I am no market analyst. I would never want to be one, for that matter, so I am not.
I am, however, stalked by several thoughts on the matter of yesterday's Apple's announcement of "plans to deliver models of its Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors".
The questions, which are bothering me are:
1. The Megabytes Myth.
Is it just me, or somebody else remember, too, that first G4, and than G5 processors were introduced as first true 64-bit processing chips (after G5s appeared, the G4s somehow were removed from the 64-bit processing scene, anybody remember that? I am still compelled by the fact, that my iMac Flat Screen is not a 64-bit processor ANYMORE, but I understand now why it's running so slow recently. It used to be a lot faster, when it was a 64-bit. Sucks.), which are incomparably better, than whimpy Intels?
From the no-market-analyst point of view, there are two explanations to this phenomenon: a) The Megabytes Myth is not a Myth, which subjectively very much appears to be true, or b) The PowerPC processor is going to follow the Betacam path, as being to expensiveve to be profitable, regardless of it's superiority.
In both cases the customers (us, that is) are getting (or were for a while) screwed by our beloved company. Pick your answer, relax, and try to enjoy it.
2. The Mac OS X+.
The fact that Apple plans to produce computers, capable of running Windows OS as well as Mac OS is very scary looking - for me, again. Although it would be very convenient from the professional point of view to run Windows natively from time to time, without resorting to painfully slow VirtualPC emulator (as I have to do, being a web designer, and designing for the web means necessity to account for 96% of the surfers, using IE for Windows), my unprofessional point of view is rather simple: for as long, as Macs were unique under the hood, they required a unique operating system to run, which resulted in a very nice one - eventually - OS X. If Apple adapts the generic technology, the need for the OS will die. Slowly and painfully (again, for us, users). Apple will make pretty machines, which will happily run Windows OS, and happily charge us for classy design and fantastic packaging, along with the overpriced support.
Guess, who are getting screwed in this scenario.
I am no market analyst. But not everything in this world is profit-oriented.
I am just a guy who used both Macs and Windows-based PCs, and liked Macs better.
I am, however, stalked by several thoughts on the matter of yesterday's Apple's announcement of "plans to deliver models of its Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors".
The questions, which are bothering me are:
1. The Megabytes Myth.
Is it just me, or somebody else remember, too, that first G4, and than G5 processors were introduced as first true 64-bit processing chips (after G5s appeared, the G4s somehow were removed from the 64-bit processing scene, anybody remember that? I am still compelled by the fact, that my iMac Flat Screen is not a 64-bit processor ANYMORE, but I understand now why it's running so slow recently. It used to be a lot faster, when it was a 64-bit. Sucks.), which are incomparably better, than whimpy Intels?
From the no-market-analyst point of view, there are two explanations to this phenomenon: a) The Megabytes Myth is not a Myth, which subjectively very much appears to be true, or b) The PowerPC processor is going to follow the Betacam path, as being to expensiveve to be profitable, regardless of it's superiority.
In both cases the customers (us, that is) are getting (or were for a while) screwed by our beloved company. Pick your answer, relax, and try to enjoy it.
2. The Mac OS X+.
The fact that Apple plans to produce computers, capable of running Windows OS as well as Mac OS is very scary looking - for me, again. Although it would be very convenient from the professional point of view to run Windows natively from time to time, without resorting to painfully slow VirtualPC emulator (as I have to do, being a web designer, and designing for the web means necessity to account for 96% of the surfers, using IE for Windows), my unprofessional point of view is rather simple: for as long, as Macs were unique under the hood, they required a unique operating system to run, which resulted in a very nice one - eventually - OS X. If Apple adapts the generic technology, the need for the OS will die. Slowly and painfully (again, for us, users). Apple will make pretty machines, which will happily run Windows OS, and happily charge us for classy design and fantastic packaging, along with the overpriced support.
Guess, who are getting screwed in this scenario.
I am no market analyst. But not everything in this world is profit-oriented.
I am just a guy who used both Macs and Windows-based PCs, and liked Macs better.