| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Apple's Intel Desktop Move Threatens Linux Desktop, Longhorn | |
|
||
| Time: 15:07 EST/20:07 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
Opinion: And if the Linux desktop wants to play, it had better get a lot better, a lot faster. Linux desktop and Longhorn developers suddenly have something in common: They should be worried, very worried, about Mac OS X coming to Intel processors. The Mac community is in an uproar over Apple moving the Mac to Intel processors, but it's the Linux desktop and Longhorn programmers who should be reaching for the aspirin. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 149 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:58:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 531 (131.107.0.101) at 6/7/2005 3:28:46 PM |
|
Yeah. No, actually it doesn't.
Apple said that OSX is only going to run on their hardware, not just any whitebox PC. So no, they're really just as irrelevant as ever. (And yes, I'm fully aware that someone will find a way to hack however Apple locks their OS to their hardware. It *still* doesn't matter.) This post was edited by mikekol on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 at 15:29. |
| #2 By 665 (67.185.98.5) at 6/7/2005 3:35:47 PM |
| People are making far too much of Apple's switch to Intel. As long as they lock their OS to their hardware, things will be the exact same as they are now. Sure, you technically might be able to install OS X, but post people won't go to the trouble... If OS X was by far the best OS as this article stipulates, why didn't it take off better on PowerPC? Apple is still going to have high prices and they're probably not going to get much more market share. People can blame IBM for stifling Apple, but it just isn't true... The PowerPC chip wasn't to blame for Apple's relatively poor sales, and an Intel chip isn't going to magically add twenty points to OS X's market share. Apple's business tactics are what is hold Apple back. |
| #3 By 8556 (12.207.222.2) at 6/7/2005 5:01:38 PM |
| Intel chips may help Apple reduce pricing by ten percent or more. That will make some difference in the market place. Probably not enough to matter. Most people will stay with Windows, buy a $400 Dell, don't worry and be happy. |
| #4 By 32313 (208.163.38.3) at 6/7/2005 5:09:55 PM |
|
If Apple does not bring its pricing inline with the competition such as Dell and HP they I only see their market share going down even further. The advantage of the switch for me personally is to have a more open hardware platform accepting of a variety of operating systems for x86 architecture. From Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris Unix for x86 and more.
But what my deterr someone from attempting someone from installing Windows on a Mac is the possibility of hacking being required. Will either Company, Microsoft or Apple provide a boot loader to support booting from either OS? I don't think Apple wants that, but I think it would bring a lot more interest and revenue to their platform if they did so. Having Windows on a Mac Intel architecture is the best Virtual PC any Mac User could get. Just imagine mobile work related scenarios, if my Company uses Windows at work, I can boot up in Windows network without a hitch and have shared partition on my PowerBook G5 for my documents I use on the Mac. |
| #5 By 32313 (208.163.38.3) at 6/7/2005 6:16:28 PM |
|
For pricing, I hope Apple commits to the same approach as other PC manufacturers on the market such as Dell, Alienware and HP in all categories offered by those manufacturers when comes to competitive pricing. Meaning, if Dell offers a 9100 hundred system with a 3.6 GHz processor, 512Mbs of RAM, DVD+RW, 256MB video card all for the price of $1,600 Apple should be able to offer a comparable PowerMac system at either the same price or below. Yes, design maybe one thing for Apples computers, but that’s not necessarily increasing my productivity. Configuring your system should be customizable with the transition to Intel. I should be able to make up PowerMac or iMac system with those same components I mentioned and still not see a $3,000 price tag.
This also means, anything in the iMac line should not cost any more than $900 to $1,300. With iMini and eMac, prices should range from $300 to $500 for the iMini and $500 to $700 for eMac. Apple has to understand to be competitive; they have to be willing to think in line with PC clones and level the playing field making it fair for both businesses and consumers to make a choice when buying a new computer. Hardware aesthetics is nice, but when a big Fortune 500 company is contemplating upgrading their hardware they are not looking on shell design, but the lowest cost and value that a PC manufacturer can provide and most important of all, performance. If Apple does not do this, I can see their market share going down to 0.5% in two years. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/7/2005 7:17:41 PM |
|
I didn't think that the processor was a big cost problem on the PPC Macs:
http://news.com.com/The+Apple+deal+What+others+are+saying/2100-1016_3-5734389.html?tag=nl (Read the Peter Glaskowsky comment) So will the Intel-based Macs be any less expensive? Maybe they will even be more expensive? |
| #7 By 2960 (156.80.34.36) at 6/8/2005 8:39:45 AM |
|
I agree with #3.
It's JUST A CPU CHANGE. Apple's business model has not changed one bit. I guess it is appropriate to toss in the word 'yet'. You never know what the hell SJ will do next. TL |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/8/2005 11:38:31 AM |
| #10... I would say that, given the current price point of the top-of-the-line dual-G5 machines and knowing Apple's model of charging a premium for hardware, I wouldn't doubt his comment on the processor pricing. And look the Mac Mini--considering the form factor, it's a pretty low price point. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it's a loss-leader. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/9/2005 2:11:40 PM |
|
Here's some info on the average price of the IBM chips Apple bought:
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43601.html ($150) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 149 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:58:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
