05-16-2006, 08:06 PM

I've heard people who think that Apple will be switching to Windows over the next few years. John Dvorak, a journalist at PC Magazine for those who don't know, says that his friend says that many signs point to the big switch.
Boot Camp, Intel Switch, Removal of FireWire port on iPods, and the Apple Switch Ad campaign is over and nobody switched. Don't tell me anything about the fact that any of this information is wrong, because I only got this info out of a magazine. I was not the direct source.

05-16-2006, 08:07 PM

No one here knows any more than you do...

05-16-2006, 08:08 PM

mm'kay.

05-16-2006, 08:45 PM

Nobody switched? Hmm, wonder why Apples sales have been brisk and nearly every 5th new poster on this and other forums is a recent switcher?

Why would Apple go to Windows? Dvoraks reasoning was dubious at best and he has a long, long, long history of being completely out of touch with the Mac world. There's not really anything in it for Apple, except to become another PC Hardware maker having to compete with the likes of Dell, HP and Gateway. Not a lot of money to be made in high-end PC hardware to be honest.

Nice Sig by the way....

05-16-2006, 08:48 PM

Which is funny because here I'm thinking Vista is going to get ditched for a Windows-skinned OS X 10.5

05-17-2006, 04:06 AM

It seems a lot of people think that Dvorak just likes to make outlandish claims so lots of people to go and read his articles. The things you list aren't indications of apple switching to windows in my opinion. It's more of a case of apple meeting demand. There is no demand for apple hardware with just windows (and the death of OS X). Possibly the biggest selling point of paying that bit extra for a mac is that you get OS X, the second being the nice hardware and styling maybe (in my mind anyway).

The only way he can be partially correct is if the next version of OS X (10.5 Leopard, due out the end of this year) includes built in software like the one made by the Parallels company (which lets you run windows or linux inside a window ontop of you Mac OS X desktop). But apple still won't have switched to windows, they will just be letting people run windows at the same time as OS X but with OS X as the "main" operating system and windows as a secondary one.

It's always best to take the main stream media with a pinch of salt, they often get things wrong and like to make big sensationalist claims. Stick to forums for getting the real stories I say...

05-17-2006, 08:14 AM

And the "Understatement of the Year" Award goes to:

Originally Posted by zeta101

It's always best to take the main stream media with a pinch of salt, they often get things wrong and like to make big sensationalist claims.

05-17-2006, 10:11 AM

Apple won't be switching to Windows. I can't quite figure out where Dvorak was coming from on that article. I read the same one, and also read some other articles talking about this.

My two cents...

Boot camp was an incredibly smart move for Apple. "Well let you run your OS on our system, but you can't run ours on yours". For one, they are sticking it to MS. It really shows off the abilities of Mac systems, as well as their willingness to accomodate other systems. It's great incentive too. Why buy a system that can only use windows (excluding *nix here), when you could buy a Mac and have OS X, BSD (backend), AND windows available to you. The pricetag may be a bit higher, but it's well worth the money if you need/want OS X only apps, as well as windows only apps.

Games. This is a big one. Since so many game devs are slow to moving into cross platform compatibility, this allows a solution to the "But you can't play games on a Mac!" issue. Now you can.

On top of this, there has been talk about built in Virtualization in 10.5. Weather this is a realtiy at Apple, I don't know. I think that what they would shoot for, would be a solution where windows can run as a sort of background service, and you can simply launch windows programs that you want. Sort of like classic supprt, but much much faster. You'd be running Windows natively, so you'd have full speed and graphics support, since it's all standard hardware.

As far as the firewire goes...am I mistaken, or is USB 2.0 much faster? I want to say that it is.

And switching...tons of people switched. I know a whole lot of people, mostly through work, and mostly computer guys. A great deal of them either switched, or added a Mac workstation to their home network. Others are planning to switch now that the MacBook is out.

I feel that right now, Apple is making all the right moves, and with Microsoft's "upcoming"* blunder**, now is the time to strike

But hey, that's just me!

*Vista will never actually be released. (That Duke Nukem game - you know the one I mean - will be released before Vista)
**Even if it does get released, we already know it's going to be ME all over again.

05-17-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by iMacMan

I've heard people who think that Apple will be switching to Windows over the next few years. John Dvorak, a journalist at PC Magazine for those who don't know, says that his friend says that many signs point to the big switch.
Boot Camp, Intel Switch, Removal of FireWire port on iPods, and the Apple Switch Ad campaign is over and nobody switched. Don't tell me anything about the fact that any of this information is wrong, because I only got this info out of a magazine. I was not the direct source.

If you want to address each point seperately:

Apple Switch ad campaign over:
For one, the "ad campaign" may be over, but it seems to me and im sure many people would agree that apple has since integrated that thought into its business plan and current ad campaign. Check out the new commercials taking direct shots at windows...

Intel Switch:
Apple has already describe the reason for the switch. Unavailability of PPC chips and abundance of Intel.

Boot Camp:
As edge said, boot camp does nothing but help Apple, big time. In one second it completely took away one the PC markets points about apple and made it a point for us against PC. We can run windows so any games, applications or anything that you need can be run on a mac. You on the other hand cannot run OSX. Why would apple give that up and completely switch to windows, a product it has so heavily advertised against and continues to do so today?

05-17-2006, 11:27 AM

USB2.0 is NOT faster than firewire. USB has to share its speed amoung other Ports.

05-17-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by zeta101

It's always best to take the main stream media with a pinch of salt, they often get things wrong and like to make big sensationalist claims. Stick to forums for getting the real stories I say...

Wait, are you saying you consider Dvorak to be "Main Stream"? That's a stretch....

05-17-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by ezhangin

USB2.0 is NOT faster than firewire. USB has to share its speed amoung other Ports.

Theoretically it is. High speed USB 2.0 is 480 mega-bits per second, while Firewire is 400 mbps. Of course the Firewire 800 beats them both hands down.

In the real world though, Firewire 400 can perform faster than USB 2.0 (and often does), but its really dependent on the device used, if a high speed cable is used, and how many other USB components are plugged into the system.

05-17-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by edge

Boot camp was an incredibly smart move for Apple. "Well let you run your OS on our system, but you can't run ours on yours". For one, they are sticking it to MS. It really shows off the abilities of Mac systems, as well as their willingness to accomodate other systems. It's great incentive too. Why buy a system that can only use windows (excluding *nix here), when you could buy a Mac and have OS X, BSD (backend), AND windows available to you. The pricetag may be a bit higher, but it's well worth the money if you need/want OS X only apps, as well as windows only apps.

apple isn't sticking it to microsoft. microsoft is still selling copies of windows, which is their main reason for being. microsoft doesn't make computers and doesn't care which computer you install windows on. if boot camp is sticking it to anyone it would be windows pc makers like dell and hp, but i think there's a long way to go before they're threatened by apple. if anything, boot camp is showing the hypocrisy of apple. they'll let you run windows on a mac, but they don't want anyone running osx on a dell.

05-17-2006, 09:20 PM

How is that hypocrisy? They'll let you run Windows, but they won't support it, Therefore, it is strictly up to the end user what they choose to do. The fact that they don't licensee the OS to every knuckle-head who can cobble together a machine and call it a PC isn't hypocrisy, it's simply controlling what products they want their name associated with, lots of companies do it. Amazingly, I can't use Ford Parts in my Dodge. Does that make Ford a bunch of hypocrites because they won't make parts to support my Dodge? Does it make Dodge a bunch of Hypocrites because they won't allow me to use Ford parts? Tying the SW to the HW is part of makes Macs work so well.

05-18-2006, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by baggss

How is that hypocrisy? They'll let you run Windows, but they won't support it, Therefore, it is strictly up to the end user what they choose to do. The fact that they don't licensee the OS to every knuckle-head who can cobble together a machine and call it a PC isn't hypocrisy, it's simply controlling what products they want their name associated with, lots of companies do it. Amazingly, I can't use Ford Parts in my Dodge. Does that make Ford a bunch of hypocrites because they won't make parts to support my Dodge? Does it make Dodge a bunch of Hypocrites because they won't allow me to use Ford parts? Tying the SW to the HW is part of makes Macs work so well.

i didn't say that not supporting windows was hypocritical. and, yes, you can use ford parts on your dodge. if you can make it fit, ford won't try to stop you. installing osx on a dell evidently violates the license agreement and apple has now closed the x86 kernel's source code to prevent anyone else from doing it. as for trying sw and hw together, letting people run osx on a generic pc doesn't make my imac or your powermac run any differently. i get the fact that apple's business model is based on hardware sales and that's the reason they keep mac os to themselves, but it does come off as slightly hypocritical to me.