toggle

AAPL Stock: 562.29 ( -3.03 )

MacNN News

Apple taking on Dell? AMD partnership coming?

updated 05:05 pm EDT, Thu June 9, 2005

Fool.com on Apple-Intel

Apple's real target, Dell and other PC companies, was the driving force behind Apple's Intel Switch, according to a Motley Fool columnist. "," which will enable Apple to grow its marketshare, tout head-to-head performance comparisons with Windows on similar hardware, draw more switchers (than the number of lost Mac faithful), and could lead to Mac OS X licensing to other PC manufacturers.

by MacNN Staff

(34)

TAGS :

Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

climacs
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

06/09, 05:18pm | report spam | close Reply |
hit 'im with the chair!

God I would love to see Jobs wipe that smile off Dell's face.

climacs
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

06/09, 05:45pm | report spam | close Reply |
Cringely vs. Motley Fool

is it Apple/Intel vs. Microsoft? Or Apple vs. Dell?

hmm. Apple/Intel vs. MSFT makes more sense to me if being bought out is Steve's ultimate goal. If he intends to remain independent, Apple vs. Dell.

By the way what is the possibility of someone buying Apple? Is the stock really as cheap as Cringely makes it to be?

Their current market cap is $31 billion, so if you wanted to buy Apple you'd need 50%+1 shares or $16.5 billion plus some kind of premium. Let's say it's 20%, so $20 billion.

Intel's market cap is just shy of $171 billion today. Seems like they could buy Apple with stock, most if not all of the purchase. And of course Apple has all that money in the bank.

Am I way off?

:dragonflypro:
Senior User

Joined: Sep 2003

0

06/09, 05:55pm | report spam | close Reply |
"Get a Mac!"

Suddenly has new meaning�

Buy a mac with the security of being able to 'fall back' on windows if you really have too.

But once they have you in X, why would you want too?

And for those die hard corp users they are a 2 for 1 workstation.

Swiss-Army-Mac.

T

Louis_SX
Junior Member

Joined: May 2005

0

06/09, 06:36pm | report spam | close Reply |
lost faithful?

I can't figure out these pundits who talk about the "lost" Mac faithful that are going to disappear from Apple's sales. The only people I can think of who'd do anything of the sort are the technical snobs who love PPC to the death, and what are they going to use to be productive? Amiga OS4? Do you really think there will be other PPC machines that keep pace with the performance Macs will have on x86? There will be no more PPC-based computers. It'll be a console chip from here on out. Sure, it was faster clock-for-clock than Intel's Netburst scam, but it's done. In 5-7 years, even a 2.7GHz G5 will be slow, and I don't see other PPC platforms for the technology snobs to go to. Get a grip! There's nowhere for Apple's marketshare to go but up, and it'll bring us Mac faithful kicking and screaming all the way.

the Rebel
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2000

0

06/09, 06:55pm | report spam | close Reply |
licensing

The only reason why Apple should ever OEM license OS X to other PC manufacturers would be if Apple wanted to get out of the Mac hardware business. As long as Apple continues to design new Macs, there is no tangible benefit from OEM licensing th OS.

Apple can make a Mac as cheap as any other PC. Steve Job may not want to make cheaper Macs, but that is no reason to let some other manufacturer collect most of the software profit and all of the hardware profit. If Apple wants to allow other PC manufacturers to sell PCs with OS X pre-installed then Apple should charge the manufacturer $129 per copy. Apple would lose the profit from the hardware sale, but at least the would still collect the full software profit.

Also, the poster saying that there will be no more PPC based computers is absolutely wrong. IBM's PPC chips are used in most of the world's fastest computers. IBM is not going to stop using PPC processors in their computers just because Apple says that they are going to Intel.

BTW, if Apple is stupid enough to OEM license OS X to other PC manufacturers then I hope that IBM will decide to OEM license OS X for some of their own systems.

jhorvatic
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2005

0

06/09, 07:01pm | report spam | close Reply |
OSX licensing not in the

I don't see OSX getting licensed out to other PC vendors anytime soon. Not even 10 years from now. Apple is a hardware company building computer hardware of there own. OSX is for Apple computer's use in there own systems only. I don't think they could make enough money if they gave up there hardware business and just licensed there OS software. I think they know it as well so that's why I don't see them ever licensing OSX. If they did that I don't think they would last long as a company and then everyone would lose.

Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Oct 2001

0

06/09, 07:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
Total BS

BS based on nothing...!

action
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 2003

0

06/09, 07:22pm | report spam | close Reply |
osx licensing is...

hi folks,

anyone who thinks apple wouldn't abandon, sell, or get out of the computer building business is crazy. they could and can do it in a heart beat.

what was apple's total revenue last year? 20 billion? not profit but revenue.

out of that 40% was from ipod sales, 10% from software sales and the rest from selling computers.

so 50% of 20 billion is 10 billion in hardware sales.

didn't jobs just announce they have already sold 2 million copies of tiger in 2 months. that's $250 million. that comes out to 1.5 billion in revenue for tiger alone for a year. not counting final cut and all the other software apple would make on all these new computers needing software. no wonder microsoft hasn't killed off the mac business unit.

this whole notion of apple not licensing osx because it will kill off their hardware and their hardware is too profitable to lose is non sense. with all that revenue apple only made a few billion in profit. the overhead for hardware revenue has to very high compared to software revenue.

apple divided it's computer business from the ipod business.

they did this knowing it would be easier to sell the mac computer hardware business this way. or have it taken over by let's say intel.

apple licensing osx to third party manufacturers is not far fetched and maybe apple's long term strategy.

chung lee

the financial numbers abover were taken from memory and rounded off from apple's last financial earnings report i read. mostly for illustrative purposes but i think the numbers are pretty close.

rotuts
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Jan 2001

0

06/09, 07:23pm | report spam | close Reply |
Drivel from Fools

there not called Fools for nothing. this is just hype with no basis. Sure Apple would like to beat Dell, etc and have 96% of the market. its about faster chips for top of the line powerbooks, and close to top chips for the rest. Intel can make chips more reliably than AMD, and will leap ahead of AMD in the future and AMD will leap back. People buy Dell because: they are forced to run Windows, they like cheap, they are ignorant of the OS differences, Don't care or are hard core gamers. for the rest its the OS.

koolkid1976
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2003

0

06/09, 09:56pm | report spam | close Reply |
OS X on Intel

Will splap bloated Longhorn silly performance wise.

LouZer
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2000

0

06/09, 10:45pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: OS X on intel

Will splap bloated Longhorn silly performance wise.

Or it'll really bring to light that OS X's problems weren't processor dependent at all, but just Apple not trying to fix up their OS, rather than dumping new unfinished feature after new unfinished feature.

And you people say windows is bloated...

rkadowns
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/09, 11:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: OS X on intel

This transition could expose, in an ugly way, the performance hit of a micro-kernel. Not that it hasn't already developed a bad reputation.

I hope Apple has a trick up their sleve.

wrecklass
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2005

0

06/10, 12:37am | report spam | close Reply |
Wrong competitor again

If this were true, and I don't know, it would mean that Apple is once again focusing on the wrong competitor. From 1984 to 1995 Apple focused all of its attention on fighting IBM. Turned out that the real competitor was Microsoft.

In 2005 it's exactly the same, Dell is NOT the problem for Apple's marketshare. Nobody buys a Dell because they don't want OS X. They buy Microsoft because they need software, and MS controls the desktop market.

I wish for ONCE Apple would aim at the right target. Give up on the hardware, if you don't believe you can make billions on selling Software only, you are completely blind to what Gates and Co. has done.

ThePhoenix
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2005

0

06/10, 02:19am | report spam | close Reply |
Apple wont use AMD

We have all come to know Steve pretty well over the years. And I can say with relative certainty that Apple will not use AMD chips in the near future. The Apple/IBM/Motorola PowerPC alliance was not IBM's only processor alliance. IBM has a long history with AMD and Jobs is POed at IBM. IBM and AMD currently share many manufacturing facilities. Also back in the early 80s IBM required what was known as "second-sourcing" (there must be at least 2 suppliers for everything incase one should not be able to meet demand, a lesson Apple could have learned earlier) of all parts they used and therefore are the main reason AMD was able to make Intel compatible chips.

Jobs would not give IBM the satisfaction of stepping to a company IBM help to keep alive and still has tight ties with today. At least not in the near future.

ZinkDifferent
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

06/10, 03:36am | report spam | close Reply |
The Thread is about DELL

... not 'should Apple license OS X'

Regarding DELL, Apple will never be able to take on DELL and win, as DELL is all about low-price PCs, which is the exact opposite of what Apple is about (premium boxes at premium prices).

I'm a die-hard Apple guy, but I buy Dell products - why? Because they are high-quality, and they are infinitely less expensive than what Apple offers (peripherals, not computers, obviously - duh!)

To wit: I just bought a 20" widescreen Ultrasharp display ($387), and just ordered the 24" Ultrasharp display ($950) - both compare more than favorable to Apple's 20" ($799) and 23" ($1,499) offerings. The DELL displays' screens are manufactured by Samsung (same as Apple's) and put together by BenQ (a darn god manufacturer), and include many extras, at almost half the price of Apple.

I then bought a Canon ZR100 camcorder for $217 from Dell (available for $349 from Apple), as well as DELL's 2300MP projector ($950) for a home video system (Apple offers comparable projectors in the $1299-$1499 range).

Now, if you were looking for a PC/Win system, DELL has those starting at ridiculous prices $399 for 2.8GHz systems, most including monitors for $50; and servers are available at comparable performance to XServes, at half the price. Linux runs just fine on those, thank you very much.

Thus, in summary, Apple will never be able to compete with, or beat, DELL at present business practices - just because their business (Apple's) is not pushing boxes, at low margins. It could be, but then Apple would lose much of their allure, so I doubt they will switch to such a business model.

Then again, I never thought they would move to intel...

(but now that they are, it's a very, very good thing...)

ZinkDifferent

resuna
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

06/10, 07:17am | report spam | close Reply |
Mach is not a microkernel

Mach is not a traditional microkernel, it's an extremely large and complex beast, larger then most microkernel operating systems, kernel, servers, and all. On top of that, the way it does message passing by memory mapping keeps it from taking advantage of the usual techniques realtime systems use to implement fast microkernels.

The best known real-time microkernel, QNX, managed to fit the kernel itself in the L1 cache of a 486. THAT is how you get high performance from a microkernel.

ibugv4
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

06/10, 07:51am | report spam | close Reply |
its true

Apple is a high-profile brand. It means you're somebody if you have Mac, where before in the 90s an Mac was seen as, well, an expensive toy.. much like people with tattoo sleeves (whole arm covered) --- it was different, pretty and expensive. But the users loved it and swore by it. Dell cannot say that. The comparison of the Lexus of computing always comes up, because a Mac does hold the desktop crown for what a system should be, a system done right. Everything else is basically a knockoff, but since most people don't want to pay the price, they take the knockoff.

Apple could license their OS, but I don't think they want to take on MS like that. They'd rather just take over media markets and keep their happy hippie computer camp going. That's who Apple really is: they don't care what everyone else is doing, they do it their own way. That's the only thing that keeps me tied to them.

michaeljohn63
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2005

0

06/10, 08:11am | report spam | close Reply |
This is silly

Apple is NOT going to beat Dell at selling computers. I wish it could (sort of) but the compromise in quality is (thankfully) too much for The Steve. His mantra has always been: if its not cool in his eyes (which is usually very cool indeed), then it won't have Apple's name on it. Dell sells ugly, stupid, crappy, and yes, very inexpensive computers. That's their bread and butter. They can sell a truckload of desktops to a company for next to nothing, knowing that they will get the benefit of profits from other sources. That's there business model and it does very well for Dell. Apple is and always will be (as long as Steve is there) a completely different "animal." Dell is the least innovative large player in the computer industry, in terms of its products. The ONLY thing innovative about Dell is how to make money without actually inventing anything (e.g keeping stocks low, selling direct, getting very inexpensive components, volum discounting, etc.). Yuck!

Roehlstation
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/10, 08:32am | report spam | close Reply |
For the love of Pete

They are not taking on anything but the preservation of their own future.

So many of these "experts" have been looking at this announcement at something more than what it is.

I can't wait for the newness to wear off because I'm tired of being flooded with analysts thoughts as if they are a psychiatrist asking you if you were a lonely child.

Alexei
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/10, 08:34am | report spam | close Reply |
Survival

It�s not about taking on anybody. Forget the showbiz hype and get real. Apple needs to survive as a viable business, they know iPod and iTunes are not going to save them long term, they need to keep making computers that are competitive in price and performance. Intel deal will help them do that. I doubt their market share will rise significantly if they keep operating on proprietary model. And licensing is too risky at this point, pretty much impossible. Apple�s dead. Long live Apple!

ecrelin
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

06/10, 09:12am | report spam | close Reply |
ability to deliver volume

has never been one of Apple's strong points. Every hot item has been backordered for months, Apple faithful wait and b****, commodity buyers will cancel the order and move on. Think about this for a second, Qtr 1 for 2005, 46.1 million computers shipped worldwide, of that Dell 8.7 million, HP 7.1 million, Apple 1.1 million. That means Dell shipped 752,000 machines a week (see why he's smiling) That is three fourths of what Apple shipped the whole quarter. Dell and HP didn't build that manufacturing capability in a year or even two. Where are these ghost factories that will manufacture high quality Apples at these volumes? It will be a slow crawl for marketshare and the competitors will not stand around and just watch. They did get one thing right and that is that there will be no bargain basement Macs, the chip price is only one small portion of the cost of a machine.

Forget licensing, simply make it so it can be installed on capable PCs and sell it as a stand alone with support only for "qualified" machines. That will allow many many people to become OS X fans and maybe then they will wait in line for one. I have six friends now that moved from PCs (read Windows) because of headaches and they can't believe how much they like the Mac (read OS, yes they like the box too but it's the experience, two of the six are really into the box, the others could care less). You've got to get the product in people's hands or they will think about it and then get Longshot because it comes on a Dell or HP or? in several days or available today at ElectroWiz discount.

The argument that Apple will lose its hardware business flies in the face of the iPod lesson. Most people's iPods are filled with content from their CDs not the Apple store and yes they used iTunes and love it and its Apple software on a PC. Maybe some felt "forced" to buy an iPod due to iTunes but the vast majority wanted cool, look at the marketshare. People will still buy the premium item� when they can get it. Yes many people waited in line for an iPod but 3,842,000 people bought computers each week last quarter and only 91,000 were Apples. That would be a long backorder line.

So Steve, wake up, give the masses what they want and need, an alternative while you grow the company, and while you are at it, at least OFFER a cool Apple two button mouse when I pay thousands for my Mac.

budster101
Baninated

Joined: Dec 2004

0

06/10, 09:24am | report spam | close Reply |
Bloated...

Longhorn doesn't even exist yet... how can anyone compare it to OS X which has been out for years?

By the time Longhorn comes out, Leopard will be out...

Duh.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/10, 09:41am | report spam | close Reply |
Longhorn and AMD

Longhorn has been out for years. It started out as Win2K, and now exists as Windows XP. To say its somehow a whole new OS (like OS X) is ignorant and just trying to fluff your Apple-ness into thinking "Apple's so far ahead of MS".

BTW, you can mock MS's long developing times all you want ("haha! 2007 now, huh billy!" - see, its easy!), it doesn't matter to MS much at all. See, IT departments don't want OS updates every 12-18 months. They want stability and conformity. They don't want to be buying computers today that only run XP, because they still might be running W2K in their domain. They need backward compatibility on the computer side, and they want long leadtimes on the software side. h***, a lot of them didn't get around to W2K until XP was about to come out. OS X is NOT an IT person's dream OS, and the Mac isn't their dream computer. You can't buy new computers over the course of 3 years and be confident they'll have the SAME PARTS, let alone run the same OS.

And to think that they'll somehow go "Hey, we need new PCs. But if we get these overpriced Macs, we can boot into Windows AND OS X, that'll be great!" also shows you have no idea how these people work. They don't want you installing your own software. They want to control the entire PC (on the premise that if they control it, they can keep it up and running and up-to-date in a timely manner and reduces costs and yada and yada and yada). They don't want you to be booting into completely different OS's. And they certainly don't want to be spending the extra money (regardless of TCO and such, just show how much more upfront the new macs will cost the CTO, and he'll nix it very quickly).

As for AMD, I can't imagine Intel signing an agreement with Apple that didn't include some sort of exclusive contract for a period of time. Intel's not going to want to spend the time and energy supporting bringing OS X and Apple to the x86 world, only to have Apple leave after the hard work is done, and go to today's prom queen "Oh, AMD, you're so wonderful! Better then that head cheerleader hussy Intel!". Also, they'd have the same problem they did with the PPC. Competing benchmarks all saying they're faster. This way, stick with the one with the marketing backbone and likely to stick around through the upcoming lean years in the computer world.

hayesk
Professional Poster

Joined: Sep 1999

0

06/10, 10:52am | report spam | close Reply |
Fool is right

The arrogance of that site is astounding. Do they still expect you to pay to post in their slooooow forums past 30 days?

Apple switched to Intel because IBM wasn't going to deliver. It's too bad - the G5 architecture looked nice, but in a few years, nobody's going to care. It's not about taking down Dell, as obnoxious as he is, and it's not about taking down Microsoft. It's about remaining competitive.

ecrelin
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

06/10, 11:20am | report spam | close Reply |
not looking for trouble

testudo but a couple things, let's go backwards

1. HP sells both AMD and Intel boxes, nothing stopping Apple from doing the same. Apple is already in "the x86 world" if you forget OS X is nothing but NeXT on UNIX which both began on x86. Intel will spend little time of effort other than future directions of their line which they already do with Apples competitors. They have no control over commodity PC manufacturing, ancillary chips, cards, devices and driver issues. And they won't make custom chips for a piddly marketshare like Apple's (unless they pay and there goes your price advantage).

2. You talk about "how these people work". Well I am one of those IT people and we don't spec "cheap" PCs (they are for consumers in a different part of the catalog), in fact last week a client just "had to have" HP servers because that is what they have standardized on, which were WAY more expensive than similarly configured Dells or XServes (over $1500. per) the price was tertiary at best, these were small 1Us. Every IT department has different priorities some legitimate some stupid. Equipment budgets in big companies still have lots of fat and the real concerns are politics based or capability based. If the primary software is data driven web apps the server could be Windows, Linux, UNIX (including OS X) the client only needs to have a browser that works. If you use Exchange services exclusively you want Windows servers but I was just working with a company with 1500 employees and 600 of the exchange clients are Macs, they are happy with any compromises (which there are), oh and the CFO says the only difference in TCO is that there are more Windows support people per user in the department.

3. IT management does not love M$'s slow to respond development. They are sick to death of the crappy patch management and the trouble is causes. That is why they wait to update and the major changes that are forced on them with each update is another. If you have never set up an OS X managed client environment then you don't realize that you can "control the entire PC" just as easily and completely as Windows. Maybe in Mom and Pop sized SMBs there is more focus on every penny but the enterprise market is what made Bill Gates, HP and Micheal Dell rich and there is still a lot of "bubble" money floating around the corporate world. That's Apple's target first, as the IT closet is the key to the desktop, consumers come in with the tide.

Lastly, you are pretty damn cavalier about the fact that Longshot is nothing but NT (not W2K which is nothing but NT) and XP (which is also NT in sheeps clothing). That is not the case, if it was then anyone has the right to mock them and their timetable, it is a whole new OS, like OS X, that will run old software in a compatibility layer, ask some seed developers.

RT3434
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2003

0

06/10, 11:54am | report spam | close Reply |
Dell? Don't make me laug

Apple wants people who buy Sony. Case in point:

http://tinyurl.com/cpuo9

Apple has total control over software/hardware. They don't have to cater for compatability with different manufaturers like Msoft. That could mean (eventually) a performance advantage. With this new deal, that could be Apple's biggest trick up it's sleeve.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/10, 01:29pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: not looking for ...

Ah, but you got it bud! Come on, midnight, behind the dairy queen. Knives at 30 paces! I'll cut you to pieces!! Then get a milkshake!!!

As for your points: 1. HP sells both AMD and Intel boxes, nothing stopping Apple from doing the same. Unless they have an exclusive contract. They didn't just pick Intel. They're working with them. They need Intel's help to optimize their code, compilers, etc, work with logic board changes and developments, etc. Part of the deal was to help optimize GCC 4.0 for OS X. I just can't imagine Intel just signing up for all this work if Apple just could walk away partly or completely. You know, why help the competitor?

in fact last week a client just "had to have" HP servers because that is what they have standardized on, which were WAY more expensive than similarly configured Dells or XServes (over $1500. per) the price was tertiary at best, these were small 1Us. Well, I wasn't talking about servers. IT people love big expensive iron. It needs to work, all that fun and exciting stuff. You don't go cheap on servers.

I was talking the desktop. And as you say, if you're hosting a ton of web apps, then the client is of least importance, and then just about anything will do. You're not going to spend $1500 on a client box if all you need is web connectivity and perhaps email. That's just insane. You could go with linux boxes if they work for you, but if your site's big enough, you get such a deal on office and Windows that you don't care anyway.

IT management does not love M$'s slow to respond development. They are sick to death of the crappy patch management and the trouble is causes. That is why they wait to update and the major changes that are forced on them with each update is another. Yes, but if MS released a new OS every year, like Apple, they'd be even more pissed off. And at least most hardware out there can still run Win2K (or even NT - ugh!) if you wanted to, as opposed to Apple's hardware (even the updated April towers must run 10.4).

Lastly, you are pretty damn cavalier about the fact that Longshot is nothing but NT (not W2K which is nothing but NT) and XP (which is also NT in sheeps clothing). That is not the case, if it was then anyone has the right to mock them and their timetable, it is a whole new OS, like OS X, that will run old software in a compatibility layer, ask some seed developers.

Well, if you want to get into symantics, fine. But Longhorn still has XP as its base. Its got a whole new framework going on (a lot like OS X - hmmm). And even if all existing code runs in a compatibility layer, so what? At least they're bound to do it well, as opposed to Apple's classic (completely different window appearances, different menu bar, WTF is that all about?) Most all existing programs will just run, run well, and work like they did before. You're not going to need a whole new set

resuna
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

06/10, 01:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
What $1500? And WTF back.

"You're not going to spend $1500 on a client box if all you need is web connectivity and perhaps email. That's just insane."

If all you need to provide is web connectivity and perhaps email, you'll buy the cheapest Mac mini, and use whatever your stock desktop monitor is.

"Apple's classic (completely different window appearances, different menu bar, WTF is that all about?)"

That's all about running the equivalent of Windows 3.1 applications on XP. Apple screwed up on the original Mac, and they screwed up on the 68000-PPC transition. While Microsoft was able to get out of the preemptive multitasking mess gradually through Win32 and Windows NT, Apple put it off until they brought Jobs back and then tried to do it all in a rush.

But even then... when I run Win32 applications on Windows XP some of them take on the XP look, some of them look like they're running under Windows 2000, some of them look like they're running on Windows 95. I've even seen some with Windows 3.11 gadgets, though not recently. To quote you: "completely different window appearances, different menu bar, WTF is that all about?"

WTF it's all about is the old APIs don't have the hooks the OS can use to provide the new UI.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/10, 03:38pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Bloated

Longhorn doesn't even exist yet... how can anyone compare it to OS X which has been out for years?

By the time Longhorn comes out, Leopard will be out...

Well, if you take the word from the other poster, Longhorn's a whole new OS, so how can you say its bloated?

And I love people talking about how long OS X has been out and how long delayed Longhorn is. Lest you all forget that OS X was basically announced (as Rhapsody) when they bought Next in Jan of 1997, it went through change after change (they couldn't come up with a plan that developer's liked - maybe should've asked them up front, huh?), and wasn't released until March 2001. And that was really just Beta 1. 10.1 was closer to release quality in september, but really 10.2 was a real release of OS X, with support needed for things like, you know, printing and all. And that was August 2002. Hmmm, 5 years. And some people say "and still counting" (although they say that with everything). And this was after waiting since 1993 or so for Copland/Gershwin (remember those, people!). It took apple 8 years to release an OS that didn't lock up when you clicked in the menu bar...

Simon
Posting Junkie

Joined: Nov 2000

0

06/11, 04:06am | report spam | close Reply |
testudo

You're trying really hard to be an a**, testudo. Let's cut the c*** here. OS X Tiger is out, you can buy it, it works fine and it's clearly the best and most advanced OS on the market.

Longhorn is far a way, XP is no match for Tiger. Fact is, MS is far behind. The only thing they have going for themselves is an enormous installed base and a lot of hardware their OS will run (or at least sort of run) on.

OS X is superior in any way. Windows is just the market leader in terms of sales - not in any technical terms. We all know that's the truth. If you try to bullshit around that, you are just embarrassing yourself. Spare the shame man.

Louis_SX
Junior Member

Joined: May 2005

0

06/11, 07:47am | report spam | close Reply |
Compare ahoy, matey!

You HAVE to compare OS X to Longhorn, because those are going to be the competing products. It does not matter what's new and old; they're going to coexist.

resuna
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

06/11, 10:46am | report spam | close Reply |
Longhorn's evolutionary

Longhorn's going to a newer kernel than XP (it's going to be based on 2003 server), but most of the new features are being deferred or are going to be back-ported to XP. Some already have been. By the time it's out it's going to feel more like a service pack than a new OS.

Catniplover
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/12, 12:46am | report spam | close Reply |
The main point is...

I think everyone is overlooking the most important point about Dell and Apple.... Micheal Dell is a pompous A-hole.

Louis_SX
Junior Member

Joined: May 2005

0

06/12, 12:48pm | report spam | close Reply |
Steve is too...

Steve is a pompous A-hole, but he's got the quality products to back it up. That's why we love him and not Michael Dell. :D

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple hiring new chip engineers for...
05/25	Third-gen iPad coming to Philippines...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

Apple taking on Dell? AMD partnership coming?

updated 05:05 pm EDT, Thu June 9, 2005

Fool.com on Apple-Intel

Related Articles

Recent Articles

hit 'im with the chair!

Cringely vs. Motley Fool

"Get a Mac!"

lost faithful?

licensing

OSX licensing not in the

Total BS

osx licensing is...

Drivel from Fools

OS X on Intel

Re: OS X on intel

Re: OS X on intel

Wrong competitor again

Apple wont use AMD

The Thread is about DELL

Mach is not a microkernel

its true

This is silly

For the love of Pete

Survival

ability to deliver volume

Bloated...

Longhorn and AMD

Fool is right

not looking for trouble

Dell? Don't make me laug

Re: not looking for ...

What $1500? And WTF back.

Re: Bloated

testudo

Compare ahoy, matey!

Longhorn's evolutionary

The main point is...

Steve is too...

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace