Apple on x86

[blkmage]

I see no one's brought up the whole Apple on Intel thing. What does everyone think about that? After all of that 'G5 performs way more superduper than a P4 does' stuff they did and at the same time making sure that OS X could run on an x86 for the past five years.

And a little something else.

[shooraijin]

I think it sucks, but Apple did it, and I'm still more likely to buy a Mac than a PC even after this move.

Speaking of Sun chips, Sun *does* manage to keep both x86 and SPARC machines in their product line for people who want one or the other. Apple's scorched earth policy of 'expell the PPCs ... no more PPCs' seems short sighted.

And, I wouldn't mind an UltraSPARC-based Mac ...

[Mr. SmartyPants]

i really like the french onion sunchips

[Fsiphskilm]

I might c

[blkmage]

They've said that you can't run OS X on any old computer, but they won't stop you from running Windows on an Apple. That said, it seems like a waste, considering that in order to buy an Apple computer, the OS comes with it.

[shooraijin]

Volt, consider the contradiction: you like the integration of hardware and software ... but you don't like the software. So why would you bother buying one at all?

Anyway, from the laptop thread,

Backing it up:

I just read blogs and site news here and there.

They all say the same thing. That it will be easier to Run A windows OS along-side an Apple OS because of the Pentium Switch. Of course Apple won't officially support this, But they aren't going to stop anyone from doing it.

There's also the idea that Microsoft Might go ahead and allow this through ambigious support, Because they're getting more money. Seeing as how they aquired Virtual PC, the emulation of a WindowsOS on an AppleOS will be a lot easier.

Blogs and site news != Apple's word (or even Microsoft's).

"It will be easier" can mean anything from "I can hack it to death but Apple will take my warranty agreement and burn it in my face" to "I inserted the CD and it worked." Odds are it will mean the former.

Moreover, if you're buying an Intel Mac *just* to run Windows, that seems rather a waste, frankly. You would be paying a premium for an arguably better hardware/software combination, but you would only be buying it for the hardware, and if Apple is Apple, it won't have any of the ports on it that PC owners take for granted (PS/2, floppy, parallel, serial) other than the usual suspects.

Microsoft will definitely see a speed boost with VPC if they enable native Intel support and use the virtualization technology in the architecture. This may or may not make Microsoft apps first class citizens, and I think some Mac owners would rebel if it seemed that Windows and Mac apps would co-exist because that also means mal/spyware would also be first class citizens. At least under the current situation, they run in their own private hell, and I presume the sandbox will be preserved for Mac VPC-x86 (like VMware and VPC for Windows do now).

I'm not happy.

[Fsiphskilm]

After

[shooraijin]

... which is what I said in the other thread. What's your point?

You're asserting that 1) Windows will, in fact, work on an Intel Mac when there's no guarantee of that (if it does work, it will be accidental), and 2) that somehow an Intel Mac will make a better Windows PC than a regular Wintel PC which *is* designed to run Windows, despite #1 *and* the fact that the hardware on the Intel Mac will be customized towards what Macs offer, which is not necessarily what PC users expect. Those aren't very tenable positions. If these aren't what your positions are, then why even bother?

[glitch1501]

i was wondering when this thread would pop up....anyways, i think this is a smart move

this may allow me to switch over, but i doubt it unless the game devs start making more games for osx