Posted on 06/06/2005 10:54:57 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I wouldn't count on an Intel-based PowerMac being faster OR cheaper. Apple will undoubtedly lock down the firmware so that it'll only run on their motherboards - in which case they still control the price.
It's just not "copylefted."
BSD and Mach aren't GPL, but there is GPL software in OS X, especially in Server. Others, even though not GPL, have about the same terms of you must share if you want to redistribute. It's not giving away the golden goose, but a calculated decision to get able to get a lot of great tools with minimal effort. Let's see, you could build your own Web browser at great cost, license it at great cost, or tweak KHTML and use it to make Safari, just essentially giving your tweaks back to KHTML as payment.
I'm drawing a blank on that, what is it?
Digital Rights Management.
This is the last nail in the coffin of desktop Linux. Apple took Unix and made it usable. Linux developers have never really succeeded in providing the same ease-of-use and, since price isn't really an issue, I would expect users to go Apple before they go Linux. And that's good for America.
Will it run Firefox?
Why wouldn't it?
Ouch!
Digital Rights Management... big brother on your PC, 24/7/365.
Cell is modular, so of course it can run the PPC's instruction set. Of course, you can just swap out the primary processing unit and blammo, new instruction set.
In all practical purposes, the Cell has nothing to do with the PPC.
It'll certainly make it harder for for most to justify going Linux, unless they're stuck with a bunch of old machines that they would have to replace or upgrade to run Windows XP. The security argument is gone since the Mac has good security too. The standards argument is gone since the Mac is extremely standards compliant. Stability? FreeBSD (OSX's core) is more time-tested and stable than Linux. The emotional anti-Microsoft argument is gone, since, obviously, Apple isn't Microsoft (although I think they'd be even more evil than MS if they had a monopoly).
I guess the only thing for people to get over is the "artist with a goatee" image of Mac.
This all depends on apple letting others make desktops for them. Nobody has ever went to linux over mac because of the price difference between a PPC, and an Intal chip..
If it was only about technical superiority, the Alpha chip would have been a bigger hit.
This shouldn't be a big surprise - Jobs did the same thing when he ran NeXT in the 80's/90's. Went from Motorola to Intel CPUs. Yawn.
1. Expensive hardware - looks like that is being taken care of.
2. Proprietary hardware - ditto
3. Lack of software titles - which brings me to my main point.
If Apple wants to put a world of hurt on Mircrosoft, they would make their machines dual boot-able. They could even build an advertising campaign around it. Present it like "We know you still HAVE to use a Windows-based computer for SOME things, but for everything else..."
They could even tout how when spyware slows down your Mac running Windows, just start the Apple Operating System and get back up to speed...
Since they now have a reputation for quality peripherals, they could easily compete in that arena and take even more market share away from Microsoft.
Competition is good. I'm glad Apple is finally seeing the light.
Yes, to that, I was going to buy a mac, I like the powerPC and prices were getting reasonable. Now I am not going to buy a mac any time soon if ever. If macs are just unix on an intel then may as well go freebsd or linux.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.