Posted on 06/04/2005 2:32:50 PM PDT by HAL9000
I've owned 4 Apples myself since the early eighties, but I'm almost all Windows anymore, still have some Solaris at work but we haven't had any Mac's on site in about 5 years. I'd sure like to see a resurgence though, as you know I'm not a fan of Linux and would sure hate to see it replace Macs as the number 2 alternative out there.
This change will help Apple's chip production woes in the short term, but unless they start selling OSX as an option from all the major PC vendors, unfortunately I don't think they'll be able to grow their market share significantly in the face of the Linux onslaught. If they keep it where you have to buy the whole hardware and software solution at once, from Apple, and are locked in from that point on, this move will effectively be more out of desperation rather than a new marketing approach. If on the other hand they market a shrink wrap version for all Intel systems, or at a minimum partner with select vendors to offer an equivalently priced option to be sold as an option directly alongside the current Linux offerings, they could possibly see a strong growth in market share and dominate the "not Microsoft" market based on what I feel is an obviously superior product. Hopefully Jobs will make his intention known on Monday, I wish them luck either way.
My point is that IBM has the lead. They may not have in the past, but now, the do.
IMO, they probably want more money than Apple is willing to pay, and have been holding out.
Understand that the XBOX 360 has been in development for 2 years now.. So back in 2003 IBM knew they could deliver a 3ghz chip with x amount of cores...
Leaving IBM is a big mistake. What Apple SHOULD do is make OSX for both PowerPC and x86 chips. That will put pressure on IBM to step up to the plate...
If IBM were to apply their technology to the x86 family, AMD & Intel would be in trouble. But I think IBM is wisely staying out of a price war.
My point is that IBM has the lead. They may not have in the past, but now, the do.
IMO, they probably want more money than Apple is willing to pay, and have been holding out.
Understand that the XBOX 360 has been in development for 2 years now.. So back in 2003 IBM knew they could deliver a 3ghz chip with x amount of cores...
Leaving IBM is a big mistake. What Apple SHOULD do is make OSX for both PowerPC and x86 chips. That will put pressure on IBM to step up to the plate...
If IBM were to apply their technology to the x86 family, AMD & Intel would be in trouble. But I think IBM is wisely staying out of a price war.
Again, so what? As I said before, the fastest chip in the world is no good to you if your supplier can't keep you supplied, and it's no secret that Apple would like to have many more chips that IBM is currently willing or able to provide. Now all of the sudden Nintendo and Microsoft come along asking for PPC variants to use in their game decks, and IBM is only too happy to do whatever it takes to satisfy them, and why shouldn't they? Apple has sold about a million G5's since they were released in 2003 - well, that's great, but MS will most likely sell about a million xBox 360s for Christmas this year alone. The dual-core G5 is late, the 3GHz G5 is waaaayyy late, and IBM's all over the map with the console makers - is it any wonder Apple might be feeling a little snubbed here?
Over Intel? Not in the number of microprocessors shipped, or capability or ship. Or in top speed, or in existence of low power chips used in portables.
Leaving IBM is a big mistake.
I don't agree. IBM didn't have chips as fast, as capable of running on low power, or as available. Which is exactly why Apple is leaving. I have a bigger question on why they signed with IBM in the first place than I do switching to Intel now.
Same ones?
haven't had any Mac's on site in about 5 years.
Zilch OS Xs? for you then?
Same ones?
haven't had any Mac's on site in about 5 years.
Zilch OS Xs? for you then?
Correct, I don't own any OSX systems now but I have used it. I've also got the Stardock OSX desktop shell loaded on one of the Windows boxes here at the house to play around with. If they come out with a OSX shrink wrap copy I can load on generic Intel I'll be picking up at least one copy right away though. But I just can't justify the required hardware cost of admission to buy a Mac just to play around with it, the Stardock is good enough for that and I've got hardware stacked to the ceiling already as it is, and had to promise the lady of the house no more computer stuff when I got the new widescreen HDTV. ;-D
Suppose Apple could beat Longhorn to market with a next-generation OS for x86 computers. Would it be worth pissing off IBM -- not to mention Microsoft -- to capture a much bigger share of the OS market, on non-Mac hardware?
But I just can't justify the required hardware cost
500 bucks?
just to play around with it
I would think a long time Apple supporter would know it does a lot more than just play around...
But I just can't justify the required hardware cost
500 bucks?
just to play around with it
I would think a long time Apple supporter would know it does a lot more than just play around...
We'll know on Monday if Apple Declares War on Microsoft.
What about the VAR agreements with MS? I think those are still killers to Intel OEMs, yes?
$500 bucks for something I don't really need is a waste of $500 bucks. While I support Apple and hope they recover from these issues OK I don't feel the need to buy equipment from them I don't have a requirement for.
However, I'm a perfect potential customer if they want to come out with a copy of OSX that will load on one of my many Intel machines. Several already multi-boot into various operating systems and I'd love a chance to add OSX to the list. I'd pay $150 tomorrow for that.
Spoken like a true long time Apple supporter.
Apple won't attempt to support every existing PC peripheral, so It might not work out of the box without some hardware upgrades, like a recent nVidia or ATI video card, the right audio card, etc. A Mac mini might be cheaper than upgrading.
LOL, well I've got 4 Apple computers as it is and just don't really need any more right now. How many are supposedly required before I can ever possibly claim that I care about what happens to the company?
How many are supposedly required
For a "longtime supporter"? I dunno, one less than 20 years old maybe?
…I care about what happens to the company?
You care about Apple as a club to beat any perceived competition (IBM/Linux in this case) to Microsoft.
You'll consider OS X or OS X Server when they pry your Wintels from your cold dead hands.
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.