daniel's Profile

  • Jun 14, 2005
  • 3
  • 0

Latest comments made by: daniel

  • I would really like to see an Apple-AMD alliance. I bet their main concern is supply problems. One thing the move to Intel will definitely alleviate is the constant supply issues. But, Apple would instantly become AMD's biggest (maybe second biggest...not sure how many AMD HP/Compaqs there are) client. That would be a nice position for Apple to be in.
    United Statesdaniel had this to say on Jun 14, 2005 Posts: 3
    Apple Switching Back to PowerPC?
  • A few thoughts, in no particular order: One thing Apple will have to contend with is the ability to make more apples to apples comparisons to Windows. It will really look bad if, say, Photoshop runs faster in Windows than on Mac on the exact same processor. Hopefully, Apple will be able to use this to its advantage. However, since Microsoft's software has been running on x86 for so long now, I worry that, intially at least, Mac OS X will be slower than Windows. I am really kind of dumbfounded that otherwise intelligent Mac users like Mr. Seibold here are thinking this announcement means that Jobs is moving out of the hardware business. Come on... Jobs was the guy that pulled the plug on Mac OS licensing. Further, hardware -- not software -- was his primary tool in establishing Apple's current brand image. By far, the average joe associates Apple with the iMac and iPod more than they do with Mac OS X. I don't forsee a huge hit in Apple's sales. It would have been a bad move to switch to Intel when Mac OS X was released. Classic would have to have been run on an emulator, and people would have really angry about slow speeds. Also, the last time Apple switched processors, (68k to PPC) they did an absolutely fantastic job. FAT binaries worked like a champ. 95% of the public probably didn't notice the switch at all. Now, the switch to Intel is a bit more of an attention grabber than the PPC move was, but I think the upcoming switch will be just as smooth. One thing I do think Jobs is planning to do, is release some software based on Wine to replace VirtualPC. It will be very nice to be able to run Windows software inside Mac OS X on its native processor. Microsoft has got to be kicking themselves for buying Connectix.
    United Statesdaniel had this to say on Jun 08, 2005 Posts: 3
    Apple Computer: Software Only in Five Years
  • I'm a bit late commenting here, but I'd just like to say that I see where Gregory is coming from. I started using Macs with System 7.0.1 and they certainly were more simple than they are now. However, despite pleasant memories, I can't stand using pre OSX machines now. I keep forgetting how often they crashed. The crashing is just unacceptable. Windows doesn't even crash anymore. I can't really help you with Quark; I'm not a graphics designer, but I can say this: System 7.5 was my *least* favorite OS that Apple ever released. (except maybe for 10.0) It was essentially 7.1, incorporating dozens of little shareware programs. It was bulkier, slower, and buggier. I remember that 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 all the way to 7.5.5 were released rapid-fire from Apple to fix all the bugs in 7.5. I begrudgingly used 7.5 on my PowerBook Duo 230, but 7.1 sure ran better on it. Anyway, I am now a happy Panther user with my 800MHz PowerBook G4. It runs a little slow for me, but my hardware isn't all that fast either. All of the Apple software that comes with the OS is great. iTunes is great. Safari is really great. (And I was so skeptical when Apple first announced they were going to release another web browser. I suddenly had visions of Cyberdog running through my head.) Most of the 3rd party stuff is good too. Photoshop is as great as ever. Dreamweaver 2004 is very good. Microsoft Office is good too, though I really don't like Entourage. Quark is bad, but it's bad on Windows too. That's not OS X's fault.
    United Statesdaniel had this to say on Mar 30, 2005 Posts: 3
    Mac OS 7.5: Better than Tiger Will Ever Be