OSX on x86 Codenamed Marklar?

[bidge]

Say they released it next year, then people would all think about buying it rather than the next version of Winblows. Windows on the shelf beside it will be 5 times the price, yet it will have next to no features improved over their current one.

I don't think that there would be a big problem with people not buying macs. I now have two macs and since I converted I have a PC. I would buy a copy of 10.2 for my PC but would not even think of buying another PC.

 

[cubist]

AMD Hammer is the place to go...

Microsoft won't have a 64-bit version of Windows for the Hammer anytime soon. They will expect you to run the old 32-bit XP. They may even try to slow down AMD so that the Hammer machines don't come out until they're ready; they've shown that kind of arrogance many times in the past and haven't learned a thing from their legal trouble. AMD may bend to their pressure if they back it up with money. But it'd be a long delay; Windows is such a massive mess that, even with thousands of programmers, I wouldn't expect a 64-bit Windows for at least two years.

So what can people run on an Itanic or Hammer computer when they get it? Linux or HP-UX. If Mac OS X was available for those machines, it'd sweep the field.

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by passwordispong


If I used microsoft office (and I dont) and I paid $500-$600 for the software then I would expect it to be written in what ever language was the best. For what microsoft charges for its software, it isn't unreasionable to expect a complete rewrite.

What you want and what you expect don't enter into Microsoft's considerations one bit. The only consideration is, what will the cost be, will we recoup the cost, do we need to do it in order to continue selling Office versions?

MS will not make a cocoa version of Office because people will buy carbon versions of Office. They make a LOT of money by making code revisions.
MS will not invest a huge ammount of time and money into a new mac product. The market share doesn't support that type of move. They certainly won't do it in order to directly compete with Office in THEIR market (x86 PCs). releasing an office that could easily be recopiled to run on an X86 OS X version would actually push OS X into the Windows market. It would never happen.

There is no reason why MS would write a Cocoa version of Office at this point.

 

[passwordispong]

Originally posted by ffakr


MS will not make a cocoa version of Office because people will buy carbon versions of Office. They make a LOT of money by making code revisions.

That is exactly my point. If people pay high prices for software that isn't as good as it should be why should microsoft change? Of course if people stoped upgrading to the latest version and used the versions they already had, and demanded microsoft release a better product, then they would be forced to. Microsoft doesn't make any money if you keep using versions you have already own. Well, once they go to subscription licences then they will, but that is a different story.

 

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
And Nick de Plume is a reliable source since when?

he got all of MWNY correct, if that's any indication.

Anyone get the feeling Nick and Matt are one and the same person?

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by passwordispong


That is exactly my point. If people pay high prices for software that isn't as good as it should be why should microsoft change? Of course if people stoped upgrading to the latest version and used the versions they already had, and demanded microsoft release a better product, then they would be forced to. Microsoft doesn't make any money if you keep using versions you have already own. Well, once they go to subscription licences then they will, but that is a different story.

More likely, when people see that there is no reason to get the version of Office after Office X (Word 5 did everything I needed), then sales will die. Microsoft probably won't see this as people rejecting $200 upgrade costs for 5 new features.. they will see it as a lack of interest from Mac users and they will kill all future of versions of Office.

 

[MacCoaster]

Re: AMD Hammer is the place to go...

Originally posted by cubist
Microsoft won't have a 64-bit version of Windows for the Hammer anytime soon. They will expect you to run the old 32-bit XP. They may even try to slow down AMD so that the Hammer machines don't come out until they're ready; they've shown that kind of arrogance many times in the past and haven't learned a thing from their legal trouble. AMD may bend to their pressure if they back it up with money. But it'd be a long delay; Windows is such a massive mess that, even with thousands of programmers, I wouldn't expect a 64-bit Windows for at least two years.

So what can people run on an Itanic or Hammer computer when they get it? Linux or HP-UX. If Mac OS X was available for those machines, it'd sweep the field.

While your initial statement about not having a 64bit version of Windows for the Hammer is correct, your final statement about a 64bit Windows not coming for at least two years is incorrect.

Microsoft has the 64bit version of Windows XP available for the Itanium processor.