Submitted by The big news [is] the discovery of an Apple patent that allows the computer maker to protect the installation of Mac OS X. In this case, really limit it to just Apple-produced hardware. However, the patent describes a process whereby users would be able to load one of three operating systems as their primary OS and then load a secondary operating system as their secondary OS.
The patent describes a way for code obfuscation. It nowhere says to run certain virtual machines within each other or indeed multi booting OSs.
The article proclaims that Apple intends to gain market share. Wow! What a hot story!
Further, Apple may be allowing you to run non-Apple operating systems on future Macs. Another winner!
Of course, I’m not sure how the patent in question really flushes either of these things out, nor how this constitutes an “OS War”, but, you know, whatever.
What I understand is that Apple does not care about the OS as long as they use Apple hardware to run their OS of choice. The OSX is just a hook to purchase hardware. Even if the hardware runs Windows they could care less. If fact they probably hope ppl will install Windows since then they can have both Windows and OSX on 1 piece of hardware. Theirs…..
/me rolls eyes…
Give me a break. Apple sells a total computing platform, hardware & software combined. There ain’t no way they’re gonna sell hardware without the OS pre-installed. Without the OS, it’s just another Intel box, and you can get one of those anywhere alot cheaper than from Apple.
Yea right, in Bill Gates wet dream perhaps.
Don’t totally beleive it for a minute, it’s just another Apple curve being thrown.
It will allow MS to compete on Apple hardware and erode the Apple user base.
Software developers will force the Mac user base to boot into Windows to use their software.
Pre-Vista Windows software, yes perhaps, without Windows.
Talk about hiring your own replacement and playing ignorant when the newcomer has your job, this is a excellent example.
>>It will allow MS to compete on Apple hardware and erode the Apple user base.
nonsense. If that were true then Apple would have died long ago.
>>Software developers will force the Mac user base to boot into Windows to use their software.
They already tried that which led Apple to make their own software. So your wrong on that statement as well.
If they wanted to kill apple all they had to do was to keep maintaining windows ppc edition(I still remember using windows 3.11 on a first generation apple ppc back on junior high)
I still remember using windows 3.11 on a first generation apple ppc back on junior high
You’re memory isn’t very good then. There were no PPC Apples back when Windows 3.11 was out, and MS only released Windows NT for other chips. You’re probably thinking of NT 3.5 for PPC.
“Software developers will force the Mac user base to boot into Windows to use their software. ”
I have a number of Macs and Windows/Linux boxes. I don’t see ANY software developer FORCING me into booting into Windows. If I can’t find a specific program for another platform there are always functionaly equivivalent alternatives.
>>>It will allow MS to compete on Apple hardware and erode the Apple user base.
Every Apple users knows Microsoft Windows, but they choose to use Mac OS X because it quality is better although they have to suffer some applications lacks.
Reverse is not true. Not every Windows users know OS X.
…before commenting on the article. But the link they provided does not work. Brings you to a search page, not the patent. Searching on “Apple” returned an error.
You’ve got virtual machine software already in existance – no need to boot into another OS. Doubt that this can/will happen? Look at what apple did with classic! Have an OS9 folder on your HD – start classic – BAM, you can run OS9 software as well! They can do this for both Windows and Linux! Imagine running windows apps from WITHIN OS X! – Red box is almost here 😉
My only question is – what about OS9? Since it is PPC based, would we still be able to run classic?
Red Box would be awesome–and, indeed, a far better solution than dual booting.
I almost forgot about Red Box.
Imagine running windows apps from WITHIN OS X!
Won’t happen. MS supports OS X pretty well, with Office and all, and if Apple were to make running Windows apps as easy as running Classic apps, MS will stop supporting Apple, leaving the Mac without a decent and complete office package and without support for the Office formats (no iWork doesn’t count, neither do the abonimations that are OOO:Mac and NeoOffice/J).
IIRC, Apple has already stated that they’re dropping support for classic with the switch to Intel.
The absolute main reason Apple is switching to Intel is to allow for dual booting. That’s it. People are afraid to switch to Apple’s hardware because they’re afraid of leaving Windows–or whatever operating system it is they’re using. By creating hardware that is compatible with the vast majority of operating systems, they’re allowing people to take a proper test drive and still maintaing their personal security of being able to “fall back” on their previous operating system.
And even if that user doesn’t spend the majority of their time in the Mac OS, Apple still gets their revenue from selling the hardware–which yields more profit per unit than any iPod ever could.
If Apple hardware really is better and cheaper than (say) Dell, then this is a great opportunity for them. They can do asymmetric unbundling. The only way to run OSX will be to buy a Mac. But once you have bought a Mac, you can run whatever you want on it.
So, if the hardware is felt in the market to be so much better, people will do this in droves. Pretty soon half of the Apple base – maybe more – will be running XP. Or Linux. Of course, some will convert. But lots will just buy for the hardware.
This is going to get very interesting indeed!
The current crop of MacIntels don’t support Classic because Classic’s processor overhead is appalling; OS X’s best kept secret is how well it balances TruBlu (Classic) as a background process. Even if you’re not running any Classic apps, if Classic is running, it’s got hella threads to manage.
On present Intel architectures, this isn’t possible without taking a major hit to performance. OS X without Classic is probably lean enough to run on 68Ks; the OS it’s derived from did and had most of the same framework.
Rosetta can only do so much, and once new Mac owners realize all Mac software predating this administration (e.g. nearly all biplatform software from educational houses, games developed with Macromedia) is useless to them, it may not be a pretty sight. A lot of small software developers banked on Classic being a permanent OS X technology as a shortcut to quick crossplatform target deployment.
So far, no one’s touting a framework enough like CW’s PowerPlant to make crossplatform development in a common language like C attractive, and while Adobe/Macromedia’s still jockeying to make Flash an actual platform, it isn’t there yet. Apple’s pimping Objective-C and Microsoft favors C#, where employing the advantages of either locks you into the associated platform.
> Apple sells a total computing platform, hardware &
> software combined.
As does Dell, with their PCs with a preinstalled Windows.
Its no less a “total computing platform than a MAC.
I think what he ment by “total computing platform” was hardware + os + apps. Microsoft does not supply the software apps with windows that Apple does with OS X.
Yes, it is all becoming clear now…
Apple getting stuck in x86 land had nothing to do with getting dumped by IBM. Clearly Jobs sees Apple’s key to success is in selling overpriced x86 boxes!
The x86 OEMs must be shaking in their boots. Here comes Apple to sell x86 boxes and their secret weapon? The have the added burden of having to support the development and support of an entire OS and set of applications.
Steve Jobs clearly learned the lesson of Apple’s history: The vast majority of consumers are eager to pay more money for Apple products because they are just so darn good.
No wait, they aren’t…
I do hope I’m not the only person to tell you that you are a complete and total fool who is not worth listening to. It is more likely that because people have not been telling you that you are spouting tripe that you think your comment is the whole truth, anonny.