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 (34137)	7/23/2002 11:18:20 AM
From: phbolton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

The decision to make Apple OS X computers with x86 chips and the decision to have OS X run on wintel clones are two entirely separate decisions. There are a number of ways Apple could make x86 boxes that run OS X that would preclude using it on wintel clones. It is incorrect to assume that if (and I don't think it will happen anytime soon) Apple uses x86 chips that OS X will run on clones. Also, x86 on laptops would be a big step down for Apple, especially in the power management area.

To: Dan Fleuris who wrote (34137)	7/23/2002 11:31:16 AM
From: dfarrand	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213182

I think the issue of Apple moving to OSX should be viewed as being all about performance and marketing and only secondarily about windows compatibilty. Having x86 underneath would certainly make it easier to achive windows compatibility and that would be an issue with a lot of folks. I know I've tallked to several who would buy a Mac if the compatibility story were better. However, all my current customers are windows based and we do all of our development on OS X. The growing availability of Open source stiff like Postgres, Apache, Jboss, Jetty on OS X makes windows compatibility less and less important from my point of view. Even from a performance point of view, we find xServe to be very fast. The server configuration we specify can be priced at Apple and Dell and they both come out about the same at $4k and the xServe is even slightly cheaper - and that is using Linux on the Dell. If you specify W2000 server on the Dell is significantly more expensive than the xServe. For non altvec stuff, x86 is faster, but there have also been a lot of other bottle necks on the Mac hardware - primarily memory access and I/O - that cause Mac's to be slower - Those are being addressed and we are seeing the first fruits in the improved memory and IO in xServe.

To: Dan Fleuris who wrote (34137)	7/23/2002 11:50:11 AM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

or that runs a windoze emulation (read "slow"). I run linux-windows and windows-linux emulations on my PC routinely and performance is more than acceptable...

To: Dan Fleuris who wrote (34137)	7/24/2002 3:47:36 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213182

>>I agree with most of what you say, but I still feel that no windoze users are going to "switch" and purchase a (curently hypothetical) Apple computer that "probably runs windoze natively," or that runs a windoze emulation (read "slow").<< Dan - I wasn't suggesting that Apple should market a computer by saying that it will "probably run Windows". What I said was that they could make a box that would run OS X beautifully, and have a custom install with custom drivers that would make Windows install and run just as beautifully on the same box. Even if Windows were running inside of OS X in some kind of emulation mode, there's no reason to assume that it would be slow f the computer is based on a x86 CPU. I'd like a box that could do both. Or all three. Boot to OS X, boot directly to Windows, or boot to OS X first then run Windows inside of it. Then there would be a lot of reasons to by a Mac and not as many to buy a Dell or Compaq. - Allen