. In any case i doubt we'll see Apple move backwards in this area, especially with the G5 replacement.

I agree. But there isnt much reason to have a 64bit Mac mini or iBook... at least in the first Intel generation. The PowerMac and PowerBook line should be on 64bit by the end of the transition, which is plenty of time for Intel to get 64bit chips ready. Just cos AMD has them now doesnt mean that they are right for Apple.

Someone has also made the point that Intel make chipsets for motherboards in addition to CPU's, which would be great for apple as they could have a single manufacturer making both (and ensure both fully support OSX).

I agree. Still writing though.