[scratt]

Apparently Apple has joined BAPCO as a member..

This is significant because it means that Apple has now committed to Windows-based performance testing, and it will influence industry-standard testing methodologies going forward, possibly including Mac OS X testing. We speculate that Apple will now develop Windows drivers for Intel Macs like the iMac, Mac mini and MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo processors.

linky

Reactions? Thoughts?

With Vista slipping (and expected to slip more by this author) this could really be quite a stunning industry turn around for Apple in Q4 / Q1..

[TednDi]

Originally Posted by scratt Apparently Apple has joined BAPCO as a member.. linky Reactions? Thoughts? With Vista slipping (and expected to slip more by this author) this could really be quite a stunning industry turn around for Apple in Q4 / Q1..

Bring it on!!

<does the Balmer monkey dance!>

[Aesahaettr]

Some people don't believe that it will run Windows programs natively, but I think it would be the greatest thing Apple could do to get a bigger market share. Most people I know don't use Macs only because most apps are for Windows only. Macs would have the upper hand, having no compatability issues, and also being the best computers and operating systems available in my opinion.

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by Aesahaettr Some people don't believe that it will run Windows programs natively, but I think it would be the greatest thing Apple could do to get a bigger market share. Most people I know don't use Macs only because most apps are for Windows only. Macs would have the upper hand, having no compatability issues, and also being the best computers and operating systems available in my opinion.

One word: OS/2

That CRUSHES a platform. If Apple wants to with with a Strategy like that, release Cocoa for Windows. Not the other way around.

[Aesahaettr]

What is that? I'm new to programming. What is OS/2 and what does Cocoa do?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Aesahaettr What is that? I'm new to programming. What is OS/2 and what does Cocoa do?

OS/2 was an operating system created by IBM in the late 1980s for x86 computers. Key word: was. Look it up in Google or Wikipedia for details.

Cocoa is a programming API for Mac OS X. When it existed in NeXT before Mac OS X, there was a "Yellow box" environment that allowed those apps to run on Windows as well. Again, use Google or Wikipedia to get details.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 One word: OS/2 That CRUSHES a platform. If Apple wants to with with a Strategy like that, release Cocoa for Windows. Not the other way around.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Well said.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by Aesahaettr What is that? I'm new to programming. What is OS/2 and what does Cocoa do?

[edited upon reflection]

Further, Apple is not going to and is not interested in having any more than 10 percent (at most) of the PC OS market. Not interested. Let MS make the crappy OS for the people who know nothing.

[AlexN]

Originally Posted by Brad OS/2 was an operating system created by IBM in the late 1980s for x86 computers.

Actually, OS/2 was designed by IBM, but Microsoft did the coding.

[ghoti]

The problem with OS/2 was that it could run Win 3.1 programs, so there was very little incentive to write software specifically for it. And that was despite the fact that it was so much more stable and better in every respect than Windows (memory protection! preemptive multitasking!). Many banks for example used OS/2 because of its stability. But once Windows 95 came out, the compatibility advantage was also gone, and by then OS/2 still had no software scene of its own. And despite IBM's efforts (not exactly their best efforts, but they did try a little bit), the OS faded into obscurity and was eventually dropped completely.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by ghoti ...and by then OS/2 still had no software scene of its own.

This is a critical point in any discussion of including a Windows support layer in Mac OS X. The ability to run Windows software out of the box could utterly destroy incentive for developers to make native ports. Seriously, why bother investing anything if your Windows version works fine?

[Oskar]

Let's not say "Remember OS/2" in a misty voice and wave our hand in lieu of an explanation. What does OS/2 have to do with Apple? Apple sells hardware, to name one obvious difference. Secondly, its hardware isn't the main reason people buy it: the software is. PCs don't have iLife, Final Cut Pro, or a good operating system.

It will take more than one-liners to explain why Apple would go the way of OS/2 if it allowed fast OS-switching.

[Brad]

Note to all: I've deleted any potentially harmful posts here.

[ZachPruckowski]

What if the programs ran at a speed hit? Like 20% or something? Or required Windows? Like if it was virtualization, but you needed to install Windows and run it, or just provide dual-boot support. That way, there's an incentive to buy a Mac version over a Windows version, but $random_freeware will run on Macs, and so will $obscure_occupational_software

[chucker]

Originally Posted by AlexN Actually, OS/2 was designed by IBM, but Microsoft did the coding.

Both IBM and Microsoft were originally heavily involved in the OS/2 project. Microsoft eventually took their stuff and turned it into NT, and IBM tried with IBM OS/2.

[WrestleEwe]

Originally Posted by Oskar Let's not say "Remember OS/2" in a misty voice and wave our hand in lieu of an explanation. What does OS/2 have to do with Apple? Apple sells hardware, to name one obvious difference. Secondly, its hardware isn't the main reason people buy it: the software is. PCs don't have iLife, Final Cut Pro, or a good operating system. It will take more than one-liners to explain why Apple would go the way of OS/2 if it allowed fast OS-switching.

OS/2 isn't a one-liner, it's a keyword.

Allowing the un-initiated to google and wiki all the information needed to understand why it's usually a really bad idea to support a rival OS's programs natively on your OS.

You know, something about not knowing history and thus being doomed to repeat it.

Oh yeah, and IBM isn't known for it's hardware at all....

[Oskar]

Originally Posted by WrestleEwe You know, something about not knowing history and thus being doomed to repeat it.

That assumes you have your history right. You haven't yet considered how their different business model would play into this scenerio. You could suppose that Windows on a Mac would decrease developer incentives, but at the same time, the larger volume of Macs sold (due to Windows being compatible on it) could increase developer incentive due to the wider use of OSX.

Originally Posted by WrestleEwe Oh yeah, and IBM isn't known for it's hardware at all....

Apple only sells OSX on macs. That is a crucial point, as it means they're business model relies not on selling copies of OSX, but on selling hardware.

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by Oskar Apple only sells OSX on macs. That is a crucial point, as it means they're business model relies not on selling copies of OSX, but on selling hardware.

You can buy OS X separately from a Mac.

[kieran]

Originally Posted by spotcatbug You can buy OS X separately from a Mac.

Yes, you can. But what are you going to do with that copy?

Anything other than putting it on a Mac violates the EULA

[ssdd108]

Apple doesn't have access to Windows source code. Would Microsoft even allow a compatibility layer? If Apple has Intel chips, Windows, and other standard PC parts, what exactly is going to make Apple, Apple. I think this is purely for benchmarking. Look! 10.5 with its new kernel is 2-4x faster than Windows!

Oh yeah, and IBM isn't known for it's hardware at all....

LOL, If you say so.

[ghoti]

There are certainly differences between Apple and IBM. IBM relied too much on their size and name-recognition (back then, PC were still called "IBM compatible"), and their superior technology. But they underestimated Windows 95 (for private users and many business desktops) and NT (for more reliable desktops and servers). Had there been a solid application base by the time '95 came out, they would have had a much better chance. This operating system monoculture did not occur naturally, that was Microsoft's doing to a large part, and IBM and others didn't really do much against it until it was too late.

[Aesahaettr]

Originally Posted by ssdd108 Apple doesn't have access to Windows source code. Would Microsoft even allow a compatibility layer? If Apple has Intel chips, Windows, and other standard PC parts, what exactly is going to make Apple, Apple. I think this is purely for benchmarking. Look! 10.5 with its new kernel is 2-4x faster than Windows!

Intel just happens to make chips for Microsoft. They are just in the buisness of making chips, so that doesn't mean that Microsoft is getting any money from Intel for chips sold to Apple. At least to the best of my knowledge. Am I wrong?

[Dr_LHA]

Originally Posted by spotcatbug You can buy OS X separately from a Mac.

Actually Apple only really sells "upgrade" copies of OS X. After all you can't own a computer that runs OS X without having at least a previous version of Mac OS already on it, so essentially all boxed copies of OS X are upgrade versions, not stand alone.

This is the argument I have to use with everyone who moans when a new Mac OS X version comes out that there is no "upgrade price". $129 is the upgrade price!

[ssdd108]

Originally Posted by Aesahaettr Intel just happens to make chips for Microsoft. They are just in the buisness of making chips, so that doesn't mean that Microsoft is getting any money from Intel for chips sold to Apple. At least to the best of my knowledge. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong but that wasn't my point.

[Aesahaettr]

Oh I see now. Sorry. I gotcha. Good question. I don't know. Personally, I would buy an iMac just for it's slimness, style, and the OS. It's speed is pretty fast from what I've seen too.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Aesahaettr Intel just happens to make chips for Microsoft.

Wrong. In the PC business, Intel makes chips for Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. but not for Microsoft.

That would be like saying Microsoft makes Windows for Firefox. The latter may use the former, but the former is not required for the latter and the former is not producing the product directly for the latter.

[Aesahaettr]

Well my point was that they are separate from any other corporation they make chips for.

[dviant]

You could suppose that Windows on a Mac would decrease developer incentives, but at the same time, the larger volume of Macs sold (due to Windows being compatible on it) could increase developer incentive due to the wider use of OSX.

Oskar, you've just proven our point. In your scenario, if Macs are being sold "due to Windows compatibility" that means people are buying them to run Windows apps not Mac OS apps. Where is the incentive to develop and support Mac OS apps? There is none. See OS/2.

[Aesahaettr]

Originally Posted by dviant Oskar, you've just proven our point. In your scenario, if Macs are being sold "due to Windows compatibility" that means people are buying them to run Windows apps not Mac OS apps. Where is the incentive to develop and support Mac OS apps? There is none. See OS/2.

Very interesting problem here. I think though, that most people program for PCs because most people use them. However, I agree with Oskar because if more people used Macs, then more would program for them as well.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Aesahaettr Very interesting problem here. I think though, that most people program for PCs because most people use them. However, I agree with Oskar because if more people used Macs, then more would program for them as well.

Ah, correction: most people program for Windows because most people use it. Including Windows or a compatibility layer on Macs would increase that number of people who have access to Windows, thusly further solidifying the developers' interest in developing only for Windows and further decreasing the incentive to make native Mac versions.