I still don't understand why apple would give a sh*t about windoz xp performance benchmarks....

It would stand to reason that Apple hopes to influence the Windows benchmarks so that they can more properly be compared to a comparable set of Mac OS X benchmarks (also they will likely try to bring forward the ones that Mac OS X shines at).

If Apple can show how well Mac OS X performs on Apple's hardware when compared to Windows running on comparable hardware with reasonable and useful benchmarks it is a win for Apple.

Since Windows XP can now run on the new Intel Laptops, this gives them a chance to show how great their hardware really is.

I believe I read that Adobe Photoshop in XP (on a MacBookPro & a Dell) ran faster on the MacBookPro.

Also consider Virtualization, which is rumored to be a feature in 10.5. That could mean more business for Apple. Lets not forget that Apple makes it money from hardware sales.

NO "Drivers". How silly. Just WINE. Thats all we really need to make us happy, WINE. WINE WINE WINE. WAAAAAAAAA!

DarWINE: Check it out http://darwine.opendarwin.org/

Support this effort. It is the future. Not a panacea, but 95% of one.

If Wine/DarWine/RedBox/Virtualization comes to MacOS X 10.5, I hope that it will be 100% compat. with games and the sw for hacking moto phones...

My fear is that any solution that allows Windows apps to run on X will not work properly with these apps/games, but will work well enough to give M$ and Adobe an excuse to stop development of MacOS X native software...

I'd much prefer to see Apple push Yellow Box for Windows.. Write in XCode, deploy in MacOS X PPC, MacOS X Intel, and Windows XP/Vista w/ Yellow Box for Windows installed...

A write once solution would attract more developers to MacOS X, the opposite of the potential loss when XP apps run in MacOS X.

Just my $0.02US

jwd

Now that Apple is using fairly standard processors and motherboards, they are going to be compared directly with Windows machines running XP, and eventually Vista.

Being on the appropriate committees helps make sure that their strong points get into the benchmarks. Perhaps more importantly, if there are areas of the benchmarks that the MacOS does poorly on, but that do not represent something realistic, then they get a chance to argue for a different benchmark.

Scott

Finally make the Mac Windows compatible.

No need for support, just let it run Windows without the need for a hack.

Since Windows XP can now run on the new Intel Laptops, this gives them a chance to show how great their hardware really is.

The hardware can't run windows now, anymore then it could/couldn't before. Apple doesn't care about running windows, for if they did, they would have done something simple like adding BIOS support to the EFI, like all those other companies that use the tech do.

If Wine/DarWine/RedBox/Virtualization comes to MacOS X 10.5, I hope that it will be 100% compat. with games and the sw for hacking moto phones...

Not going to happen. Nothing is 100%, and to try to get it close, they'd have to do a lot of hacking to the OS, just like MS has had to do.

My fear is that any solution that allows Windows apps to run on X will not work properly with these apps/games, but will work well enough to give M$ and Adobe an excuse to stop development of MacOS X native software...

Well, duh. And it doesn't matter if its 100% or not. The second there's an integrated windows emulator, there goes a lot of mac apps. Esp. for those companies that barely provide mac support now.

I'd much prefer to see Apple push Yellow Box for Windows.. Write in XCode, deploy in MacOS X PPC, MacOS X Intel, and Windows XP/Vista w/ Yellow Box for Windows installed...

Hahahahaha! That's funny. Apple killed that years ago. Why, if it wasn't good then (when it would've made sense, as it would give developers the reason to redesign their software for OS X), why do it now? Just because there's an intel processor underneath.

And, while it might be good for some Mac-only apps to migrate to windows, cross-platform developers aren't going to scrap all their code to jump on Apple's "Today its here, tomorrow - who knows?" ship. Those already burned once won't switch. And if there's also a WINE going on, then they just might as well kill the windows version as switch it all to XCode.

A write once solution would attract more developers to MacOS X, the opposite of the potential loss when XP apps run in MacOS X.

Its been tried. To death. A myriad of developers have tried the "Use our framework, and you can deploy to all these different platforms". I don't recall them taking the programming world by storm. h***, this was the thought on Java, and its still hard to write a program once, run it everywhere.

And don't discount MS porting their .Net framework to OS X. If Apple tries to make inroads into the windows developer world, MS can just go the other way. The entire framework, along with applications, etc, is all designed to work on multiple OSes. They just never bothered supporting anything else.

is this really turn out to be a partnership and not a competition anymore? cause i read that OS X can be run to Windows base machines like [url=http://apple.qj.net/Running-OS-X-On-a-Dell/pg/49/aid/12917]Dell[/url].