Some Thoughts on iPod, Darwin and That Ole Star Trek...
With the very large success of iPod in the MP3 player market, which broaches into the PDA market dominated by Palm on one side and a bunch of Windows CE branded machines on the other...
One gentleman on the net suggested that the iPod was now its own platform so to speak, independent of Mac or Windows. He even cited students whose interest lay in a cool machine which was windows compatible that ran programs they substituted for the default musicmatch software.
I was reminded of Newton... and Cyberdog... and Opendoc... and Next of course. Of what we all hoped Rhapsody (the Mac OS) would be. And what Copeland promised to be...
What the abandoned E-Village became apart from Apple (AOL)
and what once upon a time... Star Trek was secretly conspiring to be.
The OS wars have always been about my OS is better than your OS, nana nana na na.
And about my code is hotter, better, more loved than your code...
Translation of course has always been a joke, no matter how good, it was never as good as the native thing.
And even Orange Micro meant having a pc compatible card stuffed into your Mac that ran a copy of Windows that you
could run all your enemy camp loved but hated apps and games on. MS still made sales from those copies of Windows.
But Newton was something that tried to be different. I have never worked for Apple so I can't tell you what the engineers were thinking. Except to say as a layman Macintosh fan that Newton looked like it was going to be something different, something that could be itself, could step away from the shunned image of macintosh without bowing down to windows and be something that simply worked.
The Newton was popular, but not enough. It was cool and functional and ahead of its time. But apathy in the greater windows universe has killed many OSes and computer companies and great ideas ahead of their time. Amiga and Commodore come immediately to mind. Though Amiga struggles still to exist, it has moved beyond the mainstream to the side of the technology road. Replaced in significance by those Linux machines that dominate the server and programmer workstation low end markets.
Which leads me to Darwin...
Why create a copy of MacOS that will run on windows compatible hardware? Isn't Apple a hardware company? Isn't there too much competition in that over-crowded market to glean even a small percentage of users to survive and prosper by?
And then suddenly I remember Star Trek... that aborted half attempt to mold the mac in the windows image. To create a macOS that would run on open hardware and...
And what else...?
The story stops there because Star Trek was stopped and we don't know very much at all. The dead silence of the closed past doesn't give up too many secrets. And whatever the techs hoped it would be, or wanted it to be... never happened.
But this is the hardware forum, so why am I speaking about star trek which was a software application? Indeed the MacOS , yes, but still software. Because it was hardware based. And what if Star Trek was going to run not only on windows compatible hardware, but was going to run windows programs as well, natively, without MS Windows anywhere near the machine?
Wait a sec?
Run windows apps WITHOUT windows?
When the idea hit me, I started to get this really wide grin. Because MS Windows is the Evil Lord and they would cut Apple or you or me or anyone else that stood in their way of selling and making money on their windows monopoly.
And emulators on other platforms can't compete with native run apps on their own hardware with their own api calls, right? But what if there was a compatible hardware OS that could run them as fast, or even faster? And outdo the interface and cost less and start a revolution all by itself. One little program that garnered users and converters simply because it was there and it wasn't MS, and it ran the apps they had. They didn't have to buy everything new again.
It that what Star Trek was intended to be?
What Newton was trying to be?
What Darwin is secretly being designed to be?
As a Mac user ask yourself a simple question: If you liked Linux but had to change every piece of hardware you owned would you do it? If you thought Windows games were cool, but every time you even thought about it, you knew you'd have to buy a windows machine to run them, and you just hated that.
What if you wanted a machine that ran your mac software and ran windows or linux or unix just as well?
Netscape almost did it with a browser running html on top of every platform you or me could think of.
Maybe beating MS doesn't mean beating them at the OS war, maybe it means running their programs and them not getting money on copies of Windows?
Just a few thoughts,
gosh isn't it a wonderfully Apple day out there...
-MacintoshMan
One gentleman on the net suggested that the iPod was now its own platform so to speak, independent of Mac or Windows. He even cited students whose interest lay in a cool machine which was windows compatible that ran programs they substituted for the default musicmatch software.
I was reminded of Newton... and Cyberdog... and Opendoc... and Next of course. Of what we all hoped Rhapsody (the Mac OS) would be. And what Copeland promised to be...
What the abandoned E-Village became apart from Apple (AOL)
and what once upon a time... Star Trek was secretly conspiring to be.
The OS wars have always been about my OS is better than your OS, nana nana na na.
And about my code is hotter, better, more loved than your code...Translation of course has always been a joke, no matter how good, it was never as good as the native thing.
And even Orange Micro meant having a pc compatible card stuffed into your Mac that ran a copy of Windows that you
could run all your enemy camp loved but hated apps and games on. MS still made sales from those copies of Windows.
But Newton was something that tried to be different. I have never worked for Apple so I can't tell you what the engineers were thinking. Except to say as a layman Macintosh fan that Newton looked like it was going to be something different, something that could be itself, could step away from the shunned image of macintosh without bowing down to windows and be something that simply worked.
The Newton was popular, but not enough. It was cool and functional and ahead of its time. But apathy in the greater windows universe has killed many OSes and computer companies and great ideas ahead of their time. Amiga and Commodore come immediately to mind. Though Amiga struggles still to exist, it has moved beyond the mainstream to the side of the technology road. Replaced in significance by those Linux machines that dominate the server and programmer workstation low end markets.
Which leads me to Darwin...
Why create a copy of MacOS that will run on windows compatible hardware? Isn't Apple a hardware company? Isn't there too much competition in that over-crowded market to glean even a small percentage of users to survive and prosper by?
And then suddenly I remember Star Trek... that aborted half attempt to mold the mac in the windows image. To create a macOS that would run on open hardware and...
And what else...?
The story stops there because Star Trek was stopped and we don't know very much at all. The dead silence of the closed past doesn't give up too many secrets. And whatever the techs hoped it would be, or wanted it to be... never happened.
But this is the hardware forum, so why am I speaking about star trek which was a software application? Indeed the MacOS , yes, but still software. Because it was hardware based. And what if Star Trek was going to run not only on windows compatible hardware, but was going to run windows programs as well, natively, without MS Windows anywhere near the machine?
Wait a sec?
Run windows apps WITHOUT windows?
When the idea hit me, I started to get this really wide grin. Because MS Windows is the Evil Lord and they would cut Apple or you or me or anyone else that stood in their way of selling and making money on their windows monopoly.
And emulators on other platforms can't compete with native run apps on their own hardware with their own api calls, right? But what if there was a compatible hardware OS that could run them as fast, or even faster? And outdo the interface and cost less and start a revolution all by itself. One little program that garnered users and converters simply because it was there and it wasn't MS, and it ran the apps they had. They didn't have to buy everything new again.
It that what Star Trek was intended to be?
What Newton was trying to be?
What Darwin is secretly being designed to be?
As a Mac user ask yourself a simple question: If you liked Linux but had to change every piece of hardware you owned would you do it? If you thought Windows games were cool, but every time you even thought about it, you knew you'd have to buy a windows machine to run them, and you just hated that.
What if you wanted a machine that ran your mac software and ran windows or linux or unix just as well?
Netscape almost did it with a browser running html on top of every platform you or me could think of.
Maybe beating MS doesn't mean beating them at the OS war, maybe it means running their programs and them not getting money on copies of Windows?
Just a few thoughts,
gosh isn't it a wonderfully Apple day out there...
-MacintoshMan
Comments
I really don't think they are investing too much into an OS that will "run Windows apps". That's what VPC is for. Oops, Microsoft bought that. Damn. The latest is, Microsoft has opened up the source code to Windows 2000/2003 finally. Well, to MVPs only, but it's a start. They sure as hell couldn't fix their own code to make it secure!
Can you imagine some fresh-from-college programmers attempting to disect the hundreds of millions (
Guess I would open up the source code, too!
It seems like Apple actually was looking at a move to x86. At least they were considering all their options. It was, and is, an extremely unlikely scenario because of the trouble it would have caused existing customers. But there's a potentially large upside to an x86 Mac (beyond any arguments about performance) because such a beast would have been able to run many Windows programs through WINE, and many Linux programs through a Linux-compatability layer (I think one of the BSD's already has one).
The x86 Mac would then be the most compatible computer in existance. Apple is a hardware company afterall, do they care if their OS runs the main competitors programs? Corporations would take a (even more) serious look at Macs to replace wintel.
This would never happen, but it's a fun thought.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Mac OS X is based off BSD unix, as is FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin. It wasn't something Apple created. Under the GPL, Apple must put their changes back into the open source. However, Darwin is also there so they can keep the options open (in case the PPC road is a rough one).
Actually, BSD is not licensed under the GPL, it is under the BSD license. If Apple has built on top of a GPL structure, they would have had to open source everything, Aqua, Quicktime, everything. The BSD allows for commercial development, and only encourages code sharing.
Originally posted by MacintoshMan
But what if there was a compatible hardware OS that could run them as fast, or even faster? And outdo the interface and cost less and start a revolution all by itself.
What is a compatible hardware OS?
My take on running windows apps on OS X:
Marklar is a beast. Why not go In through the out door instead?
Indeed development in that direction is happening as of now with MSs' consent (Mono(?) Project).
Originally posted by cocoa tree
Windows applications on other OSes and platforms will only be sanely possibe with C# and the surrounding class modell.
Indeed development in that direction is happening as of now with MSs' consent (Mono(?) Project).
...but but but, if Windows apps where written in Obj-C, with some sort of open-source app-kit like foundation, I mean, it could totally be ...
Sorry, every now and then, the dream still overwhelms.
Originally posted by MacintoshMan
And emulators on other platforms can't compete with native run apps on their own hardware with their own api calls, right? But what if there was a compatible hardware OS that could run them as fast, or even faster? And outdo the interface and cost less and start a revolution all by itself. One little program that garnered users and converters simply because it was there and it wasn't MS, and it ran the apps they had. They didn't have to buy everything new again.
They would have to buy everything new again... all-new hardware, when the hardware they currently have is doing a fine job... The sad fact is, most people simply aren't interested in switching away from Windows. They're accustomed to the frequent security flaws and virus attacks, they just don't care. Alternatives exist (Mozilla/IE, OpenOffice/Office, Linux/Windows), are readily available and are (in some ways) superior, yet 95% of people are still using Windows. Why would anyone change something that works?
What happens when something breaks? Who do you go to? Would Apple have to provide troubleshooting for a Windows problem?
Maybe beating MS doesn't mean beating them at the OS war, maybe it means running their programs and them not getting money on copies of Windows?
I'm sure Microsoft would love that. They would still get sales for their applications (Office), regardless of the platform it runs on. It would give them an even greater market share, and the ability to lock more people into their upgrade cycle. Once everyone is using Office, they could just make it an intricate part of Longhorn II, forcing everyone over to that platform.
What if you wanted a machine that ran your mac software and ran windows or linux or unix just as well?
Once you support someone else's standards, why would anyone bother supporting yours? Remember what happened to OS/2.
Netscape almost did it with a browser running html on top of every platform you or me could think of.
Not amiga.
Originally posted by murk
Running Windows apps without running Windows was one of the goals mentioned just before or soon after Apple bought NeXT.
I don't remember that.. When Apple bought NeXT, wasn't Gil Amelio still in charge? And weren't they still producing clones?
Or was it after, when Jobs came back?
Originally posted by blue2kdave
Actually, BSD is not licensed under the GPL, it is under the BSD license. If Apple has built on top of a GPL structure, they would have had to open source everything, Aqua, Quicktime, everything. The BSD allows for commercial development, and only encourages code sharing.
Actually, I don't think this is quite right either. I'm not an expert on the GPL, but I think it works this way, if Apple had chosen a GPL-ized OS (e.g., Linux) and made changes to the underlying OS itself, they would be required to contribute those back to the public. This, I believe is a requirement for changes they make to GCC.
However, things like Aqua, Quicktime, etc. are not necessarily "part of the OS" and necessarily beholden to the GPL license. In other words, they (I think) would still be able to do what they do today. The CORE OS is open source, but the layers above that are not.
That said, I'm guessing their reasons for choosing BSD (vs. Linux) were not stricly legal. I'll give four reasons:
1. NEXTSTEP was already based on BSD (WELL before Linux was anything anyone was talking about). Why change?
2. BSD is a better OS than Linux.
3. BSD is UNIX-enough and Linux-enough that porting applications would be cake walk (compared, say to Windows).
4. The legal licensing issues already pointed out.
Originally posted by Phroggy
I don't remember that.. When Apple bought NeXT, wasn't Gil Amelio still in charge? And weren't they still producing clones?
Or was it after, when Jobs came back?
I'm pulling this from memory, so I'm not sure, but I think it might have been in the time period when Gil was in charge but Steve was an advisor. I remember the board listed this as one of the goals of a new operating system. Who knows if Steve agreed.
Originally posted by Phroggy
I'm not sure I understand what MacintoshMan is suggesting... seems like he wants a Windows-compatible OS on Mac hardware...
What I am proposing is the OS wars we have all
fought since computing first started where every
vendor had their own os and their own apps and
their own hardware and were in this crucial
struggle to get a slice of the customer market
could end... if hardware were standardized and
could run any os or app.
End of everyone fighting for marketshare if
the hardware runs all of it. Then MS has no
edge if I can run mac apps just as easily or
linux or unix or amiga apps or whatever on the
hardware I got.
They would have to buy everything new again... all-new hardware, when the hardware they currently have is doing a fine job... The sad fact is, most people simply aren't interested in switching away from Windows. They're accustomed to the frequent security flaws and virus attacks, they just don't care. Alternatives exist (Mozilla/IE, OpenOffice/Office, Linux/Windows), are readily available and are (in some ways) superior, yet 95% of people are still using Windows. Why would anyone change something that works?
What happens when something breaks? Who do you go to? Would Apple have to provide troubleshooting for a Windows problem?
I'm not proposing anyone buy a universal hardware
machine the second it is available, but only when
they come into the market for a new machine, like
when the old beast dies, or when buying new for
schools or businesses. And if universal hardware
were to become a reality tomorrow, then I'd buy
one day after tomorrow just because I would love
to have a machine that would run it all.
And for schools and businesses? I don't think
MS would have a lock anymore if we could all
run OSX or any of the X apps just as easily.
I'm sure Microsoft would love that. They would still get sales for their applications (Office), regardless of the platform it runs on. It would give them an even greater market share, and the ability to lock more people into their upgrade cycle. Once everyone is using Office, they could just make it an intricate part of Longhorn II, forcing everyone over to that platform.
MS loves money, granted, and the more the merrier,
but reality is they got to corner a market to get
the prices they want. Any competition at all, from
anybody... linux, macintosh, unix, novell, real-time
systems and apps... means less for MS. And that my
friend is a good thing.
Once you support someone else's standards, why would anyone bother supporting yours? Remember what happened to OS/2.
Universal hardware, just as much as a universal
document base, such as pdf, or html and flash
give power to the users not to the manufacturers.
And it evens the playing field, not just between
our favorite companies, but between companies and
their customers. We have more say in how or why
or if certain things get added, or deleted, or
passed over or not considered at all. And that
also is a very very wonderful thing.
Not amiga.
?? Not amiga? Amiga was a good company, and was
one os that was far ahead of its time. It is a
shame, much like the Newton, that it was lost
so long before it had a chance to really mature
and shine. I will miss both of those, and a few
others as well. But I am glad that Apple and IBM
are here still, and that they are concentrating
on answers that counter MS. I am very happy to
see that.
=MacintoshMan
Originally posted by OverToasty
...but but but, if Windows apps where written in Obj-C, with some sort of open-source app-kit like foundation, I mean, it could totally be ...
Sorry, every now and then, the dream still overwhelms.
You ever checked out GNUStep? This is actually possible right now, they just don't have the entire AppKit ported. I believe it even supports multiple binaries per app bundle so you can distribute a single version.
Thanks for the tip.
-MacintoshMan
Originally posted by spankalee
You ever checked out GNUStep? This is actually possible right now, they just don't have the entire AppKit ported. I believe it even supports multiple binaries per app bundle so you can distribute a single version.
MS loves money, granted, and the more the merrier, but reality is they got to corner a market to get the prices they want. Any competition at all, from anybody... linux, macintosh, unix, novell, real-time systems and apps... means less for MS. And that my friend is a good thing.
Sadly, Microsoft doesn't like to play fair. And they have $60B (give or take?), and contracts with all the major OEMs (remember what happened when they tried to ship a box without an OS?)
If there's ANYTHING that can hurt Microsoft's share price, you can be sure they're willing to buy it (that includes the DoJ)
Not amiga.
?? Not amiga? Amiga was a good company...
Jeeze, don't quote me out of context
Originally posted by MacintoshMan
?? Not amiga? Amiga was a good company, and was
one os that was far ahead of its time. It is a
shame, much like the Newton, that it was lost
so long before it had a chance to really mature
and shine. I will miss both of those, and a few
others as well. But I am glad that Apple and IBM
are here still, and that they are concentrating
on answers that counter MS. I am very happy to
see that.
=MacintoshMan
Amiga still exists, so the use of "was" is a bit unwarrented, no?
Take a look here for the latest developments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not amiga.
?? Not amiga? Amiga was a good company...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeeze, don't quote me out of context You compared your idea to Netscape and HTML. Netscape never released a browser for the Amiga platform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to quote you out of context, I didn't
understand what you meant, but yes you are
correct, Netscape didn't make a browser for
the Amiga platform.
Excuse the misinterpretation.
-MacintoshMan
Originally posted by Eric_Z
Amiga still exists, so the use of "was" is a bit unwarrented, no?
Take a look here for the latest developments.
Yes, you are correct, the Amiga still does
exist, my apologies. I am a fan myself of
alternative machines, and the Amiga is one
of those.
It is just that they have lost so much
marketshare that they are hard pressed
to compete with other companies such as IBM
or Apple in shaping the direction of computing.
But alive and functioning is still a wonder
ful thing, and I am glad to see them continue
to work at producing new and innovative ideas
and still selling new hardware.
It would be wonderful to see them in the stores
again. The Amiga OS was one heck of an OS.
Thanks for reminding me, and hope I didn't
sound dis-respectful. They 'ARE' a cool company.
-MacintoshMan