Is Microsoft Windows invulnerable re an real competition for the foreseeable future?

[AHunter3]

*Originally posted by Revtim *
**I wonder what would happen if Apple began making Mac OS for Intel-based machines.

Anyone know if there are significant hardware advantages to the Motorola architecture that would make an Intel version of Mac OS inferior? **

The OS would have to be changed not merely so as to run on the Intel CPU but also to make use of the rest of the industry standard PC architecture’s set of chips instead of the Macintosh chips. Otherwise it might “boot in a vacuum” but not recognize video cards, printers, expansion cards, networking devices, etc., and even that is assuming drive controllers and RAM slot architectures were driven and used in a completely identical way, which they are probably not.

That’s still doable. But if they released MacOS X for Intel tomorrow, you could buy it and install it on your PC, but you couldn’t run any apps.

Open-source Unix programs (including X-Window) would be the most readily ported. The real Unix geeks would do it first, then would release source code compilers that would “know” MacOS X Intel as one of the Unix variants they knew how to compile for.

Applications written for the MacOS X “Cocoa” system could be ported by the companies that own them pretty easily too, but they might not bother unless it looked like lots of people were going to buy and install MacOS X for Intel.

Applications written for MacOS X “Carbon” would require a much more complicated recompile; you’d have to go to the source code and rethink the app as a “Cocoa” app. This is also true of “Classic” apps that only run in the Classic environment of MacOS X – no easier porting them to MacOS X under Intel than porting them to Windows. Mostly you would not see any of this happen unless consumer demand made it worth their investment.

Windows applications would not run under MacOS X for Intel except in an emulation environment. You could build such an environment with less of a speed hit than you get with VirtualPC on existing Macs because you would not have to emulate the processor, but you’d still have to run some flavor of Windows as a subenvironment, including waiting for it to boot and so forth, or you’d have to emulate the environment by catching and redirecting all of its calls in a way transparent to the program, which might be faster but probably less compatible.

All in all, such concerns do not bode well for MacOS X on Intel. Lack of software is why there is no BeOS and no XP-on-Alpha as a follow up to NT on Alpha–and lack of software would probably kill MacOS X on Intel as well.

Aside from that, it would not do APPLE any good.

[Revtim]

*Originally posted by LonesomePolecat *
**A manufacturer who wants to install Windows on his machines has to pay a fee for every machine he makes, NOT just the ones on which he installs Windows. **

Is this still true? I remember hearing about this fact when the antitrust lawsuits first started flying. Was there no change in this policy from the court cases?

[hansel]

*Originally posted by Revtim *
**I wonder what would happen if Apple began making Mac OS for Intel-based machines.

Anyone know if there are significant hardware advantages to the Motorola architecture that would make an Intel version of Mac OS inferior? **

There are persistant rumours that Apple maintains a complete, up-to-date port of Mac OS X on x86 hardware. The purpose is not to move to x86, which would be the end of Apple, but to have the threat to use against IBM and Motorola to keep them from screwing Apple on the PowerPC chips.

I believe, but can’t back this up with hard facts, that the overall performance of x86 architectures currently more than overcomes inherent design deficiencies that originally made the PowerPC architecture attractive.

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by rogue4007 *
Many people have also said that Windows is prone to worms and virus’s , thats true, BUT SO IS LINUX. Because so many PC’s in the world use windows, it stands to reason that the majority of bad stuff is going to be writen for them. People have the impression that Unix/LInux boxes are more hardened security wise. Thats simply not true, out of the box they are as vunerable to attack as any windows machine, ive proven this using Bastille/Nesus scans. There is room for many OS’s and each have there strong and weak points.

While the popularity of Windows certainly plays a role in being the most popular target of attacks, it remains a fact that it is extremely easy to attack Windows because of its architecture and Microsoft’s endless push for user friendliness.

Now, whether *nix is more secure out of the box is a different question. I presume this is distro dependent. RedHat Linux may not be that secure out of the box, but you can always choose OpenBSD. A Windows user has no such option available.

[II_Gyan_II]

Originally posted by mswas *
**
It hasn’t been that great up until now, but now it’s pretty good. Performance loss, obviously applies.*

How much performance loss ? I’m assuming that graphics apps (like 3dsmax) will have substantial slowdown, making Virtual PC impractical. Or is the loss minimal ?

[Will_Repair]

Linux is the front runner to knock Microsoft out of the top slot.

1. As mentioned, its getting easier to use. Several distributions competing to make themselves the easiest.

2. Getting cheaper; Lindows, a linux, is selling cheap computers in Wal-Mart. And note that Wal-Mart only sold peripherals before, not the computers themselves. That’s a whole new market niche that wasn’t there before. (This is VERY important, CHEAP hardware selling with Linux. OS/2 was superior, but everything, even IBM computers came with Windows.)

3. As mentioned, governments are migrating to Linux.

4. Microsoft is getting a terrible security reputation with every new virus that clogs the Internet.

5. (My prediction) XP handling of sockets will compound #4.

6. XP licensing brouhaha.

Still a long way to go before Bill cashes in his stock options.

1. Linux still doesn’t work (fully) on X-box, Microsoft hardware. And it doesn’t look like it will for at while.

2, 3, 4, 5. Sheer number of Windows users. Nobody is going to switch when they have a computer that works and a new computer uses the old software.

[SpartanDC]

I think Linux’s main problem is that nothing has happened to make John Q. ComputerUser think of it as an alternative. Sure, corporate IT departments might use it as a back-end server, but corporate IT departments are staffed by dorks, nerds and geeks. (Not insulting here; I’m in at least one of those groups.). Linux doesn’t advertise on TV. I have NO CLUE what a Linux screenshot looks like. Without that type of push, it will not be adopted by average people. Plus, people would perceive it as a major drag to switch over, even if it wasn’t that hard.

Which is why I think Apple’s “Switch” campaign is pretty damn smart. Stoned teenagers (and cute college students who saved Christmas ;))aside, people talk about those ads. There’s mindshare there. And it’s mindshare based on Apple’s claim that switching is a good, easy thing that makes your life better. That COULD translate into some marketshare.

Now, I’m not saying Apple will overtake Microsoft; that’s ridiculous. But I think Apple’s comfortable little niche has a lot of room for growth, up to, say 15 or 20 percent of home users. Ironically, Apple has the potential for this by acquiescing (or however you spell it) to Windows. The latest release of OS X offers near seamless networking with Windows computers, and documents made in equivalent versions of Office (Office XP for the PC, Office v.X for the Mac right now) transfer between platforms with no problems at all.

Microsoft recently announced that its Entourage X e-mail program for the Mac would soon gain the ability to use Exchange e-mail servers. That’s a HUGE step toward interoperability and removes a major barrier to Apple growing some in the corporate sector.

But again, they’ll never be more than a niche player. The only way that Microsoft will go down will be if the company actually spins off certain sectors of itself as a way to make more money. Basically, Microsoft will only go away at this point if it wants to and if people can profit from it. This is not unlike most other huge corporations.