backtop

Software No More VirtualPC for Mac
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - August 10, 2006 4:30 PM
Print 68 comment(s) - last by theapparition.. on Aug 14 at 12:56 PM
Microsoft chops VirtualPC for Mac

Microsoft this week announced that its Mac development division has stopped developing and has stopped shipping VirtualPC for Mac. Microsoft said that it will not update VirtualPC to run natively on Intel-based Macs. The reason being is that Windows XP now runs natively on Intel-Macs, and DailyTech thinks that Microsoft doesn't want to advocate the use of other operating systems within VirtualPC. The original intent of VirtualPC for Mac was to allow Mac users to run Windows XP so they could have access to Windows applications. This is of course, no longer required.

Earlier this week, VMware made the announcement that it will begin developing its virtualization suit for the Mac platform. The company said that Apple's market share is significantly growing and it sees a good potential in the enterprise space. VMware also made headlines earlier last month when it announced that its enterprise level virtualization suite would be available free of charge.

Parallels this week made the announcement that it is working on making 3D acceleration available in its Parallels Desktop for Mac. Currently, most virtualization products don't offer any video acceleration simply because the market is not there. Parallels changed all this with its introduction of virtualization for Intel-based Macs earlier this year. Utilizing VT technology in Core Duo processors, guest operating systems were running nearly as fast as their native counterparts.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Logic vs Emotion
By Pops on 8/10/2006 4:54:52 PM , Rating: 3
Now Microsoft is dropping support for Virtual PC because Apple is doing the work for them now. Which is fine and makes sense. Here is the kicker though, there is nothing you can do on a Mac that you cant do on a PC, the same cannot be said the other way around. Dont people realize that? I mean you are sitting on a Mac running windows to do things, doesnt that itself tell you something is very wrong? How many PCs users have to emulate anything to do their daily tasks? Logic vs Emotion.




RE: Logic vs Emotion
By TomZ on 8/10/2006 4:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and why would an average user even want to mess with running multiple operating systems? It's not worth the hassle. Just give me a single OS that can do everything, be that Windows, Linux, or OS X.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By Falloutboy on 8/10/2006 5:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
if Cider turns out to work OSX will do everything I need, sure linux does atm also but also its not the most userfriendly system out there


You agree with illogical posts?
By hmurchison on 8/10/2006 8:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
He said virtually nothing and you come back with

"I agree"

<scratching head" ....ok. Perhaps you guys have some sort of Internet Telepathy going on here because I can't see where he provided any proof of something I cannot do on my Mac.


RE: You agree with illogical posts?
By TomZ on 8/10/2006 9:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He said virtually nothing and you come back with "I agree"

The OP basically said that it should not be necessary to run a second OS in a VM order to run some applications. The reason I agree is that I like my computers to be with a simple configuration so that they are easier to set up and maintain, and so that they are more reliable.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By Hare on 8/12/2006 3:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
Most people want to use Mac OS X for everything and only boot windows just to play games. Games have always sucked on macs because there are so few. Boot Camp fixes this. Otherwise there's no need to run boot camp / virtualization...


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By Falloutboy on 8/10/2006 4:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
umm can a PC run Apples Video Production Suite? That alone is prolly the biggest draw for apple workstations.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By Griswold on 8/10/2006 5:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think he meant a particular program or suite. You can get the same job done with different tools on a PC.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By rklaver on 8/11/2006 12:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
Right....but not with the same price point or near the same functionality, not to mention Shake is popular among the high end compositing crowd, which is a Mac only product.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By NainoKami on 8/11/2006 12:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
Mac and Linux to be correct... :)


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By rklaver on 8/11/2006 1:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hey your right...I didn't know they had a linux version.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By slashbinslashbash on 8/10/2006 6:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's called "User experience" and you're right, it's kind of illogical since it's hard to put into words, but a very common experience is for someone to just start using a Mac and not want to use their Windows machine any more than they absolutely have to. To quote Tycho from Penny Arcade (remember, these are the guys who bashed Macs to no end until they recently switched):

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/03/03

quote:
save for platform-dependent gaming I've used my own Mac for every computing task this week. What I have ascertained is not that PCs as we know them lack good design, but that PCs as we know them have hardly any design to speak of. I'm not trying to be insulting. Use a Mac for a week, and we'll talk again.


It's sort of like driving a BMW and then wanting to drive BMWs instead of Chevys. Or eating filet mignon and finding that you prefer it to hamburger steak. It's a matter of taste, yes, but a pretty universally shared one: everybody agrees that a BMW is better than a Chevy, and everybody agrees that filet mignon is better than hamburger steak. Just like pretty much everybody who uses a Mac for any length of time tends to prefer it strongly over Windows. Even Anand admitted as much in his review of the MacBook Pro:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740&p...

quote:
The problems I encountered with the MacBook Pro are definitely bothersome, but they aren't enough for me to personally want to opt for a non-Mac notebook. When I sit down and think about that statement, there's something horribly wrong with it. It's my job to be tough on manufacturers when they release products with these sorts of problems and it's my job to not recommend purchasing a flawed product, so am I just terrible at following my own advice? Am I so hooked on OS X that I'm willing to deal with fairly annoying hardware problems just to get my fix? In a sense, aren't these the same complaints many have about Microsoft: that you put up with the problems because it's the only way to get what you want?


When you think about it, there's really not much that you can do in a BMW that you can't do in a Chevy (practically speaking -- given speed limits, traffic laws, etc.). And your options for filet mignon are pretty much the same as for hamburger steak: eat it. In both cases, however, the experience is much different, and people simply tend to prefer better experiences.

I've got a 12" PowerBook G4 1.5GHz (which was kind of slow even when it was first released) sitting next to an Athlon64 x2 4400+, X1900 AIW, X-Fi, WinXP monster. Both are hooked up to the same keyboard and 20" Dell LCD. Do you know what I use 99% of the time? The Mac, even though the PC is undeniably much faster and more responsive. You can call me emotional if you want, but there's got to be a reason why so many people seem to agree with me.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By Randum on 8/10/2006 7:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
If this were true, then I have to say no one would be using windows now would they???

Obviously you mean to say the mac is like a cheeseburger with no cheese.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By L1NUXownz1fUR1337 on 8/10/06, Rating: -1
RE: Logic vs Emotion
By NainoKami on 8/11/2006 12:50:07 AM , Rating: 3
Uhm... Why are you using 10-20 year old tech to emphasize your point... That'd be like me saying that I don't use Windows because Win 95 was SHITE...
I'm sitting with a Dual 2.5GHz G5, with an nVidia 6800 Ultra which uses OpenGL, and gigabit ethernet with support of all relevant protocols (to me at least).
If Apple had done a better job of maintaining marketshare, no doubt we'd have less of a competition driven technology scene, but it wouldn't stop for that reason... That's just a ludicrous claim.

I honestly don't mind Mac OS X and Windows to live side by side... I just think that a lot of people would like OS X if they tried it - but most haven't...

-Ääni


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By TomZ on 8/10/2006 10:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you think about it, there's really not much that you can do in a BMW that you can't do in a Chevy

LOL, it's more like driving a Saturn instead of a Ford, and believing that the Saturn is better because Saturn's marketing told you so.

The problem with your analogy is that BMW is clearly better than Chevy in nearly all ways. But in the case of Apple vs. PC you don't have that same situation.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By Hare on 8/12/2006 4:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
No spyware, no malware, no viruses, better overall stability, great tech like coreimage and coreaudio, easier user interface, more efficient user interface and overall usability. Everything just works with a mac. I've used both side by side for 20 years and if you say that the reason why so many graphic designers etc use macs is only because of marketing you are incredibly naive.

And once again... I currently have a PC since at the moment I value performance per €/$ more than overall experience but I think my next machine will propably be a mac again...


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By TomZ on 8/14/2006 10:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well, these are your opinions - I see no facts that indicate that Macs or OS X are any better than PCs or Windows. In the end, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Also for the record, my PC and Windows have never had any spyware, malware, viruses, and has near-perfect stability. But anecdotes don't have any statistical significance, really.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By msva124 on 8/11/2006 1:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
Why are Mac users so obsessed with car analogies?


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By retrospooty on 8/10/2006 6:35:13 PM , Rating: 3
I can play modern 3d games at a decent framerate on a PC... Cant do that on a MAC. Can't build my own MAC with my own hand picked primo components either. That makes MAC obsolete to me and the "other 97%" of the market segment.


Jeebus Macintosh is not an acronymn
By hmurchison on 8/10/06, Rating: 0
RE: Jeebus Macintosh is not an acronymn
By retrospooty on 8/10/2006 9:48:12 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you so much for the typical anal retentice MAC users answer about how to properly spell MAC ... How about you show me some benchmarks with comparable CPU and video card and MAC is even 80% as fast as a PC.

Its not about making PC or MAC users look bad. I am just stating a fact. I am not particularily partial to either, I just use Windows because I like it, am used to it, and it is faster at games, and it is universally standard at all the companies I work at, and deal with so all of our files are compatible.

I would really love to buy OSX and install it as a dual boot on my home built PC (with Win XP being the primary of course) but alas, I cannot.


By aliasfox on 8/11/2006 1:27:53 AM , Rating: 2
Quiksel,

I welcome another Mac user to these boards, but unfortunately, there's not much you can say that will change minds. If a Mac is a BMW, then your average reader at Anandtech builds, owns, and runs a kit car with a crate LS7 engine. He picked the parts, he built it, he takes it apart on weekends, and he likes bragging about how insanely fast it is and how little he paid for it. Let them be - you prefer to own and use a machine that may be more elegant, may be slower, but they're both viewpoints that neither side can agree on.

As for applications, sure, there's stuff like SAS and AutoCAD that's Windows native and either don't have a port or a really crappy one. There's also creative and scientific software that is Mac or Unix that doesn't have a Windows port. Either way, the software that has no equivalent on either platform is generally rather scarce.

It can be considered that it is because Apple's chasing after the home and educational markets exclusively that dual booting becomes important. Businesses aren't about to swap out their $400 Dell systems for $1000 iMacs, but your average home user might want to avoid viruses or take advantage of the multimedia software that comes with a Mac - or perhaps they appreciate the space savings of an iMac or the elegance of a MacBook. Regardless, these people have purchased a Mac and their work requires specific software not available on the Mac platform - or conversely, their company has licenses for Windows software and the employee can get away with installing that on their home machine instead of buying a Mac version (nobody wants to spend hundreds on Creative Suite).

Another generalization is that people who use Macs at work either a) have a Mac at home already, or B) use such generic software such as the Office suite and email applications that it doesn't even matter which platform they choose.


By MrSmurf on 8/11/2006 9:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
wow retrospooty, somehow you managed me to picture a 5 year old boy sticking his tongue out in 'rebellion' with that post.


RE: Jeebus Macintosh is not an acronymn
By TomZ on 8/10/2006 10:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's "Mac" MAC is an acronymn for stuff like Media Access Control.

I think it is pretty clear from the context that the OP used MAC to refer to Mac. Why be so petty?

quote:
True you can't build a Mac but you can buy one with a decent all encompassing warranty.

Do you think a DIY computer builder is seriously interested in a box-wide warranty? LOL


By Quiksel on 8/10/2006 11:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty simple, Tom:

If you want the Mac product, you buy one. It's the only way to get OS X and the respective software that is so highly touted. Some people don't like to tinker with their PC. They want it to just work. Watch movies, listen to music, write their email, and browse the web. A Mac does all of this quite admirably. It's not just a beige box, and for that, the premium in price exists. But you have clearly missed the boat in buying into the perception that Mac users are somehow overcompensating for their lack of Windows by now running a VM of it, which in turn begs the question of "why get a mac" argument that's been recycled a million times. VM'ing's icing on the cake of an already complete product, dammit. ;)

I, for one, consider the VM'ing (and dual-booting) of Windows on a Mac to be a supreme setup: I can use the Mac for what it was intended to do (basically everything except the tinkering), and then I can fire up Windows to play (getting the tinkering out of my system). I believe a system should just work without constant work, and OS X has proven to be a little better at that than Windows. That's it and that's all.

~quiksel


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By NainoKami on 8/11/2006 12:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
Uhm... I don't think the average user wants to build his own system... I think the average user wants a system that just works...

Games have NEVER been the Mac's strong point, and probably never will be... It's an old argument.

97% of the market segment is NOT driven by games and custom systems... It's driven by average users wanting to listen to their music, arrange photos and do some word processing etc., and by the businesses using computers for work... (I know it sounds amazing - work... Whoever would have thought that to be the case!?!?)


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By lemonadesoda on 8/10/2006 6:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Logic vs Emotion
You quote reminded me of something. emagic pro logic. One of the best professional music systems. Mac only. (Was PC also, but if I remember correctly, Apple bought them out).


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By L1NUXownz1fUR1337 on 8/10/06, Rating: -1
WTF? What can't I do on my Mac?
By hmurchison on 8/10/2006 8:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
You are the LAST person that should be talking about Logic.

Please explain what my Mac can't do that a PC can. I find it quite ironic that you made a statement and failed to back it up.


RE: WTF? What can't I do on my Mac?
By TomZ on 8/10/2006 10:08:34 PM , Rating: 3
Your Mac can't host my Windows software development tools that I use to develop applications that all my customers run on their Windows computers. For example, Visual Studio 2005 with C# and .NET 2.0.

Also, Mac won't run nearly any of the major engineering applications. It also won't run most of the popular accounting applications used by most businesses. Most industrial software only runs on Windows. Etc. Etc.


RE: WTF? What can't I do on my Mac?
By Pirks on 8/11/06, Rating: 0
RE: WTF? What can't I do on my Mac?
By TomZ on 8/11/2006 5:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
The question that the OP asked is, what can be done on a PC and not a Mac. Since Mac hardware is approximately the same as PC hardware, obviously the OP meant, what can be done on Windows that can't be done in OS X. Of course, if you run Windows on top of OS X, or beside it, you can run Windows applications, just like if you run OS X on a normal PC then you can run OS X apps. So what is your point, exactly? I was just pointing out a few of the many apps that use Windows that are not available for OS X.

I also find it far-fetched the assumption that you and others make that a significant number of Mac users will run Windows on OS X using VM software. That just isn't going to be the case for the average joe user, due to cost and complexity. So the argument that you can run all the thousands of Windows-only apps, not to mention devices that are only supported in Windows, on top of OS X is a totally false argument. The difference is between "can" (with emulation) and "will" (as in practical reality).
quote:
but somehow noone bothers with porting any Mac specific stuff to Windows

LOL, you're kidding, right? Let's see, if I am a software developer, would I be most interested in the <5% market for my app in OS X or the >90% market for Windows. Most software packages available for OS X also support Windows already, leaving some niche software packages (esp. graphics), as well as those published directly by Apple. Besides Apple's offerings, other companies would only not do a Windows version for small niche applications, like graphics used to be years ago. But now I think you see no lack of good graphics and multimedia applications available for Windows and OS X.

Look, I don't want to get into a big Mac-vs-PC debate with you, so I may sit the rest of this discussion out, so you can have the last word.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By kelmon on 8/11/2006 3:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'll put this very simply: I don't end up shouting at my Mac out of sheer frustration. I have, however, come very close to just throwing the PC at work out of the window because it just drove me to the edge of sanity.

With respect to virtualisation, the only reason to use it for me is to get access to IE6 and therefore get access to a couple of old legacy applications at work that only work in IE. When not using these web applications I will be running OS X applications and feeling wonderful. Putting up with the occasional arsehole of having to open Windows is more than made up for the sheer joy that the general Mac computing experience provides. I've been a Windows user for around 15-years so I like to think that I've bought the T-Shirt on that one and, frankly, you can have it back.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By TomZ on 8/11/2006 4:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll put this very simply: I don't end up shouting at my Mac out of sheer frustration. I have, however, come very close to just throwing the PC at work out of the window because it just drove me to the edge of sanity.

That's funny, because my 4-year old seems to be able to run Windows without any problems or frustration. I'm not saying your frustration is your fault, just that I guess each person's experience may be different.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By MrSmurf on 8/11/2006 9:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
You should spend more time with your 4 year old older brother... errr... 'son' instead wasting so much of your time here.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By TomZ on 8/11/2006 9:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, nice try. I post here in between tasks running my engineering company.


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By hiscross on 8/11/2006 9:24:32 AM , Rating: 2
Then does VMWare and other products exist for windows? What's the need to run another OS on windows if windows can do it all? Logic????


RE: Logic vs Emotion
By aliasfox on 8/11/2006 2:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Web development. Testing on OSX, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows ME, different flavors of Linux, etc.

Developing cross platform progams in house with compiler tools for each platform. I believe Blizzard does that.

I'm sure there're other reasons where multiple platforms is a bonus and not a hinderance.


Apple gains zero ground...
By igloo15 on 8/10/2006 9:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
by suggesting its user's to dual boot. As long as user's continue to need windows run some of their programs Apple does not gain any ground. Infact they become dangerously close to becoming more and more like any old PC manufacturer. What they need to do is figure out a way for Windows software to work on the Mac OS. If they can do that then its game over for microsoft. Until that happens they are actually boosting Windows sales by having people buying new computers and buying windows to put on it.




RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By Quiksel on 8/10/2006 10:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sure they gain ground! One sale given to Apple is one less PC sale, which is better for Apple's business model of big profits on computer sales. They don't care nearly as much about which OS you run, since you're far more likely to have bought a Mac for the other reasons they are competitive; the dual-boot is just icing on the cake.

For all the dumbasses who think that the machines are wastes of money, all the evidence in the world would not sway them away from their belief that building everything from scratch and tinkering is better than a polished product that has done all of that for you. The gamers out there can suck on it: You've got too much money to spend on a computer to just play games. Get a life, or better yet- just buy a console and stop whining about the Mac owners out there being preachy. You're no better, and this thread has gone to show that in spades.

But back the point: they will never be like any other PC manufacturer, if only because Mac OS X and the rest of the software they make are such solid products. They are enjoying success like never before, and it could all go away in a few short years, but until then, I think they are playing this game incredibly well, and have executed rather excellently.

my .02,
~quiksel


RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By TomZ on 8/10/2006 11:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
Man, you sure sound like an Apple shill. Really, is the drooling, sappy, lovestruck talk really appropriate for a forum like this?


RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By Quiksel on 8/10/2006 11:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'll tell ya what: I'm only saying what I'm saying because of how insanely left-field so many of these comments come from. I am certainly very pleased with my purchases with Apple over the years, but I don't come from Apple roots. I'm a long-time PC advocate and overclocker from the late 90's, but the anti-Apple crap has really worn on me. It's tough being in IT these days to hear stupid people rail the product without really knowing a damn thing about it.

If that sounds all sappy and lovestruck, then ya just don't get it. Most everyone here is passionate about the technology, and this is no exception.


RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By L1NUXownz1fUR1337 on 8/11/06, Rating: 0
RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By aliasfox on 8/11/2006 10:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
L1NUXownz1fUR1337:

I don't normally feed uninformed trolls, but here's a little something to shove down your throat:

I'm assuming you haven't looked too far back in the history of the personal computer, have you? For the first decade of its life, the Mac was unparalleled as a Desktop Publishing Platform, as a Graphics Platform (the first six versions of Photoshop were coded for the Mac and then ported to the PC), and as a web development platform - back in 1996, the vast majority of websites were designed on the Mac. In fact, the first Pentium TV ads were completed on a Mac.

Before Apple brought out the G5 and before Intel brought out Banias, the Power PC ran much cooler than the X86 competition, to the point that through 2001 Apple still sold machines that relied entirely on passive cooling.

Of course, competition is a good thing and back between 1999-2001 the Intel/AMD wars were heating up while Motorola stalled development, and Apple (and the PPC) never recovered from those years. The once superior PowerPC platform (it had, at one point, been fastest *and* had low power draw) languished with minor speed bumps for five years before Apple decided it was time to jump ship. And you know what? I applaud them. I'd rather there be an Apple that's competitive and alive to put pressure on Vista than an Apple that's decomposing in the history books. You don't honestly think that Microsoft would give all that much of a rat's ass if there wasn't Mac OSX around, would you? Mac OSX may only have (on a good day) 5%, but it is without a doubt a good (if not better) choice for the majority of computer users out there.

Yes, Apple introduced the Rage 128 to the world - when the Voodoo 3 couldn't even do 32-bit. That was the nature of the market at the time, and 3D acceleration lacked the maturity it has now. Apple also introduced the GeForce3, made the 3.5" floppy common, and made widescreen displays common in the market. Nobody can be at the forefront of every trend/design revolution.

Apple is no more a monopoly than Toyota or Honda. Most people lack the expertise to drop a new engine in their car, just like most people don't want to fiddle with Linux or installing more RAM on their own.

I have a PowerBook and a Cube. They do everything I need them to do. I rarely open a game. My dad has a Thinkpad. It does everything he needs it to do. Could I have paid less for a Dell/Acer/Averatec laptop? Sure. Could I have paid more for a Thinkpad or a VAIO? Sure.

Apple's made good decisions and bad decisions. As long as they offer a reasonably competitive product targeted at their market (read: NOT GAMERS), I will consider their products when I purchase and be highly amused (if occassionally annoyed) at what people (especially bigoted people) think about them.

Note: most of you aren't bigoted, you just aren't Apple's target customer.


RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By Pirks on 8/11/06, Rating: 0
RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By aliasfox on 8/11/2006 4:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
The road from 5% to 50% will be a fun one, and while I'd like to see more people try out a Mac, I don't think I'm ready for Steve Jobs to be selling that much hardware anytime soon.

Also, for Apple to gain that much market share would mean Apple (or a licensed manufacturer) would have to enter markets where it has historically been very poor at competing in, namely the super-budget market (sub $500 desktops for offices, sub $800 laptops for homes), gaming machines (that's a long way off...), and the midpriced retail tower.

I think I'll be satisified if Apple is healthy, profitable, and innovative at about 15-20%. Large enough to ensure it's not ignored by major developers, small enough that it doesn't run into huge logistical nightmares.


RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By TomZ on 8/11/2006 4:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, I second that. Everyone who thinks MS would release Vista next year without Apple's competition is very naive person.

LOL, I suppose you would attribute Microsoft's release of WinXP, Win2K, WinME, Win98, and Win95 also to Microsoft's "reacting" to Apple OS releases. Give me a break with that logic.

I'm sure Microsoft perceives Apple as a possible future threat, but with its current marketshare, it has no significant impact on Microsoft financially. If anything OS X probably helps Microsoft avoid further antitrust prosecution since it can point to another viable OS in the marketplace.
quote:
We will get the best OS possible only when Apple reaches optimal 50% of the market

LOL, you mean if , not when. Apple's success in driving marketshare is not a certainty in anyone's mind (besides you maybe). They don't have such goals nor a strategy for the same. I don't think that Jobs himself, as confident as he is, thinks that Apple will ever achieve that kind of market share.

Apple is a niche player - always has been - get over it already.


RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By aliasfox on 8/11/2006 5:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft releases an OS for one reason: to make money. Everybody has a copy of Windows 95? Time to put out Windows 98 so everybody will buy back in. Ditto for ME and XP.

Would Vista be coming out at the end of 06/beginning of '07 if it weren't for OSX? Possibly, but with computer sales still rising, Microsoft could hold out a little longer. However, the negative publicity surrounding XP and its security issues has gotten pretty harsh lately, and there are many consumers who drool over the relative security of OSX vs XP. Microsoft wants to keep them in the fold though, so they will try to make Vista more secure when it does appear.

So does OSX force Microsoft to sell new operating systems? No, of course not. The prospect of increased sales does. But does it encourage Microsoft to make these OSes better when they do appear? Yes.


RE: Apple gains zero ground...
By Pirks on 8/11/06, Rating: 0
Oops
By gramboh on 8/10/2006 4:35:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
and DailyTech things




RE: Oops
By Tuan Nguyen on 8/10/2006 4:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
Fixed. Thanks.


RE: Oops
By MrBeanz on 8/10/2006 4:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
That's still a complete lie about VMWare announcing VMWare Server being free earlier this month. That was announced long ago.

The only thing that happened within the last month was the actual release of the final version of VMWare Server.


RE: Oops
By MrBeanz on 8/10/2006 4:46:31 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.vmware.com/news/releases/server_beta.ht...

Try 6 months ago actually, Feb 6th, 2006.


RE: Oops
By sdsdv10 on 8/11/2006 1:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
MrBeanz, it's not really a lie unless the intent was to deceive. From Webster’s dictionary, "lie = to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive".

Do you really thing the author’s intent was to deceive? I think that didn't have their fact correct and didn't bother to check them. This maybe due to tight deadlines, laziness or other reasons, but I doubt is was intentional. I do appreciate you noting the correct information, as accuracy in journalism in very important.

I probably get modded down, but that's ok. I just would like to suggest to you to chose your words a little more carefully.


RE: Oops
By MrSmurf on 8/11/2006 9:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
While we're making suggestions to each other, please remove the stick from your ass. We all know what he really means (lie = untrue)... not that any of us give a damn about when the actual announcement was made.


This will end it all!
By Randum on 8/10/2006 10:06:58 PM , Rating: 3
Here is the end all statement;

Which system has to emulate the other to satisfy their user base? (I dont see any windows programs emulating MacOS)

If that doesnt help;
Which OS plays the latest games?




RE: This will end it all!
By retrospooty on 8/11/2006 12:33:13 AM , Rating: 3
Oh he hits it !!!!

Game, set and match.


RE: This will end it all!
By Gondorff on 8/11/2006 12:43:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here is the end all statement;

Which system has to emulate the other to satisfy their user base? (I dont see any windows programs emulating MacOS)


I'm not a Mac lover.. I don't have one, and won't any time soon... and I probably agree most with TomZ so far in this discussion.

However, you're so very very wrong on this. Sure, Mac's are the ones that emulate Windows and not vice versa. That doesn't mean that all my friends haven't been hoping for years that they'd be able to install OSX on their PC's. Just because it isn't supported for Windows doesn't mean it isn't wanted by consumers.
If you look at this from another point of view, you may understand that Apple allows Windows to be installed alongside OSX because they realize that no one will be converted back to Windows when they can use OSX. Not convinced? Think of the opposite; if OSX could be run from a Windows machine, do you really think that average users would not flock to it?

Your logic is flawed, as shown before, but I'm not going to completely discredit you. What it really does come down to is what type of user you are. While most home computer users would probably benefit from OSX, it is still not the operating system that will end all operating systems, since it has holes in the types of users it supports. Gaming is inconvenient and does require the dual boot setup. Business software and such, like TomZ pointed out, will not run on OSX. Simply put, OSX cannot satisfy everyone, even though some will benefit greatly. What makes Windows so viable now is that it can satisfy everyone to some degree.

Really, all you have to do is figure out what type of user you are... give both OS's a chance, and go from there.

PS: sorry Linux ppl... I don't know your OS well enough to comment on it, so it's left out of this post...


RE: This will end it all!
By rklaver on 8/11/2006 1:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
TextPS: sorry Linux ppl... I don't know your OS well enough to comment on it, so it's left out of this post...


The Linux people are busy compiling their updates at the moment. They well respond shortly. :-D


RE: This will end it all!
By theapparition on 8/14/2006 12:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, your argument is the most flawed. It is not Microsoft, or Intel/AMD, or even GW Bush or the Palestinian's or terorists or anyone else stopping OSX from being installed on a PC. It is Steve Jobs.
I think that if most "white-box" PC's could install OSX two things would happen:
1) Apple hardware sales would fall flat. Why pay for a premium when you can install on any hardware that's so much cheaper. How much sale revenue they would lose is debatable, but they would definately lose signifigantly. That's a fact I don't think anyone (logically) could argue. (But we are talking fanboy's on both sides-so you never know).
2) The OSX experience is soooo overrated. Personally, I like it, but its not that good. All in all, I prefer windows, especially when I consider what I do on my systems. I think that if OSX was installed on "white boxes", it would be sooo unstable and buggy, that users would be dying to go back to a stable Windows OS. Granted, that most of the stability problems would be due to 3rd party drivers and such, but the blame doesn't matter. Does it work or not, that's the argument that I keep hearing in this discussion. Pretty soon, people would appreciate how good of a job Microsoft actually did. And how does this help Apple.

In your argument, the only one stopping complete and utter OSX domination is apple themselves? That doesn't make any sense and I'm sure (reluctantly) you'll agree. So, your argument is completely discredited (in your parlance). And no, I don't think the "average" user would flock to OSX if available. The average user is one who is too lazy the set the time on their VCR, let alone install OS's.

And as a reply to the posts above about BMW's being better than Chevy's. I'll stack my lowly new ZO6 Vette against anything BMW has to offer at any price point. I'll even stack my 2002 Firehawk (OK, so that's pontiac) against anything in the BMW family. Nothing gives you more fun for the buck, and that's what I'm looking for. I also like the way they look MUCH better. That's what a sports car should look like. My ZO6 will outperform anything from BMW in at least 70% of tests. And I don't want to spend the extra 100k to get that 30% and lose the 70%. But wait, maybe that is the perfect analogy, Apple fans spend more to get less, but at least they now have a trendy badge.


Well....
By Larrymon2000 on 8/11/2006 1:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
I've seen some decent arguments, but they've all been skewed. The fact is, no one outside of the IT world cares for apples. I can attest to this, as I'm still in school and not one person I know owns a Mac. This is not because they're not good enough, but because of their overall cultural position, price and distinct flaws. Sure this isn't a complete representation, but it just shows that:
a) No one cares much for Apple
b) They're not interested, especially if you need to spend a premium for the OS and Apple name.
Sorry, but Microsoft is going to continue to have that 95% market share...

Sure, not being able to game with a Mac is an old argument, but it's still relevant. Hey, maybe you devs don't care bout that, but it's not a question of personal opinion, since everyone here is speaking generally. And generally, people WANT to game.




RE: Well....
By retrospooty on 8/11/2006 10:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
"Sorry, but Microsoft is going to continue to have that 95% market share..."

This is true. The people that insist now that you can load Windows on a Mac Apple will start to make major market share gains are the same people that completley misunderstand why Apple's marketshare is so incredibly low in the first place (even though its afar far FAR superior product <ya right>) LOL


RE: Well....
By rklaver on 8/11/2006 1:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact is, no one outside of the IT world cares for apples.


Shouldn't that read no one Inside the IT world cares about Apples?

quote:
I can attest to this, as I'm still in school and not one person I know owns a Mac.


That's because you are going to ITT Tech taking a Back Office class.


RE: Well....
By TomZ on 8/11/2006 4:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Back Office

Oh, that reminds me, that's another app that won't run on a Mac.


VPC dead? Not worried
By hmurchison on 8/10/2006 9:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather see Parallels and VMware improve the Virtualiztion options on Macs.

Parallels in particular is moving very fast. Updates with new features came quickly and they state they will have faster 3D support. I'm immpressed with this company. Looking forward to seeing what they can do with their Server product.





By rushfan2006 on 8/11/2006 12:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing much to say that wasn't said...but just that Mac folks please don't try and use an argument that when it comes to game boxes Mac's even REMOTELY compare to PC's that's just so silly a comment I can't express with words.

PC folks -- give it to the Mac crowd they are still very great graphics stations and personally I still think Mac has an edge there.

That's about it..




"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki