Live WWDC 2005 Keynote Coverage
Posted by Tim Dorr on 06 June 2005 - 15:50 · 118 comments & 22673 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Tim Dorr
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Tim DorrContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by _Dom_ on 06 Jun 2005 - 15:54
- what time is 1:00PM EST... in GMT (london)
-
#1.1 Posted by timdorr on 06 Jun 2005 - 15:58
- http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=6&day=6&year=2005&hour=10&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
-
#2 Posted by ollie_webbuk on 06 Jun 2005 - 15:57
- 6 PM here in the UK, not long to wait.
-
(2 replies)
#3 Posted by Huezo on 06 Jun 2005 - 15:59
- MacRumors will also have live coverage of the keynote, for those interested.
MacRumorsLive
Lets just hope I don't get a damn Intel chip in my next PowerBook.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by roxics on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:06
- Is anyone doing a podcast of the event?
There should really be a TV channel for stuff like this. All those channels on cable and it's all the same garbage. I have to get on the internet to hear about anything of interest to me.
-
(3 replies)
#5 Posted by Netrack on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:24
- has it already been a year since the last one? i dont follow macintosh to closely but it seems like they just had one for the mac mini but none the less i do like were mac has been headed and i do like to see there new inovations
-
#5.1 Posted by jerry on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:30
- The one you are referring to is MWSF which was in early January this year, so yeah keynotes wise its been about 6 months.
-
#5.2 Posted by Huezo on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:31
- The Mac mini was announced during MWSF, which takes place during January. MWSF is consumer oriented while WWDC is developer oriented.
-
#6 Posted by mad_onion on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:31
- yes the innovations are great to see although im always disappointed with what Apple produce somehow, with so little software working on mac you would think the stuff that does would be really amazing. yet it isnt that good, i always get the feeling they could do better.
-
(5 replies)
#7 Posted by SlakeT on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:31
- Deleted - Chad
Last edited by 8406 on 06 Jun 2005 - 17:08 -
#7.1 Posted by dp123 on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:45
- Deleted - Chad
Last edited by 8406 on 06 Jun 2005 - 17:09 -
#7.2 Posted by jerry on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:45
- You didnt need to sign that, we can identify a troll with the stink associated with it
-
#7.3 Posted by SlakeT on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:12
- Removed
If you have a problem with Chad... take it up with Chad via PM
- shockz
Last edited by 3351 on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:38 -
#7.4 Posted by SlakeT on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:27
- I never said I had a problem with chad. I don't see why my comments are removed from this thread. Can chad or you give me a vaild reason?
-
#7.5 Posted by outofcoffee on 06 Jun 2005 - 23:19
- Try to be pleasant SlakeT, it's a family site
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by username on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:31
- Does Steve still have cancer?
-
#8.1 Posted by kirk26 on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:34
- If he moves to Intel then Mac users will say "yes, he has severe brain cancer."
-
#9 Posted by Zolk on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:35
- No live stream link?
-
(4 replies)
#10 Posted by Netrack on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:44
- so who here would switch from windows if you X86 could run OSX?
-
#10.1 Posted by Lomex on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:53
- I could use one of my PC's that sit on the side collecting dust... Even though it's a 2.6ghz with a gig of ram.
-
#10.2 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:28
- OS X might be 64-bit ONLY. After all, why would Apple need to work on a 32-bit version? It is not like there are any 32-bit Intel Macs out there that they need to support.
I might dual-boot it (if possible on non-apple hardware) just to have it around, but I would not use it as my main OS. -
#10.3 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:46
- I think that it is safe to assume you CANNOT run OS X on a non-Apple Intel computer. If you could then Apple would not need to sell a development Intel Mac, they could just give out the software and tell you to install it on a Dell.
This is probably due to the fact that Apple will keep using Open Firmware which is not compatible with a BIOS system.
Apple makes most of their money off hardware, so they are probably happy to not let OS X run on non-Apple computers. -
#10.4 Posted by Litespeed on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:12
QUOTE After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
-
#11 Posted by timdorr on 06 Jun 2005 - 16:54
- I'm closing off this news post for comments while the live feed is going on. Discussion can continue in this thread in the meantime: http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=328955
-
#12 Posted by _Dom_ on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:07
- wow...
-
#13 Posted by Netrack on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:09
- next question is, will osx ever run on an amd?
-
#14 Posted by Steven on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:11
- Intel Inside. Live it up MacPhiles!
-
(4 replies)
#15 Posted by SlakeT on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:13
- Deleted - Chad
Last edited by 8406 on 08 Jun 2005 - 05:27 -
#15.1 Posted by Bennifer on 06 Jun 2005 - 21:51
- You come across as a bit of a <<removed>>.
Last edited by 36818 on 08 Jun 2005 - 15:08 -
#15.2 Posted by outofcoffee on 06 Jun 2005 - 23:17
- Less so than your brethren over on WinInfo.
-
#15.3 Posted by mr_da3m0n on 07 Jun 2005 - 01:29
- I don't know about the WinInfo thing. But SlakeT is a troll and makes me displeased.
-
#15.4 Posted by outofcoffee on 07 Jun 2005 - 02:25
- point taken
-
#16 Posted by 4g3nt_Smith on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:15
- This will either make or break Apple. If its as easy as they're making it out to be to go cross-platform, then Billy G. must be having a coronary right now.
-
(9 replies)
#17 Posted by aristotle-dude on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:16
- I'm not sure what to think about this right now. I suppose the new chips based around Pentium M technology are not that bad.
I don't hate intel and I know that my bad experiences that I've had have mostly to do with the BIOS and Windows.
We mac users just hate windows and the BIOS, not the entire architecture of PC's.
I hope they will continue to use Open Firmware in the New Macs. -
#17.1 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:32
- I'm a Windows use and I don't like the BIOS either. Not that it gives me many problems, it is just so out-dated and useless. Some of the most exciting Longhorn news I read wasn't even about Longhorn, it was about a replacement for the BIOS around the same time a Longhorn's launch.
My guess is that Apple would just Open Firmware, unless they wanted their software to be able to run on non-Apple hardware. -
#17.2 Posted by joseph- on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:44
- Should know soon, since the developers kits are running Pentium 4s on an Intel motherboard. As soon as someone gets home with one and busts open the case, all questions will be solved.
-
#17.3 Posted by mx3 on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:00
QUOTE We mac users just hate windows and the BIOS, not the entire architecture of PC's
Speak for yourself! I'm a Mac and PC user and I see nothing wrong with PC's. Maybe some Mac users are fanatical about hating Windows, but I could really care less about what side of the fence anybody is on.
And really, who cares about the BIOS? You really shouldn't even need to mess with it (I don't).-
#17.4 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:22
- To be fair, there are a number of options which can only be set through the BIOS of a PC. WOL (wake on LAN) is the most notable, but there are others. I am looking forward to not having to ever go into the BOIS again. All settings should be accessible via the Windows GUI.
-
#17.5 Posted by SlakeT on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:29
- It begins! LOL!
QUOTE I suppose the new chips based around Pentium M technology are not that bad.
QUOTE I don't hate intel
-
#17.6 Posted by aristotle-dude on 06 Jun 2005 - 21:11
- SlakeT, I think I've been pretty consistent all along. I've been critical of the limitations of current PC hardware and of windows. Maybe BIOS will improve by 2007 to include what we take for granted with Openfirmware.
Windows does suck. -
#17.7 Posted by joseph- on 06 Jun 2005 - 21:22
QUOTE SlakeT, I think I've been pretty consistent all along.
Consistent at being WRONG, perhaps. Didn't see any mention of a WiMax chipset anywhere during WWDC, or did I miss that somewhere?
-
#17.8 Posted by SlakeT on 06 Jun 2005 - 21:25
- Deleted - Chad
Last edited by 8406 on 08 Jun 2005 - 05:26 -
#17.9 Posted by outofcoffee on 06 Jun 2005 - 23:22
- Christ, how old are you?
You're acting like a spoilt brat.
Do some growing up before you post in public again. Public forums get moderated. Deal with it.
Who even says "So lame" in this day and age?
-
#18 Posted by Nose Nuggets on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:18
- /me picks his jaw up off the floor
welp, i just lost a bet.
/me goes to eat his left shoe
-
#19 Posted by cjrciadt on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:16
- Apptel X86 machines just in time for Longhorn (minus delays ). Leopard of Longhorn? (Beta 1 better be damn good or their in trouble).
-
(2 replies)
#20 Posted by roxics on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:19
- Did he say anything about whether they will cripple the mac motherboards so only mactel machines can run OSX or will we all be able to run OSX?
-
#20.1 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:45
- I think that it is safe to assume you CANNOT run OS X on a non-Apple Intel computer. If you could then Apple would not need to sell a development Intel Mac, they could just give out the software and tell you to install it on a Dell.
This is probably due to the fact that Apple will keep using Open Firmware which is not compatible with a BIOS system.
Apple makes most of their money off hardware, so they are probably happy to not let OS X run on non-Apple computers. -
#20.2 Posted by nic on 06 Jun 2005 - 22:48
QUOTE I think that it is safe to assume you CANNOT run OS X on a non-Apple Intel computer. If you could then Apple would not need to sell a development Intel Mac, they could just give out the software and tell you to install it on a Dell.
I agree. I doubt you are going to see an Apple supported Mac OS X available to everyone currently with a PC. That being said, you may see hacked versions that will run assuming that x86 is the future platform of the Mac OS.
However, I bet you'll have no problems installing Windows on these future Intel based Apples.
-
#21 Posted by iPhrankie on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:24
- O' Billy is crapping in his pants right now.
All Mac users are crapping in their pants now.
-
(7 replies)
#22 Posted by Ashl on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:24
- So it's true then, wonder how many people were begging this not to be true. What is it about a mac exactly that makes it better for image and video processing anyway? They do seem slow at school with low memory and now really that practical so is it only the top macs that are useful?
Hope i havn't offended anyone by my lack of knowledge. -
#22.1 Posted by aristotle-dude on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:29
- If they use open firmware, they will keep the ease of use of the OS.
Most mac users who are switchers switched because of the OS and the lack of a crappy BIOS.
It's the OS that make them better.
Windows has issues with task switching, memory management and the GDI locking that occurs in windows apps all the time. -
#22.2 Posted by joseph- on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:40
- Deleted - Chad
Last edited by 8406 on 08 Jun 2005 - 05:11 -
#22.4 Posted by aristotle-dude on 06 Jun 2005 - 21:12
- No, are you? I'm typing this on a black IBM Netvista. How much experience do you have with OS X and Openfirmware?
Now Intel hardware will have an OS that does not suck and is easy to use. Linux does not cut it. -
#22.5 Posted by nic on 06 Jun 2005 - 23:02
QUOTE What is it about a mac exactly that makes it better for image and video processing anyway?
I'll try to answer your question instead of just saying something sucks just because.
Well (from what I've heard), PowerPCs support a larger register set then the x86 platform. Thus giving them more throughput, especially in applications that handle very large array sets (like images and video).
That being said, it is my personal opinion that its the software that makes the difference to the user, not the processor. Some might argue that iMovie is the best video editing software package out there. But I think everyone is in agreement that Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator are the best image manipulators, and they are cross-platform so who cares?
I really think its an old statement that is still reused today, but really holds no water.
BIOS can suck if you can't get something stupid to work. But I haven't had any real BIOS problems since the Pentium 2 line of PCs. Most BIOS problems revolve around poor hard drive support.
SlakeT: if you have a problem with the what moderators do, take it up with them and stop spamming the board.-
#22.6 Posted by outofcoffee on 06 Jun 2005 - 23:31
QUOTE Most mac users who are switchers switched because of the OS and the lack of a crappy BIOS.
You've had BIOS trouble in the last 5 years? Seriously? Half a decade ago, perhaps.
Sorry, "dude" but the occasional incompatibilty is the price you pay for your own choice of hardware, vastly cheaper and more powerful machine and a software library and order of magnitude larger than for OS X.
BIOS issues suggest you're just unloved by the great computing god (as in you're in the very very small minority), or you're just plain incompetent with computers. Go figure. -
#22.7 Posted by NetRyder on 07 Jun 2005 - 05:16
QUOTE Most mac users who are switchers switched because of the OS and the lack of a crappy BIOS.
Just so you know, Intel-based Macs won't include Open Firmware, so it looks like you might have to come back to that "crappy BIOS" eventually.
"Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands."
Last edited by 8406 on 08 Jun 2005 - 05:11
-
(5 replies)
#23 Posted by blu3Fusion on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:24
- i am thinking should i buy a ibook or not.
-
#23.1 Posted by Nose Nuggets on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:34
- deleted - Chad
Please familiarize yourself with our rules about warez
Last edited by 8406 on 08 Jun 2005 - 04:55 -
#23.2 Posted by blu3Fusion on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:36
- sweet idea..=D
-
#23.3 Posted by aristotle-dude on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:37
- You are advocating Piracy? For shame.
This is one of the dangers of this plan folks.
If he wants to get an ibook, he can. It will not stop working for a long time to come. All future software will be either PPC only (for the near future) or a Universal binary.
The PPC only software should still run with Rosetta. -
#23.4 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:49
- I always hate to buy a computer right before some big new thing comes out. If I were you I would wait for an Intel based iBook.
Don't buy a Dell assuming that you will someday be able to install OS X on it. Chances are that Apple's OS X for Intel will requre Open Fireware, which is not on Dell systems (or any systems running Windows). -
#23.5 Posted by Nose Nuggets on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:52
- *shrugs*
the only thing that makes apple and apple is the os. now that is gone. i have no reason to purchase an apple computer. my dual boot pc will soon become a tri boot, and osx will be the default.
-
(3 replies)
#24 Posted by Toxicfume on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:35
- Only if either of the damn companies mentioned what specific architecture it's running on.
-
#24.1 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:51
- It is the same architecture Windows runs on, x86. It doesn't go right out and say it, but it is very clear.
-
#24.2 Posted by Netrack on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:05
- well the dev kit is on a p4, so i would think that for now it can run fine on an x86
-
#24.3 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:26
- No, the fact that they have a dev Mac and not simply giving out the software to run on a Dell or HP tells me that there is something different in the hardware. My guess is that Apple will not use the same BIOS a standard Windows computer uses.
Last edited by 74534 on 06 Jun 2005 - 22:47
-
(6 replies)
#25 Posted by RufioPan on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:56
- Argh! Why not AMD?
-
#25.1 Posted by raid517 on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:01
- Because AMD plum don't have the capacity - or the mobile CPU technology that Apple need. It's that simple. And I say that as an AMD user.
It is possible I guess that they may use AMD chips in their higher end systems - but AMD is still to small to allow Apple to be able to bet the entire company on them.
GJ
Last edited by 13486 on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:24 -
#25.2 Posted by RufioPan on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:34
- Is capacity really that big an issue? What kind of volume does Apple really require? And I have a hard time believing that with the right financial incentive, AMD would not be able to expand its capacity!
I do agree though that AMD's mobile products haven't reached the impressive bar that Intel has set in that market.
So how likely is it that Mac OSX would be able to run on AMD processors? -
#25.3 Posted by raid517 on 06 Jun 2005 - 20:37
- I think it's possible - but not likely. The reason for this is because Mac/Intel machines will have a bios lock which will prevent OS X from being installed on non Apple/Intel systems.
And capacity entails more than just the number of processors you can produce. It's about dependability too. Clearly if you are going to gamble the entire future of your company, you don't gamble it on some wild card - which in many ways is what AMD still is. They are a tiny company compared to Intel - and have pretty much been in debt since they were created, whereas Intel is and has been for a very long time, one of the richest and most successful companies in the world. What if AMD went bust tomorrow? Where would that leave Apple?
Besides which it is also about road maps. He didn't just mention this casually. He really meant it. If you heard what Jobs said, the Intel road map matched most closely where he wanted to go with Apple products. Amd just didn't have the range or diversity of products to enable Jobs to do what he wanted to do.
I hope that answers your questions.
GJ
Last edited by 13486 on 06 Jun 2005 - 23:49 -
#25.4 Posted by RufioPan on 06 Jun 2005 - 21:07
- Yeah, it certainly does shed some light on the situation, although I have a hard time believing that AMD would suddenly up and disappear considering that they do make high quality, and highly-regarded products.
As far as basing the future of one's corporation entirely on another corporation is just a bad business decision (as opposed to basing it on the x86 standard).
In any case, thanks for the comprehensive replies. I appreciate you taking the time! -
#25.5 Posted by outofcoffee on 06 Jun 2005 - 23:31
QUOTE Because AMD plum don't have the capacity
That's plain-out wrong.
AMD has approximately 16-24% (depending on who you ask) of the PC market, which accounts for about 90% + of desktop computer sales. With Apple's overall percentage of this market around 2%, I don't think capacity is remotely a factor.-
#25.6 Posted by raid517 on 06 Jun 2005 - 23:40
- Like I said capacity isn't just about the number of chips they can produce. It is about their ability to sustain those levels of production. And to be sure of this you have to be certain that the right business model is in place. Real or imagined, the preception is that AMD are still very much high risk - too big a risk perhaps to pin your entire business model on for the next 10 years or so.
Anyway the argument is moot. The question has nothing to do with how much you may or may not like AMD. It wasn't me who made the choice. You might not agree with it, but there you are. Apple moved to Intel and not Amd. And there isn't much you or I or anyone else can can do about it. If you have a gripe with this, I suggest you take it up with Mr Jobs.
GJ
Last edited by 13486 on 07 Jun 2005 - 03:33
-
(1 reply)
#26 Posted by raid517 on 06 Jun 2005 - 18:57
- Lol a long term Mac user acquaintance of mine called to say he was on the roof and was considering jumping. I haven't stopped laughing long enough yet to be able to call him back.
The only downside to this is that there will be a bios lock out for non Apple produced machines. So OEM's and home based system builders won't be able to install OS X.
Peeps are going to have to start working soon to find a hack to get around this restriction.
(You could do it the other way round though... Buy a Mac and install Windows, Jobs said he wasn't going to prevent that. So finally you can have a machine that will run any OS - BEOS, Mac, Windows, Linux, you name it). I always thought that standardisation was a good thing. That is how the industrial revolotion first came about.
GJ
Last edited by 13486 on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:08 -
#26.1 Posted by neufuse on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:02
- eh.. they've done it before with the old 68xx macs with their bios chip on board, they can do it agian with this.. although this does make pearpc a lot more interesting now since it dont have to really emulate PPC code to run OSX, just emulate the lockout function (be it that would be illegal because Apple would do the ROM chip thing they did with the older macs too and licensing)
-
(3 replies)
#27 Posted by neufuse on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:00
- I find it funny people think Microsoft is crapping their pants over this... they've known for months now and already have been working on porting applications... as it appears the industry has had a pretty good clue in on it and kept it pretty quiet for a long period of time now
-
#27.1 Posted by raid517 on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:06
- Like I said, I doubt this will affect MS, as jobs says he has no plans to play in the OEM market. (Which is dumb really, because that is where the real money is).
He thinks the Mac OS is distinct enough to forge it's own identity seperate from any markets MS might be working in. Indeed it might even help MS, as Macs will now be dual bootable between Mac OS and windows. (But again, this won't be true on OEM machines). If you want to run OS X, you will still (in theory) need to run a Mac.
Whether or not anyone finds a way around this is another matter.
GJ
Last edited by 13486 on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:12 -
#27.2 Posted by neufuse on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:11
QUOTE In the mid-1980s, the Mac captured as much as 10 percent of the overall PC market, he said. But when Apple switched from Motorola 68000 processors to PowerPC chips, the Mac's share dropped to below 5 percent. When the Mac's operating system later changed to OS X, it fell to below 3 percent.
yea, i dont think it will affect MS either... just look at apple's history with switches in my quote there..-
#27.3 Posted by raid517 on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:21
- Well I like Mac. Don't get me wrong I really do - but given that history this surely has to be their last architecture switch ever period? They will have to follow the Intel road map forever now, wherever that may take them.
The odd thing is, in a sense this just makes Mac another small OEM of it's own in the X86/64 market.
There isn't going to be that much to distiguish a Mac from a PC any more. Indeed, now officially a Mac will just be a PC, pretty much like any other.
The upside is maybe developers will start making games for Mac again. I still remember the mid 90's or so, when just about every game that was released was released for both Windows and Mac. The other plus side is that hardware vendors will now have a much easier time in supporting the Mac, so the range of hardware avaiable for a Mac might very well dramatically increase.
On yet another note - if this means Apple are able to compete on price with even very small OEM's and the price of Macs really come down, I would certainly consider buying one.
GJ
-
#28 Posted by Netrack on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:13
- im surprised that there calling the next osx 10.7, i no this is chronological order but you would think that since there switching chips they might call it like osx 20 or osx^2 or some name other than 10.7 leopard
btw i hope for the next naming scheme they use monkey names, id love to buy an OS called OSX howler monkey
-
(1 reply)
#29 Posted by acidsex on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:26
- http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/preview/
Quicktime 7 Windows Preview -
#29.1 Posted by DrEaMs In DiGiTaL on 06 Jun 2005 - 20:38
- Thanks
-
(4 replies)
#30 Posted by deron dantzler on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:28
- I am really ticked about this. I don't believe it's the right direction for Apple as a company. It makes no real sense. If they are going to switch to Intel, why the hell not compete with MS for the x86 OS market? I'm dumping my Apple stock. Too bad I just switched to Apple
.
Check this out:
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
Source
So: YEAH! Users are probably going to run Windows on the Apple hardware. We're not going to try to stop them. BUT, you're never going to run OS X on a DELL.
Ridiculous. -
#30.1 Posted by Caleb on 06 Jun 2005 - 19:40
- What don't you understand?
Apple are too scared to offer support for vast amounts of hardware combinations..
They're going to take it easy and support only a certain combination of CPUs/Chipsets/Whatever.
Anyways, this defies the need for a Mac right now... unless the prices are going to be _really_ cheap, because in the past you would be getting a great CPU, and now you get a ****ty outdated prehistoric Intel CPU with a flawed operating system. (yes OSX is flawed) -
#30.2 Posted by neufuse on 06 Jun 2005 - 20:33
- I agree that there are flaws in OSX... I am not saying that because I don't like it either, there are parts of OSX I think are great, and parts I don't like.
-
#30.3 Posted by sphbecker on 06 Jun 2005 - 22:03
- Apple makes most of their money from their hardware. Allowing OS X to be installed on a Dell or HP might increase their OS market share a little, but it would also decrease their hardware market share and ultimately decrease their profits.
Live Updates:
9:05 am .Mac has gone offline, citing scheduled maintenance between the periods of 10am PST and 12pm PST (coincidentally, the same estimated running time as today's keynote).
9:43 am Doors to hall are open. People beginning to take seats.
9:59 am *music playing*
10:05 am Steve enters the stage
10:06 am Steve: "This is an important day. There are over 3800 WWDC attendees. 400+ Apple Design Award entrees. There are more than 500,000 ADC members."
10:09 am Steve is discussing retail stores. "1 million visitors per week. Retail/Online stores have sold half a billion in products."
10:11 am Apple Stores offer a great buying experience. The iPod is part of pop culture, with a 76% market share in portable music players. End of last quarter 16 million iPods sold.
10:12 am 82 percent iTunes marketshare in the month of May. Podcasting is exploding. "TiVo for Radio." "Wayne's World for radio." Hottest thing going for Radio. Over 8,000 podcasts right now and growing very fast.
10:16 am Apple will build in Podcasting support into iTunes. Easy/quick listing of Podcasts right into iTunes. Subscribe podcasts, download old podcasts. Jobs demos Adam Curry podcast. Artwork in iTunes window changes as you scrub podcasts. Jobs said that new iTunes would take podcasting mainstream.
10:19 am Jobs touts Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. Mac doing very well. PC growth rate is around 10% today . 9 months ago Mac growth rate took off. One billion copies of QuickTime shipped. QuickTime 7 preview available for Windows today.
10:20 am Apple says it will deliver the 2,000,000 copy of Mac OS X Tiger. In under 6 weeks since its released. 400 dashboard widgets available since it is released. Jobs demos a few Dashboard widgets.
10:22 am Next OS X release (10.5) to be called "Leopard" and is coming in 2006 or 2007.
10:25 am Apple is going to Intel chips officially. "We've been through many transistions. 680x0 to PowerPC, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Today we begin a third transition. It's true; We are switching to Intel."
10:27 am Why are we switching to Intel? Intel offers great performance. Intel offers great power consumption. The transition will take a few years, but it will be worth it. We want to be making the best computer for the customer going forward.
10:29 am June 2006 Macs will ship with Intel processors. By 2007, the transition will almost be complete.
10:31 am We face two challenges. The first, is Mac OS X on Intel. We've been maintaining Mac OS X on Intel AND PPC, secretly, for the past 5 years, just in case.
10:32 am This entire last half hour the keynote has been running on an Intel box running Mac OS X.
10:34 am Development machines will be in the hands of developers soon. Video playing explaining how to compile for Intel. Widgets, Scripts, Java, all already work...Cocoa programs need but a small tweak. Carbon programs will take a couple of weeks.
10:36 am We're releasing XCode 2.1. It can compile a Universal Binary (FAT binary). Available to everybody at registration desk following the keynote. Developers applauded Steve when he said that both processors would be supported for a long time to come.
10:38 am Mathematica 5 for Mac OS X was ported to Intel last week...in just two hours. Working version in 20 hours. A couple dozen lines of code had to be changed.
10:46 am While most software is just a recompile away, some will remain PPC-only. For that, there's Rosetta. Binary instruction translation, in real time. Runs PowerPC code on Intel-baesd Macs. Transparent to users. Pretty fast. Jobs demos Rosetta used to run PowerPC macs on Intel-based Macs. Jobs shows Microsoft Excel/Word running on Intel-based Mac (without any porting and/or recompiling). Jobs also shows Photoshop CS2 with all plugins that are translated and run on Intel-based Mac without significant speed decrease.
10:48 am A developer transition kit is being released. Just for developers. It's a 3.64 GHz Pentium 4 in a Power Mac enclosure. Select and Premier members only, for $999 (rental). Order today; available in two weeks.
10:52 am Launch of Microsoft Office 2004 was best product launch for Mac OS X. New version of Messenger due for Macs in the next few months. Additionally, a new update for Exchange users. MacBU commits to delivering a "Universal Binary" for Microsoft Office. Jobs also invites Bruce Chizen of Adobe on stage to talk about Intel-based Mac transition. Adobe says it is committed bringing its applications to Intel-based Macs.
10:55 am Steve: "In the cultural sense, Intel is a lot like Apple..." Intel is passionate about their products. Intel CEO Paul Otellini invited on stage to talk about Apple's transition.
11:00 am Intel has released a press statement http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050606corp.htm and surprisingly enough, so has Apple! http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html. Steve will be on CNBC at 2:30PM EST for an interview.
11:05 am Keynote ends.