On 6/11/05, Daniel Gimpelevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, that's what Apple might do if they were Microsoft, but they're not, > so when Apple puts in their EULA that you're not allowed to run any Apple > OS on non-Apple hardware, they really mean it. The number of people <snip> > released. Almost immediately, someone will make an XPostFacto-like utility > for x86, and they will do it using existing Darwin-x86 code. Windows users > will eventually try out OSX in droves in the manner Rick described > earlier, because Windows users practically never read any EULAs they are > presented with, much less comply with them.
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.) > will make potential customers hate Apple more than they hate Microsoft, > because Microsoft privately views the piracy of their own software with a > wink and a nod whenever it suits their product strategy. Apple will also > have to write off most overseas markets as a source of revenue, because > due to their relatively limited hardware market penetration worldwide and > the difficulty in obtaining valid Apple licenses locally, OSX running on > commodity x86 hardware will be the only OSX most people in the world ever > see, and will therefore be the only OSX such people will consider running. > Apple has already tried and failed to be primarily a software company. > They know that the reality is that hardware is their bread and butter. It > would appear that they have now completely resigned themselves to the idea > that that hardware no longer consists of computers. Unless you own stock > in Apple, their future as a company should now be somewhat more irrelevant > to you as someone who uses Linux at least some of the time. 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. 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. 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). 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. _______________________________________________ yellowdog-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general HINT: to Google archives, try '<keywords> site:terrasoftsolutions.com'
