Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan Fleuris who wrote (34120)	7/22/2002 4:46:48 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

But what if the various Linux Windows emulation projects are successful enough that they can run, say, 85% of Windows apps without requiring a Windows license? Then what if Apple ports that open-source Windows emulation support into OS X, and releases x86-based Macintosh boxes that run that in a compatibility layer as seamlessly as OS X's support for Classic Mac apps? Wouldn't THAT be compelling? A Macintosh that still runs all the iApps and pro Apple apps, but that also runs all of your legacy PeeCee apps? I'd buy that. Dave

To: Dan Fleuris who wrote (34120)	7/22/2002 5:05:48 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213182

This decision was made and now they are STUCK with it. I don't think so. Now that they have re-architected the OS and switched over to UNIX the transition should be a hell of a lot easier. Particularly for a vendor like Apple that had high API standards and already had one code cleanup during the switch from the 68XXX to PPCs. My bet is that switching is not happening (or at least it's nothing to brag about) Certainly it ain't something to brag about. It would happen out of necessity, because of the sluggish pace of Moto updates to the PPC. Making native OSX for PC would be a last, desperate lunge. Desperate times call for desperate measures...

To: Dan Fleuris who wrote (34120)	7/22/2002 8:44:14 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213182

>>Whether for good or for bad, Apple is wedded to combined proprietary software & proprietary hardware. This decision was made and now they are STUCK with it. Once they make a machine that can run native windows, there is no longer a compelling reason to have a Mac OS. i.e., Apple either becomes a wintel clone maker along the lines of Dell, Compaq etc or it becomes a pure software maker, trying to peddle OSX i.e., another Be. Let's face it, OSX is not so insanely superior to windoze that 95% of the computer world (or even 10%, for that matter) will abandon windows for it. OSX just isn't worth one shelling out for a second OS. As we have pointed out on this board, Apple will be playing with fire if they make OSX PC native -- UNLESS they can come up with some proprietary hardware that makes OSX/Mac work demonstrably better than OSX/PC, with OSX/PC working atleast as well or better than windoze/PC. In short, Apple is between a rock and a hard place.<< Dan - I don't think you're looking at this the right way. An x86-based Mac would not necessarily be a Wintel clone with another operating system. It could just be an Apple with a different CPU. Conversely, there's no reason they would have to make a packaged version of X to run on Dells, et al. Apple could produce new machines that follow their long-time strategy of controlling both hardware and software. Since they do design their own system boards, they could make sure that OS X ran only on Apple hardware. This idea has already been floated here. They could then have a line of machines that include the fastest CPUs available (whether AMD or Intel doesn't matter) and still be the only game in town for the Mac OS. Why would a user want such a machine? For the same reasons they want Macs now; they like the way they work and they prefer the operating system. I'd buy one. Such machines would certainly be able to run Windows in emulation better than current Macs, and would probably even be able to run it natively. That would mean that Mac users who had a reason to do so could buy Windows as a second OS, just as they buy Virtual PC today. What that would do would be to remove one of the big shortcomings that Macs have for many people who might otherwise switch from Windows: not being able to run all the software (especially games) they've collected. In such an environment, the Windows machines would be the ones perceived as being horribly limited in comparison to the Macs. What's more, they would be much less threatening to Microsoft, since Apple customers would be more likely to buy an MS operating system. Apple and Microsoft could work together to create a special installation routine and set of drivers that would allow for a seamless and trouble-free installation of Windows on Apples. Third-party vendors of hardware would then only have to write a new set of drivers for Mac OS, but wouldn't have to deal with a completely different architecture. I think it works as a solution. - Allen