[OT] really?

[Daniel Gimpelevich]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:30:43 -0400, Eric Dunbar wrote:

> On 6/11/05, Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
> <snip>
>> [quoted text muted]
> 
> I don't think Windows users are any less ethical than Mac users.
> Remember that Mac users are worse pirates than Windows users :-!
> (software is so much easier to copy on Macs... when you can
> drag-and-drop Microsoft Office from one computer to another it's just
> too easy. No hidden DLLs, etc.)

I only made a general statement about the bulk of Windows users. I didn't
say anything regarding this about Mac OS users one way or the other, so
you read more into what I said than was there if you saw me making some
kind of comparison between Windows users and Mac OS users. That
notwithstanding, I cannot disagree with this observation of yours.

>> [quoted text muted]
> 
> The only thing that is certain is that only the Apple senior
> management and their consultants will have a strong sense of where
> they'd like to take the company. Most pundits are just spouting a
> whole lot of hot air.

It's too early to make predictions about just what kind of machines the
Intel Macs will be, but the only impact Apple will have that I currently
see to be of any consequence is their ability to dazzle current and
potential users.

> Under Steve Jobs' near mythical guidance they have done quite well.
> Some things have fallen by the way side (a customisable user
> interface... menu and window colours & fonts, the Dock) but their
> hardware and software have made amazing strides. Mac OS X is now the
> pinnacle of *nix computing (GNOME and KDE are such distant poor
> cousins that they don't really register on the for-profit scene) and
> Mac hardware is easily the most recognisable in the business.

Yeah, WE know that's true, but the bulk of people who only deal with
Windows are obliviously ignorant of it.

> The only thing that's certain is that we're in for some pretty major
> changes. You can be guaranteed that Apple's going to put out a sweet
> G4 laptop and maybe a nice G5 update within the next year -- they're
> going to have to keep the cash flowing into their coffers somehow now
> that so many people will be holding off "just that extra little bit"
> so they can lay their hands on an i86 Mac. Also, once the i86 comes
> out, you can be guaranteed that Apple is going to sweeten the pot --
> faster, newer, longer battery life but there's got to be an extra
> enticement to get Mac PPC users to switch over (though, if the new
> i86Macs are *that* much faster with *much* better battery life that'll
> be enough).

I should hope so, but if they don't, I can live with it.

> As for whether or not we'll see Mac OS X for cheapo boxes -- I'd be
> surprised. They're doing marvellously well as an OS software
> manufacturer (contrary to your assertion), and, couple the ability to

Yes, they are, but that doesn't make them an OS vendor at the expense of
being a hardware vendor. Allowing OS X on cheapo boxes would.

> run Windows on a *Macintosh*, and you see why Apple is making the
> switch. Yes, they're competing head-to-head with i86 manufacturers and
> with Microsoft Windows BUT they now offer something that so many
> people wished they could have -- a Macintosh that runs Windows XP
> natively, either exclusively as a Windows box (in which case the
> computer functions as a premium clone) or as a dual-boot for someone
> like me who needs software from both worlds.

People do wish they could have that, but only because they don't have
that. Once they do, it will cease to be a selling point because it sounds
better than it is. The only exception will be the possibility of running
OSX and Windows at the same time using a dual-core processor.

> And, I *do* think it will hurt (slow) Linux adoption on i86. This is
> neither a bad thing, nor a good thing, it's just a fact.

Depends on what you mean by "it." If "it" is the running of OSX on
commodity hardware, then of course.

> Many Windows users would love to leave Windows behind because of
> concerns (and frustration) with virus infection and spyware computer
> highjacking, BUT they have no alternatives. In theory there's Linux,
> but in practice it's *NOT* "there" yet and is unlikely to be "there"
> for quite a few years.

I believe I did say that.

> In comes Mac and Mac OS X. It runs on more expensive hardware, BUT
> that hardware will still run their favourite i86 games, possibly run
> many "favourite" Windows apps through WINE (or something similar),
> BUT, they will be able use Mac OS X, a commercially supported OS, use
> an OS with hands-down the most refined and usable GUI.

The hardware may or may not run x86 games due to games' reliance on direct
access to hardware that may or may not be there, and they'll require
Windows to boot. WINE on OSX is already a reality (Darwine), and putting
it on a native processor will greatly simplify it, but it won't make it
work any better. Microsoft regularly makes changes to Windows specifically
to thwart the use of WINE.

> Most importantly, they will be able to run all their internet apps
> with NEARLY all the codecs they're used to running (MS may licence
> restrict its i86 media codecs from running under OS X). All those
> niggly little 3rd party codecs and plugins that have been coded for
> i86 (>95% of the market) ONLY will all of a sudden become available
> for OS X. The hooks are all there in FireFox, Camino, Safari, Mozilla,
> etc. for third party plug-ins. All that was needed was an i86
> processor on which to run them.

Wrong. All that was needed was Windows; the processor isn't much more than
a coincidence. This cannot affect the availability of codecs for OSX in
any way. Sure, someone can write .dylib wrappers for existing Windows .dll
files, just like MPlayer has Linux wrappers for them, but the fact remains
that the "niggly little 3rd party codecs and plugins" have been coded for
Windows, not x86. If what you say were true, Linux-x86 would have no
shortage of codecs, but most of the codecs to which you're referring
aren't available under Linux, whether x86 or ppc.

> The one thing that I'm wondering about is whether MS will release
> Internet Explorer for OS i86X. They stopped development for IE a while
> ago, and, arguably that's now OS X's weak point. Yes, there are
> Safari, Camino, FireFox and the Mozilla/Netscrape bloatwares BUT there
> are still _some_ websites which REQUIRE IE or work better with IE.
> 
> Anyway, that's enough for today.
> 
> Eric.

There will be no MSIE for OSX-x86. I guarantee it.