20050606   

Michael considered fate at 14:08   |   Permalink   |   Post a Comment

And here is so more breaking Apple news:

Intel and Apple, after many industry rumors, have jumped in bed together. The resultant (brain)child? Mac OS X running on Intel chips:

Two major transitions for Mac: 68K to PowerPC. Next Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Now time for third transition. Transition to Intel-based Macs... Starting next year the first Macs with Intel processors. Shipping by next WWDC. Mostly complete by 2007 WWDC. Complete by the end of 2007. Two-year transition.
...
Mac OS X has been leading secret double life. Every Mac project build for Intel and PowerPC and Intel. Every release of Mac OS X has been built for both Intel and PowerPC-based Macs. For the last 5 years. Mac OS X is cross-platform by design. Apple's demo is on an Intel-based system. Jobs shows all Mac OS X Tiger features are already compatible with Intel-based processors. Not done yet. Will put into the developer hands to help Apple finish it.
...
Leopard, next major relase of Mac OS X, due at the end of 2006, alongside Longhorn release.

Of course it has been rumored for some time that Apple has been keeping an Intel version of OS X in tandem with the advances to the PPC version we all know (and love?). The question is: why will it take two years if they already have a (semi-)working copy?

And here is a summary of various research group's analyses of computer users affected by viruses @ Mac Daily News:

16-percent of computer users are unaffected by viruses, malware because they use Apple Macs...

...more people use Macs than most people realize and, those who do use Macs, efficiently surf the Web with impunity on stable systems that aren't bogged down by unnecessary virus and malware scanners.

From the Slashdot link to this story:

...the interesting thing is the fact that the results finally provide the first set of conclusive numbers which illustrate the Macintosh's install-base. So far only "market-share" statistics are commonly published for the public and do not convey install base. (If for example 2 people are using computers and one replaces his 2x in a 3 year period and the other only does once, market-share dynamics dictate that one demographic has 75% market share while the other has only 25% -- even though install base is still 50/50.)

A 16% install-base is a big jump from the usually-reported market-share statistics which are in the single-digits. The availability of OS X on Intel processors can only be a good thing for those who enjoy the operating system because if you ask me, this was one move that will make the pretty little darwin kernel more ubiquitous than ever... and it might just save Intel in the process. (no pun intended!)

The big question is, of course, how is Apple going to handle this new hardware extension? They are, ultimately and as everyone loves to point out, a hardware company. They make the majority of their revenue on hardware. They count on hardware sales to drive their business. This is one reason they practically give away their operating system at $129 whereas Windows carries the higher price of $199 (and that for the "home edition".. home? office? aren't they the same thing now? what year does Microsoft think this is, 1992?).

So will the chips from Intel only come inside Apple boxes? Will we now be stuck with higher prices for the same old thing we have been buying in the PC market? Or are we building up to the next round in the Apple Clone Wars?

I doubt it. Prepare your checkbooks now.