with apple on the intel, whats in it for linux?
 

With the incredible (some would say monopolisitic) market share that Microsoft has, the scraps are left for the other OS's to fight over. These include the unixes, the big players (especially in regards to media coverage) being Linux and Apple. With regards to this development, the competition looks to have upped a few notches, the battle for market share heating up.

So why is this announcement such a BIG thing? It impacts the whole way that "geeks" talk about computing. For years people have discussed, argued and started flamewars over the relative merits of PC and Apple Macintosh hardware, and also the merits of the software.

Macs look good. With software, the sleek lines of the OSX buttons and scroll bars, the simple interface and the dock are enough to make some people run screaming down the street for the nearest apple store. Linux aside, Macs definitly look way better than Windows.
However price is and was a limiting factor. The same screaming convert sadly reverted to the PC when they saw the price tag. Though this was slightly fixed with the Mac Mini (which was small, good looking and affordably priced), many people feel the tug at the hip pocket is more important than eyecandy. So, they stuck with windows, and the brave ones found linux, and found that it was good.

Now, price is no longer a factor. Theoretically, mac OSX (especially tiger) should be able to run on any Intel based machine. For years now, mac gurus, tied to the platform because of certain applications (such as finalcut pro) have been suggesting that to save cash, buy the base mac and upgrade using the cheaper but just as good PC parts (such as hard drives, memory, etc) OSX should have no trouble running on most intel PC's.

So where does this leave linux? Now it is not the only popular Unix for the Intel chipset. Now it will not only have to battle Microsoft, it will also have to battle Apple. However, Apple is almost TOO user friendly to the point of being idiot safe. To install anything from source, you need a compiler- which you MUST get from Apple- a massive download called Xcode. It is much harder to get things done that they have not meant for you to do. With Apple there is less choice. To be fair, Apple has a great keyboard shortcut system- that they let people know about. Linux is also still available in "free as in beer" versions - (http://iso.linuxquestions.org/ for many options) it still will be the cheapest option. It lets you get things done.

There will always be fanatics, but in terms of general market share, which way will it go?

You still think your case looks ugly? Try googling for case mod. :^)

this author thinks that out of the three major operating systems, Linux is the best, followed by Apple, then by Microsoft.

titanium_geek

I picked the last answer because, in the UK at least (and the rest of Europe is not much better) you CANNOT get a linux PC. I mean, go to an online shop pick and configure the PC you want (cheap or expensive) and have a good distro pre-installed with EVERYTHING garanteed to work.....

And I have never seen a product getting significant market share without some company seriously giving it a push. Don't bore me with Novell or Mandriva please ! Seen an ad in a mainstream PC magazine lately ? That says it all.

And don't get me started with these guys presenting a common lobbying front to hardware and software vendors. They can't even agree on system file location and packaging format. And we are talking about the main desktop linux vendors here....:cry:

Where's the choice for "Windows will keep it's stranglehold and both Apple and Linux will remain unchanged"?

Well to point out some...

Xcode comes with MacOS, or you could download it for free.. and its just an IDE. You could just use the Terminal and mess with the compiler directly..

While it is possible for MacOS, now running on x86, to be used on any x86 machine Apple does not want this and have addmitted that they won't allow this to happen; it be great if this would change but then they got hardware issues to support, something big would have to change there.

Cost? Apple has never been cheap. Chances are the price won't drop--but it may change. It again all depends on Apple.

I won't choose which is best, it all depends on what you want to do.

You can get Linux PC's from tiny, evesham (not always), transtec, cheeplinux and others. Tiny even have Linux laptops. The problem is that you can't just walk into any shop and say you want a Linux PC and thats something that needs correcting.

As long as apple Oses are more expensive than Linux and only run on their own hardware (frequently more expensive than generic x86 pc's), then it will never be more popular than Linux particularly in the third world and on business desktops.

oops! I forgot the remains unchanged option. sorry.

Well, a new development: apples will have intel processors, but OSX will not be able to be run on any old intel- it will still have to be a mac.

thanks for all the replies

titanium_geek

None of the above. Linux will stay exactly where it is. I think apple will at least double thier market share i.e. 3% -> 6%, possilbe more. Microsoft will stay the leader for the foreseeable future. 5 or 10 years down the road apple could make a serious dent in microsoft but it will take a while.

Linux will remian a niche OS for the few. Linux would have had 6 years without microsoft coming out with a new desktop OS, and still they havn't made dent in the desktop OS. That should tell u something right there. People won't something easy to use. Linux is way to splintered for people to take it seriously, besides the few computer geeks and hobbyist.

Also OS X x86 wil almost defenitly be hacked to run on other x86 besides the intel-mac. However, they chose to block it, bios, whatever... it will undoubtbly be hacked. Hell if I was apple I'd do it myself internally and leak it out because it is to their advantage. Give people a taste and watch your sales growth increase.

splintered and under funded. Mind you, we are all kind of talking about the desktop here. What about servers ?

I would say more for linux, and less for apple... this move could be quite dangerous for apple which could be seen by its fan as nothing else than an expensive pc...

Hell I'd buy stock in apple now. Even if they lose half their base, 1.5%, they can easily pick that up with first time buyers. Where is that 1.5% going to go... linux, don't think so... microsoft almost definetly not. Don't see how anything positive can come out of this for linux, or freebsd even. If anything I see windows, linux, and freebsd people going to OS X, not the other way around.

not to microsoft yup probably but organizations and companies that were considering apple will likely consider linux because it is relatively similar, free and the idea of buying a mac with a intel processor is just weird... considering the general public I agree, i won't be for linux...

Linux has always been battle-hardened as far as market share is concerned, because it has never had the big company (again, ignoring Novell and Mandriva's minimal influence) backing it purely. Accordingly, it should remain just as - if not more - influential in the market.

I think Mac is the only one opening themselves to danger here. I have always believed that Mac software is nice, but that their hardware and usability design is their bread and butter. We'll just wait and see how intel changes that dynamic.

Also, perhaps intel hardware will take some mac considerations into their development, resulting in better chips...

Well, it is certainly tough to predict what the course of events will be in face of the new development. But I don't suppose the market will take it lying down. It may be the beginning of a new era for Apple. Now they'd be able to benefit from the low costs and high performance of the Intel chips. But also it'd be able to dual-boot, so this might not be all that bad a thing.
It is quite possible that their market share may, as a result of this, increase.
This, I think is a dodgy situation for Linux. Now perhaps we'd be facing tougher competition. There is no doubt that Linux is a far more superior piece of software,but the timing of switch couldn't have been worse, now that Linux has started to come out of the nooks and crannies and earn its righful place under the sun. It is just becoming a bit too frustrating now. Confounded corporates!! When will we receive deliverance??

Pretty much agree with what alot of people are saying, I think apple will increase their market share a little bit by selling some cheaper stuff, although I do think it is a bit dangerous for them...the troll inside of me thinks that its good for foss because apple wouldn't have much going for them when they switch, you can already get bsd on x86 :p I'm sure some ppc die hards will be done with apple, but the orange sunglasses crowd will eat up cheap macs :p Ok, trolling done, forgive me :tisk:

Really depends on how they go about it. If they make proprietary intel boxes a requirment to run OS X and price them at 2 or 3 thousand for a normal looking dekstop, then u can kiss their ass goodbye. However, if they are smart about it and open up their intel hardware so people can go out and buy hardware, even if the selection of hardware is limited, then they can do very well.

One potentially good thing for linux is that this could bring to the mental landscape of the PC user that they are other OSes out there.

We don't often think about the fact that for most people, the OS doesn't exist as a product. It's like the engine of the car. It comes with it and needs to be maintained and occasionally repaired. Only nutters think of changing it for better.

there's nothing in it for linux.. in the first approach, at least. who buys the new intel-based mac, stays with macos.. and the macos won't run on pc's that use bios - it does not support bios.
but the good thing is there for the third - party software developers. once you build an app for macos, rebuilding for linux is a piece of cake. and the other way round..
another thing is, that with macos getting a bigger share of the market the population of users who ever had to do with unix-like systems grows. and they are a natural base of linux supporters..

I'd buy stock in Apple too .. just as Microsoft did.

What this means is that Unix has arrived on the mainstream Intel-compatible computers ... that is to say, as part-and-parcel of a recognized brand name. It may well be that for now, Apple wishes to continue to emphasize "hardware" and they may restrict their OS to "their" hardware, but the point has been clearly made that Apple was able to fundamentally switch hardware platforms with little more than a recompile, and to do it accurately in a very short amount of time.

Until now, the traditional personal-computer market has been split along parallel "hardware-and-software" lines. Microsoft had the larger "x86" playing field to itself; Apple ran on esoteric equipment. That has now changed.

I expect that the next move will be made by the PC manufacturers: they will demand, and succeed, to be released from "hardware-and-software" agreements. They will choose a Linux "brand," or make their own.

I also expect that the price of personal-computer hardware will fall to ~$100 USD, with the major distributor being Wal-Mart. At those levels, Windows is simply too expensive.

As long as large PC manufacturers are getting a piece of the MS tax and the subsidies from Intel for using their processors, I doubt that many will be in a rush to introduce computers with other operating systems. Personally I think the status quo is going to be the same for a long time. Apple will continue getting slight gains because their hardware is still too expensive even after switching to x86. Linux will continue gaining market share due to more exposure in the enterprise but on personal desktops, I think the gains won't be really dramatic. MS will continue to be the big dog on x86 based systems especially after they release Vista and all the Windows loving folk go on an upgrade spree.

If prices are reasonable I think the switch could be very bad for Linux. I think the corporate world will be the starting point for a switch from Windows and reasonable priced Mac boxes with full Office support look a lot better than Linux boxes without it in that application.

I wont read any replies until I post this, just to be done with what this poll inspires me and then contrast that initial feeling (post) with the rest of the thread...

First of all, I think that being Apple and Microsoft two enterprises (and quite successful ones, I may add), they're here simply because of one thing: Money. They want the biggst share because of the revenue that implies. Even when Microsoft nowadays holds the prime locus on the market today, doesn't mean they will always do so, and with Mac starting to compete on the same ground (PC and x86) for the first time will cause quite a stirr to Microsoft share, I'm sure.

Even when Mac will be easier to come by, and even when they will be competing on the same ground, Microsoft still enjoys of one advantage: No [PC] hardware lock in. Ironic, isn't it? Apple is still primarily a hardware company, comparable to that effect with HP, down to the OS, as they've got their own. That means a lot of advantages for Microsoft as their software runs on a wide variety of hardware configurations, that also means that the system has to be quite tolerant too and should be able to work with a lot of hardware in a basic configuration, and depend on IHVs to provide the device drivers for the immense variety of hardware out there.

Apple, on the other hand, has stated they are not willing to do so and will keep to their own hardware platform, effectively locking in their great OS to their own machines (the means should be the least of your worries). Locking into a specific hardware platform has its benefits, especially in regards of control of what is supported and what isn't and has an overall easier management in the hardware department, however that also means that people will still look for alternatives as they won't provide a model for which people has grown used to: one size fits all, not to mention that also means division of markets.

I don't know how likely would this be, but suppose that Intel is "forced" to fork its products (even more) to supply Apple with what the Macs will use, and still be able to compete on the Windows® and Linux arena against palyers like VIA, Transmeta or AMD, in that sense Apple could transform into an anchor for Intel slowing down their development of new technology as the other players still fight their position in the market with aggressive innovation, which Windows® and Linux users will be able to enjoy pretty much right away.

The best way to avoid this, IMO is for Apple to "open" their Mac OS platform to the whole range of PC products out there and for Apple to use what gets the job done faster, easier and represents the most revenue, like HP, Gateway, Dell and others do... With an ace up their sleeve: Mac OS... However achieving that won't be an easy task and maybe it is in their road maps for the forseeable future, but has not been disclosed yet (I have to grant Apple that, they know when to keep their big mouths shut). In the mean time, only how well can they advertise the new line of Mac-PCs and money invested in such campaign will tell. Figures for their "performance" have started to be seen, and I'm not so sure whether to believe them or not, could be that PPC MacOS codebase was froze and the Intel codebase has great improvements (especially in the trheading department)... Taht's a bit conspiratory, but you can never know with these companies, I guess, hehe.

Now, I did not state what will this mean for Linux. I think that, as said by other people here as well, the trend will continue with both Mac and Linux increasing their userbase little by little. I'm pretty sure that as new Mac products are made available bursts of people will buy them, but in the long run the increase will be more steady. Linx won't go away either and while Mac may take the spotlight from it initially, I'm conviced it will still get the amount of ink it has been getting lately.

Sure, getting into the desktop will be harder, but that only means a big attention call for major Linux vendors like Novell, Mandriva, Red Hat, Xandros et al. Linux will have to really start to unite (at least enforce more aggressively the LSB) to avoid inconsistencies in the way the system is layed out across a bunch of distributions (especially when you talk about the major ones). Maybe a board should be formed (if it doesn't already exists) to issue revisions to the LSB and as new technology is made available, how to include it into the distrubitons, like the ARB board or the OpenDocument board. Linux needs consistency across the many distributions.

What has proved to be a real challenge for Linux, is getting into the desktop, the server is far easier to tackle, and is a market segment where it holds a strong positoin with a birght future. On the desktop in the other hand, it faces many challenges, from the UI, to features to appeal. I would have to agree that a Linux branded PC is needed, and that the technology is already there to provide it... at quite competitive prices and with tons of competitive features... if it is allowed to enter the market, that is.

Problem with computers is that they're no longer devices that are used for specific tasks, but rather multi purpose appliances. And here (IMO) media plays an almost decisive roll. What in the world am I talking about? Well that even if the platform is more robust, better engineered and even implemented, it won't succeed as people expect it behave in a way they've grown used to... The best example is the immense collections pretty much any computer user has of digital music. We all know what the deal is with .mp3, but if it were only about .mp3 I'm sure the issue could be solved easier, but what about Windows Media® formats? Even further, major media appliances (like digital portable media players) pretty much only support these closed standards. While support is possible for such standards, the legal implications could be too daunting to even prevent manufacturers or possible manufacturers to even consider the problem, and to stay on the safe side, like Red Hat does by not providing support of such standards isn't a good bet, as people will pass on the offerings. I'm not sure whether Windows Media® formats could be licensed and as such be incorporated into a Linux offering (though it would certainly look odd).

Another issue is application support, there's a lot of people that even after trying open applications like OOo still prefer to stick to Office (and even though it is possible to get it runing on Linux trough Cross Over Office, for instance, or Wine, it is not perfect). Certainly as people is being exposed to the system and the applications mature, this won't be a problem at all, but currently it certainly is.

So given these two main aspects, I believe that Apple and Windows will retain their dominance (at least while applications mature and while open media formats gain momentum), still I believe Linux will become a viable alternative for them both as time passes and as it improves.

It is interesting that you say that Microsoft "has no hardware lock-in" when, compared to Linux (and BSD-Unix), they are extremely locked-in. Windows-NT runs only on Intel-compatible hardware. Linux/Unix runs on no less than twenty-four systems, and that's just its stock distributions. Anything from a mainframe to an iPod, and it's the same system throughout. That's never been possible before!

I agree that Apple is "fundamentally a hardware company," and I doubt that they will switch to being an OS-vendor, but what they have proved here is that they can easily switch their offerings from one hardware platform to another, essentially at will, while Microsoft can't. Each new deployment is a massive development effort which MS must fund and staff solely by itself.

"The market," as I see it, is much larger than "the desktop." Apple, for example, also sells rack-mounted servers to the pharmaceutical industry. They have the software-basis to do that, and it is the same one that they run on their desktop machines. And when you get right down to it, it's Unix. And that's really important: instead of building yet-another proprietary structure from the ground-up beside what already exists, Apple can build on top of it and climb higher, faster.

We Unix-heads have known this for years. (Gee, I wonder if I can get Linux to run on my microwave oven ... yup.) For the Intel/Windows people it's rather a new idea.

I think that hardware and software have been very tightly locked-together in the past: that's reflected in almost every aspect of how desktop computing equipment is marketed and sold. Whether the hardware and software are provided by one company or by two, it's been an "either this combination or that combination" choice .. until now. As we continue to offer more different types of hardware (PDAs, hybrid phones, GPSes, god-knows-what-else), we're going to need to be able to easily "cross over." Apple is demonstrating that with the right software it's easy to do that.

Microsoft has been cooing about "monopoly" and has been trying to reassure everyone that this (a) really exists and (b) is a Good Thing .. stay locked-in with us and we'll take care of you forever .. partly because this is all that they are capable of doing right now. Hmmm... IBM, which is a vastly bigger and more experienced company, seems to be doing something quite different.

Even as "a hardware company," where "anything you buy from us is something that you can see and hold in your hand," this is a great proof-of-concept of the value of versatility. Which Windows does not have.

Thanks for pointing that out, I meant is not locked in, in terms of single vendor components for x86(_64) architectures. Of course I am aware of the insanely high number of platforms, BSD, Unix (SysV) and Linux support.

I'm going to disagree (just a little) with the idea that Apple is fundamentally a hardware company. To my way of looking at it, their real strenght is as an interface company. Sometimes the interface is expressed as hardware (like the iPod) or sometimes it is expressed as software (like OSX). I've always thought that the brilliance of OSX was that it freed Apple from worrying about the stuff that they didn't do very well (namely the core parts of an OS) and let them focus on what they truly excel at which is the human-machine interaction.

That said, it is very clear that Apple thinks of itself as a hardware company and I believe that until they discard that notion, they are going to remain pretty much where they are now. However, if they do decide that they are an interface company that just happens to sell a bit of hardware, then the sky is the limit. Apple has long had serious cachet and were largely held back by the premium price they insisted on charging. If they were to release a competitively priced version of OSX that runs on any Intel platform, it would put a serious dent in Windows. And perversely, if OSX became a much more accepted standard, you would probably find a lot more people willing to shell out the cash for a full Apple system (hardware plus software). By letting OSX run on anything, they might actually boost the sales of the machines they most want to sell.

As far as Linux goes, I think that on the desktop, Linux is heading where OSX currently is but Linux has the advantage of not being tied to hardware. If Apple never unties OSX from Apple hardware, then I think Linux will continue to slowly grow as an acceptable desktop OS. However, if Apple does sell a general version of OSX, then the Linux desktop is probably going to take a serious blow. OSX is simply a much better desktop than anything running on Linux and since Apple doesn't have to spend much on the underlying OS, then can devote their full effort to making an excellent desktop even better. That would relegate Linux to the realms of servers and hobbyists.

I would not categorically say that "OS/X is better than anything Linux has to offer," and mind you, I use both systems almost every day. But, there is definitely a level of sophistication to what Apple provides "in the hands of the average Joe or Jane" that is somewhat hit-or-miss in the Linux world. There's a world of difference between the Red Hat 7.0 that I started with and the Gentoo 2005.1 that I use today.

And part of that, I think, does have to do with the fact that Apple sells both the hardware and the software, and maintains a tight grip on both. You plug it in, you turn it on, it runs, and it never occurs to you that it might not. The quality of PC-compatible hardware is very "hit-or-miss" too, and when someone intends to use a piece of equipment, say, to edit a documentary or even a feature-length movie, that can be an issue. Y'know, when you're doing $50,000 or more worth of work and you need to explain to the money-people how you're going to go about it, it really helps to say that you're using a toolset that's very familiar to them, and a brand-name that has a lot of clout. That is a "hardware and software, together" thing.

What ties them all together software-wise, and what ties Microsoft out right now, is that they all (basically) run Unix. For these purposes, "Linux is Unix is Linux." (Sorry, SCO...) Apple is joining the party, not creating it (for the second time), and they may well persuade us Penguin-heads of the need to wear Tux-uedos. :D

apple looks good
 

Apple hardware looks good. It does look good. And also OSX. I have now a PC and a laptop with dual boot: Windoze (which was preloaded in them) and a custom Slackware Linux which I like very much. I think my next laptop will be an Intel-based Apple with dual boot: OSX (after all I would be paying for it so I will use it - looks good) and Slackware Linux.

I understand that an Intel processor would make easier to install Slackware (being able to use the "normal" Slack rather than the PPC-ported Slackintosh)

By the way, my Slackware box does look like OSX when I use GNOME ;) I use a bunch of themes, icons, window decorations, etc that look like OSX. So Linux can look good! (something that Windoze can not do).

Think of it again, as actually there is no way to install Windows nor Linux on those machines, according to here.

As you can read in that article, those machines don't have BIOS, have a replacement called EFI. And don't use MBR to boot; use GPT, a replacement of MBR for EFI-based systems.

I'm sticking to the built-by-myself-good-old IBM-cloned PC; my always trusteable AMD64 and nVidia based systems :D

Just my :twocents:

not losing the hopes
 

I remember having seen an option in the kernel for trying to boot from EFI; although is experimental. I will investigate further about GPT. I am still reluctant to use GRUB2 as it's still alpha; but I could end using it. I already use a remasterized Slack so I could remasterize one with a kernel and a bootloader fit for these new animals.

I think I will borrow one of these new Macs and try to do it on it before I think about buying one. Thanx!

If it doesn't work, I can still use my Toshiba Satellite ;)

"With Linux, things are different and a solution is likely to be available very soon after these notebooks hit the streets."

"Of course, none of these problems are insurmountable and it is very likely that Fedora, Mandriva, SUSE and Ubuntu will all have full support for the MacBook Pro soon after these new Apple laptops start shipping."

Yes, there is an option in the kernel to boot off EFI devices, and it is under "processor type and settings", I think.
It seems to only be available for i386 architecture (x86_64 doesn't show the option)

(*) Who cares about platform wars, really

But the really nice thing about Linux is that the Linux developer community will provide .. and in fact have already built .. support for new things like EFI.

After all, the "wire heads" ;) who design these new features do a great deal of their work in Unix/Linux systems. Plus, Unix/Linux has always been firmly entrenched in some very cutting-edge, heavy-duty requirements such as biological and pharmaceutical research, and of course, ~~CENSORED~~ ... Naturally, Apple's going to keep ahead of "the Joneses" on their hardware, and to that, they're actually taking advantage of hardware support that is already available in their (and our) platform...

Intel apparently already has a EFI bootloader for Linux !

Apple knows that the linux people will buy their wares and they love it cause Linux doesn't need to be supported, they don't even need to advertise or to spend a man day doing drivers or porting any application.

Anyway, linux runs on everything. That won't be an exception. As to whether that's a good idea is another question altogether.

Yeah, I look on what Apple has done as a vindication of the Linux/Unix strategy, not a threat to it.

By embracing what BSD Unix and Mach (and the NeXT code) could do, Apple has been able to focus on what "the Macintosh" can do .. and they are able to remain focused on that, even when they choose to completely-replace the hardware platform for what is now the third time in the Mac's existence. The switch from MacOS to OS/X was substantial; the switch from OS/X-PowerPC to OS/X-Intel (by comparison) is not. It's a cross-compile... a new /arch/xxx subdirectory in the source-tree...

"The Penguin" has little to fear from OS/X because the two are very close cousins. The essential differences are software, and those differences are quite slight. Sure, it's competition, but that's a Good Thing.

The one who has much to fear, now, is Microsoft .. whose much-touted "non-opoly" is beginning to look quite limited and tawdry. Not really a fair assessment... Windows-NT is actually quite good, technically... but in the world of commerce, really it is the overall Windows strategy that is now looking quite non-competitive and dated. The "fundamental" principles underlying the Windows non-opoly will finally be exposed to be ... just plain wrong! (And the sooner that MS comes to grips with this, flying at them like a red-hot iron skillet aimed straight for their face ... pwa-a-a-ang! ... the better for them as a company!)

IMHO I don't see Apple as an Linux-allied somehow nor a threat neither. Apple just is another player, playing the game with the available tools, as best as it can. I don't expect too much compatibility between Linux and those new MacInteltoshes, though of course once these machines become more widespread there shall be more community-development over them walls.

I still see that Linux can't write properly on NTFS partitions, and Micro$oft is willing to take advantage of such lock-ons and try to control Linux development, not stop it or erase it as that can't be done by now and Micro$oft also needs Linux/Unix (they use it on their servers of course). I can't foretell how Apple would act on the x86 desktop dominance war, their motto is to lock-on their hardware on their software and keep it that way; albeit as sundialsvcs said, competition is always good; and Micro$oft is on more trouble than anytime before :) which makes me happy somehow :D

microsoft will port its crap to the apple platform. don't they already make software for mac's ? all i can think of right now is office, but i've got a funny feeling there's more than that. (i don't own a mac, the last one i had was 66mhz of awesomeness - and then it died :( )
call me crazy, but i don't see apple or linux taking a jumbo chunk out of the microsoft market.

If you look on Microsoft as the "all-powerful genie" that its marketing literature (naturally...) portrays it as ... "and Bill Gates is his prophet" etc ... then that's missing the point. Likewise, if you view the company as "the Evil Empire," you're missing it too.

For most of their customers, Microsoft is the company that sells them their typewriter. The net-profit to Microsoft from any one of those sales is probably less than a hundred bucks. Purely a volume business with not much profit in it.

Where things get interesting is in the side of computing that most end-users never see: the world of the raised-floor, with rack-mounted computers by the hundreds. That is where the real battles are fought, and this is where Linux is consistently winning.

But it is also a world that is very resistant to change, because change is very risky and expensive. The cost of a Windows license is paltry compared to the cost of those hundreds or thousands of transactions-per-second suddenly failing to get done. Change, therefore, is slow and evolutionary. Almost pedantic. And the "best answers" to these decisions are by no means obvious, by no means simple. We all have to keep that in mind.

here's an article which appeared today, about why WindowsXP and Vista won't run on the MacInteltoshes :study:

Cute.. but way off-topic IMHO..

And btw, who on Earth would like to do such a thing?? I haven't been using Windows in any form for two years now - and I don't miss it at all..

Well. usually at Polls, I leave an option open: "Neither, see my message"....;)

This is my VOTE NOW, my crystal ball says that with millions of children and parents brought into computing by the Green Laptops of OLPC & MIT running in Linux. the difficult (and expensive) step will be switching into MicroSoft and Linux will become the MAJORITY... maybe... if the most powerful subject (Mr. Dollars) don´t dictate otherwise... :(

Correction: The right option was there after all: Microsoft & Apple will fight for going into the www . laptop . org project but they refuse to give their O.S. at $1.- USDLL. so millions of users use the "Green Laptop Linux" (GLL) and stay there because of the expense of doing anything else. I want a SubForum in GLL. End of Game. ;) :) Signed by IBM-650 user.

"And so it came to pass"
 

Apple lets you run Windows XP on Macinteltosh

:eek: doom to us all

Yeah, shocking news. I was reading about that on ZDNet...

I might be a minority, but I really don't think Apple's switch to Intel would do much to help them increase their market share. Hardly anything's gonna change.

Linux and Apple are both going to get more and more marketshare.
But I think Microsoft will still keep its monopoly position for now.

I mean.. it IS preinstalled on nearly every computer you buy..

I wonder what would happen if all of a sudden a manufacturer decided to only support Linux (and other OSes, but not install Windows) on their PCs? I don't think such manufacturer would make such a big indent in Microsoft's position, unless they had a really solid product... With Linux being each time more and more robust... who knows.

Linux, however, will probably make significant inroads on the corporate level. This may create a split in the computer world, similar to the split between Nintendo and Sega system and real computer desktops. Home and commerical computers will each be a seperate genre and not merely the same system with different configurations.

Apple has a problem, because they have not yet started to have a major focus on the corporate scene. They still are a pure home computer. A corporate hold may eventually leak into home computing, especially since many home computers are used by employees for business, but home computing does not influence very much the corporate world. Companies did not start using cartridges because Nintendo and Sega used them. But floppies became popular for games. (One may argue that CD are used globally, although originally only used for music. However CDs stem from professional use, not home systems.)

As for mac on intel, I don't think it really will make a difference. As long as it looks like a mac, smells like a mac, and moves like a mac, it's a mac. People won't notice the difference in the hardware. Hardware issues are mainly driver issues, and those Mac and Linux still find to be a hurdle.

Murdock