or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › David's Stone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

David's Stone

post #1 of 75
Thread Starter 
{{{Speculation / Need for information}}}

allenmcjones (whether you believe he is credible or not) had mentioned something that is integrated with a lot of products called "David's Stone" which he asserts is "the big one."

It got me thinking, because of the very nice name. David's Stone obviously killed Goliath.

Now, whether or not there is some actual project at Apple called "David's Stone" I do not want to debate. What is obvious about the situation is that the mentality of "David's Stone" is in place, as we see in the "Switch" commercials.

So, if we can call a truce on the authenticity of the code name, I would appreciate it, and for now, and for the sake of argument, let's just call it "David's Stone." (Not quite as poetic as "Priam's Arrow," but then again, Achilles was not a lumbering giant.)

The first question would be, who would be Goliath? Microsoft or Intel? I think the answer is both.

In thinking about this, my mind wandered back to the Transmeta situation, where the "Code Morphing, "if I understand correctly, is flashed onto a chip. <a href="http://transmeta.com/technology/architecture/code_morphing.html" target="_blank">Link to Transmeta Diagram and Information</a>

Transmeta, though, assumes that an OS, Windows or Linux, will be installed over this chip, sending it instructions....

As I wondered, I had been thinking about not only X86 emulation but MS behavioral emulation: no one wants to run Windows on a Mac: they just want their Windows programs to run on a Mac. {Attaching the GUI on the front end of the Windows applications, of course, would be problematic, but that would be the price one would pay for using an Windows application.} Wintel apps, like Apple apps, from what I understand, do not only make calls to the processor, but to OS functions as well. This obviously is a problem in terms of licensing.

My point is, essentially, if Transmeta can put an x86 instruction translator in front of their CPU, why can't Apple?

Would a dedicated, on-board, flashable translation chip which provides this ability avoid all the problems of speed that plague emulation applications like VirtualPC? Obviously this is possible, as Transmeta can do it, and it removes the translation load from the main CPU, freeing it to do the operations it needs to do, without bogging down.

This hypothetical translation chip would not cost much, I think, to fabricate, as it operates solely as a limited-task layer in front of the main CPU. (It would cost much more to develop.) Whoever knows anything about this, I would be interested to hear your comments on feasibility.

The issue once again, it seems, how to deal with OS functionality and calls to Windows functions. No idea what to do about this. Obviously Connectix has found some way to do this at least in a limited fashion.

The question then becomes, of course, what laws Apple would be breaking by making this chip.

I am not sure about this either. I do not know what Transmeta's agreement with Intel/MS is, or whether they even have one. Are the instructions common property, and the implementation patented? Somehow AMD manages to compete with Intel, so they had to know and assumably be able to use the instructions that were coming to the chip, so those things can't be Intel's property.

My point is, essentially, that a possibility for a "David's Stone" could be not software emulation, but a hardware-based solution.
Anyway, my feeling is that if anything hiding in Apple's pocket did could ever slay Goliath, this could be it.

Though this has been a little rambling, maybe someone who knows much more about this than I could comment on these ideas. I know I am seeing the forest and not the trees here, and the devil is probably in those details. However, I am still curious to hear considered comments on these ideas. Or.... perhaps I took a toke from Meader's pipe.

Hope Springs Eternal,

Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
post #2 of 75
I'd say a G5 or POWER chip being "David's Stone" is more likely.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #3 of 75
Despite the efforts of a number of companies, including Microsoft, reverse engineering is still legal. It just has to be done very carefully. There are no legal difficulties in theory, although that doesn't mean that MS or Intel wouldn't sic lawyers on Apple and/or the chip supplier anyway.

Now, let's say you're a developer. Your Windows code now runs well on Windows (obviously), the upstart Lindows, and Linux + WINE, and now Macintosh. You look at the cost and time and personnel involved in keeping your Mac port up to date. Do you can it and tell your customers to use the Windows version? It's tempting, isn't it?

If you're a Windows developer who was contemplating a Mac version, there's much less of a reason to make one now, isn't there? Your customers can just use the Windows version. Now you're saved the trouble of finding and hiring a Mac programmer or retraining staff, buying new hardware, keeping up another codebase, etc.

If you don't believe this could happen, think about companies like UPS telling their Mac-using customers to "just use VPC" (before UPS did the smart thing and went web-based).

Curiously, Microsoft sits back and does nothing. Intel also acts as if nothing untoward had happened. They bide their time until a critical number of apps are Windows-only (MS might help this along by killing Mac Office, since the same people can buy Windows Office). Now, guess what? Apple's development environment and its APIs (Cocoa, Carbon and Java all together) are irrelevant except for platform loyalists like Omni and Bare Bones, and MS effectively controls Apple's software platform, while Intel effectively controls their hardware platform. And our would-be David is now at Goliath's mercy.

Whooops.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #4 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>Despite the efforts of a number of companies, including Microsoft, reverse engineering is still legal. It just has to be done very carefully. There are no legal difficulties in theory, although that doesn't mean that MS or Intel wouldn't sic lawyers on Apple and/or the chip supplier anyway.

Now, let's say you're a developer. Your Windows code now runs well on Windows (obviously), the upstart Lindows, and Linux + WINE, and now Macintosh. You look at the cost and time and personnel involved in keeping your Mac port up to date. Do you can it and tell your customers to use the Windows version? It's tempting, isn't it?

If you're a Windows developer who was contemplating a Mac version, there's much less of a reason to make one now, isn't there? Your customers can just use the Windows version. Now you're saved the trouble of finding and hiring a Mac programmer or retraining staff, buying new hardware, keeping up another codebase, etc.

If you don't believe this could happen, think about companies like UPS telling their Mac-using customers to "just use VPC" (before UPS did the smart thing and went web-based).

Curiously, Microsoft sits back and does nothing. Intel also acts as if nothing untoward had happened. They bide their time until a critical number of apps are Windows-only (MS might help this along by killing Mac Office, since the same people can buy Windows Office). Now, guess what? Apple's development environment and its APIs (Cocoa, Carbon and Java all together) are irrelevant except for platform loyalists like Omni and Bare Bones, and MS effectively controls Apple's software platform, while Intel effectively controls their hardware platform. And our would-be David is now at Goliath's mercy.

Whooops.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I heard rumors about a technology Apple was considering to include in OS X early on called "Red Box" which emulated the Windows operating system simular to way Classic is done now.

I guess Apple realized that would be stupid like you said, and it would probably be dog slow like VPC anyway.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #5 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>Despite the efforts of a number of companies, including Microsoft, reverse engineering is still legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>

actually, reverse engineering is usually illegal. reengineering using documentable clean room standards is legal but much more difficult to accomplish.
post #6 of 75
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
Despite the efforts of a number of companies, including Microsoft, reverse engineering is still legal. It just has to be done very carefully. There are no legal difficulties in theory, although that doesn't mean that MS or Intel wouldn't sic lawyers on Apple and/or the chip supplier anyway.<hr></blockquote>

That is interesting. Thank you for clarifying.

[quote]Now, let's say you're a developer....You look at the cost and time and personnel involved in keeping your Mac port up to date. Do you can it and tell your customers to use the Windows version? It's tempting, isn't it?<hr></blockquote>

AND

[quote]If you're a Windows developer who was contemplating a Mac version, there's much less of a reason to make one now, isn't there? Your customers can just use the Windows version. Now you're saved the trouble of....<hr></blockquote>

AND

[quote]Curiously, Microsoft sits back and does nothing...... And our would-be David is now at Goliath's mercy.<hr></blockquote>

Amorph, you make excellent points, and you paint a dismal picture. Perhaps the idea was loony. But there is a need out there for Apple to grab more market share, and to make inroads into markets that are currently unaccessible. DS might allow Apple to make hardware inroads into these markets in ways that were previously unexpected. Perhaps it could only work on the XServes...

The question then would be, what could be the incentives put into place to keep Mac software developers working?

Perhaps if the the OS moves in, people might get addicted to it, as we all are, and buy more machines, where developers would start taking a look at the platform-specific advantages, and Goliath goes down... But that might be too long a wait.

Anyway, It was idle speculation on my part, but I am still intrigued by the idea. How did Transmeta do this so seamlessly? What would the speed hit be? (A G5 is no David's Stone. That is just the perennial spitting contest.)

If I have gone loony, the question would be what a magic bullet could be: it would have to be tightly integrated into both the OS and the machine. It would have to necessitate Apple hardware and the OS, and it would have to be not just wanted, but needed by most segments of the market.

Hope springs eternal,

Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
post #7 of 75
I think the actual code name for this project is "David's Stoned This is because it is rumored that David Hasselhoff will be replacing Jonathan Ives.

Hasselhoff will be making design decisions after a few hits of weed.
wow my very own signature
Reply
wow my very own signature
Reply
post #8 of 75
If I may point out the white elephant in this discussion...

To use an emulator (be it software or hardware) that allows you to run Windows programs within an Apple operating system precludes either of two things: You already have Apple hardware to run OS X with said emulator OR you have a means to run OS X on x86 hardware and run Windows programs without Windows OS layer below it.

In one case, the switch has been made, why bother scraping the bottom of Windows developer barrel. In the other case, Apple loses hardware sales and profits.

Tilt! Your speculation is dead.

Screed

[ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
post #9 of 75
[quote] the upstart Lindows, and Linux + WINE <hr></blockquote>

Not to split hairs, but these are basically the same thing.
post #10 of 75
Well, the problem can be boiled down to this...

How could Mac machines run Windows software without diminishing the need for Mac software development.?

What if only one non mac software title could run at any given time? Maybe it would be an app called iSwitch and it chooses an app from a foreign OS to run sans Windows. Data can then be printed, converted, viewed, saved but not as a true OS workspace replacement.

This would reduce the feature to a convenience as opposed to a replacement to the MacOS and Mac specific software.

But maybe I'm dreaming...

MSKR
"Just tell them that Ben Franklin said it, and everyone will believe the sentiment."
Reply
"Just tell them that Ben Franklin said it, and everyone will believe the sentiment."
Reply
post #11 of 75
I think everybody here is thinking different, but backward.

The stone that slays Goliath would be the ability to run Mac programs on a Windows machine, not the other way around.

This was the idea behind the "Red Box." A developer would build a Mac application first, then use the 'Rhapsody'-era developer tools to port later to Windows.

Then Goliath is at Davd's mercy.... :cool:
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #12 of 75
but if that were to happen, why buy mac hardware? why not stick with a cheap pc and get the whole world in software?
post #13 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>but if that were to happen, why buy mac hardware? why not stick with a cheap pc and get the whole world in software?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, it was 'Yellow Box', actually, which was a migration of the OpenSTEP APIs that ran on PPC, NT, Solaris, and HP/UX. You now know it as Cocoa. 'Blue Box' turned into Classic. 'Red Box' was a *rumored* Windows emulation for PPC hardware.

Yellow Box wasn't Mac OS X on Intel, it was Cocoa apps running on Windows. Given that most Mac apps have Windows versions, there's really no big shift to the consumer.

The concept was that a developer could write to Yellow Box APIs (Cocoa) and compile for both Mac OS X and Windows. Relatively free cross-platform development. 'Relatively free' because the Yellow Box APIs wouldn't cover all native technologies on each platform, but virtually all the UI and foundation code would move pretty well.

When developers balked at Yellow Box, Apple got to work on Carbon and did away with the cross-platform effort as it appeared that it wasn't going to justify the work involved.

Apple's got some pretty nifty stuff that they can leverage, but thus far has opted not to in most cases. Maybe it's a matter of keeping the peace.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: johnsonwax ]</p>
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #14 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>but if that were to happen, why buy mac hardware? why not stick with a cheap pc and get the whole world in software?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Isn't that what the other 95% are doing right now as we speak? They have the cheap hardware, and the world in software...

But they lack the beauty and the integration
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
post #15 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax:
<strong>

Maybe it's a matter of keeping the peace.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: johnsonwax ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Keeping the peace.....or "non-competition" contractual obligations?
*sigh*
Reply
*sigh*
Reply
post #16 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by t_vor:
<strong>actually, reverse engineering is usually illegal. reengineering using documentable clean room standards is legal but much more difficult to accomplish.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In other words, like I said, it's legal. It just has to be done carefully. The courts have guarded the right to reverse engineer scrupulously and consistently, because it's as fundamental a right as IP law can define. The reason you have to be careful is so that you can prove you reverse engineered in the first place, instead of just ripping off the other company's work.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #17 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by stepson:
<strong>Not to split hairs, but these are basically the same thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Except that Linux + WINE is incredibly fussy, and Lindows isn't. I'm giving Lindows points for polishing everything up nicely.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #18 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax:
<strong>


Yellow Box wasn't Mac OS X on Intel, it was Cocoa apps running on Windows. Given that most Mac apps have Windows versions, there's really no big shift to the consumer.

The concept was that a developer could write to Yellow Box APIs (Cocoa) and compile for both Mac OS X and Windows. Relatively free cross-platform development. 'Relatively free' because the Yellow Box APIs wouldn't cover all native technologies on each platform, but virtually all the UI and foundation code would move pretty well.

When developers balked at Yellow Box, Apple got to work on Carbon and did away with the cross-platform effort as it appeared that it wasn't going to justify the work involved.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: johnsonwax ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I remember developers balking at Yellow Box, because it would mean a total re-write of Mac applications to run natively, else they would have to run in Blue Box (Classic). But, as Cocoa, Yellow Box still is around. More and more apps are coming out written to the Cocoa API's, though most of the biggies are still Carbon.

I seem to also remember that the reason generally accepted at the time for Apple not releasing the Yellow Box API's for developers to compile to Windows, was licensing issues for their display format (Display PostScript?), as it would have meant paying licensing fees to Adobe or something and the devs wanted the tools to be free.

The reasons given by Amorph for not going with a Windows emulation environment are absolutaly correct. Developers, given a choice of maintaining 2 code bases, or 1 code base that runs, albeit somewhat handicapped, on 2 platforms would go with the path of least resistance and expense and simply produce Windows versions of their apps.

Once Apple went with their own display engine, thereby avoiding licensing fees, I always felt that Apple was holding back releasing the Cocoa API's for Windows until there was a saturation level of Cocoa Apps. Giving Devs the ability to write once, run anywhere was a corner stone of Next's strategy. And when Apple first bought Next, it was a major part of Apple's strategy. Gil Amelio once said "we have done the most beautiful thing in the world, we have made Windows invisible", refering to devs ability to write for Rhapsody and run on Windows.

I think now is the time to go back to this strategy. There are many Cocoa Apps out there, though most are not thought of as 'main stream' apps yet. This is partly due to the fact that they are Mac only apps. Even in the Mac community, given the choice of using a industry standard app like IE, or a Mac only app like OmniWeb, most will use the standard (Office is another example). The only way a Cocoa app can become 'main stream' is for it to run across platforms (or only on Windows......)

Now is the time to allow Mac Devs to have access to a larger market and allow their apps to become standards. This could, in my mind would, create the inertia for more apps to be written to Cocoa. In this case, a dev writes for the Mac and has access to the Windows market. Suddenly, Mac developers are at a major advantage. Their expenses go way down, as they can maintain a single code base, yet run everywhere. This is a major competitive advantage. Macs would get industry standard or superior apps at the same time or before the Windows world. Apple gets the advantage of having more apps concurrently available for the Mac and Windows, and the ability to control the API's. This is exactly opposite to the idea originally presented in this thread, yet I think it has the better advantage of being a David's Stone.

My ramble for the night

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #19 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by taboo:
<strong>

Keeping the peace.....or "non-competition" contractual obligations?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, Apple has had a contract with MS that expires next month, but I don't think that's it. With YellowBox comes a level of education and support that could have turned off more developers than it would encourage. Apple can't promote it as a silver bullet, because it isn't, and in the face of something like Win XP, which it would need to integrate with, it would certainly present a serious resource drain on Apple.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #20 of 75
Could Apple port the cocoa API to Windows??? It seems like too much proprietary knowledge of Windows would be required for such a port. But if it could be done, that would be the way to go.

Except the problem is, what if a Cocoa app runs BETTER on Windows than on OS X? What then? What if Apple ports Cocoa to Windows, but because of Wintel hardware superiority, ALL Cocoa apps are faster on Windows? That would be a disaster....and possibly the reason Apple won't port Cocoa to Windows.
post #21 of 75
Maybe once Apple's hardware surpasses the PC again we'll see a true Yellow Box implimentation.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #22 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>but because of Wintel hardware superiority, ALL Cocoa apps are faster on Windows?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just shut your f***ing mouth for once.

I am so tired of this bullcrap. I shoulda known this post was coming. Go copulate your precious P4 and leave us alone. God knows it'll keep you warm enough!
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
post #23 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>Could Apple port the cocoa API to Windows??? It seems like too much proprietary knowledge of Windows would be required for such a port. But if it could be done, that would be the way to go. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Cocoa is essentially what the Yellow Box was, which we the original OpenStep/NextStep APIs. They have been updated and modified, but since they ran under both Windows and Intel before they ever ran on PPC, it should be trivial to get them running on Windows now.

<strong> [quote]Except the problem is, what if a Cocoa app runs BETTER on Windows than on OS X? What then? What if Apple ports Cocoa to Windows, but because of Wintel hardware superiority, ALL Cocoa apps are faster on Windows? That would be a disaster....and possibly the reason Apple won't port Cocoa to Windows.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What if they do run better on Windows? This shouldn't be a problem. You could argue that Windows verions of apps run better on Windows than Mac versions run on Macs today. The only difference is that the developers only have to write once with Cocoa.

Regardless, this shouldn't be an issue. If Apple wanted to, they could handicap the Windows versions of the API's. I don't see this being a real benefit, as the main reason for Cocoa on Windows, would be concurrent apps and streamlined development for devs. And handicapping the Windows versions would keep devs from considering Cocoa for thier Apps. Full, un-handicapped API's on Windows could only help Apple and Mac developers right now.

Tiffany is an example of a app that could potentially benefit right away. This is a PhotoShop-like tool that I have read has most of the functionality of PS, but is far easier to use. It is a Cocoa app and so isn't available for Windows. If the producers of Tiffany had the combined Windows and Mac markets to tap into, their revenue could increase allowing more R&D which could allow this to become a PS killer, or atleast achieve feature parity with PS.

I really don't see a down side to Cocoa on Windows, though obviously Apple did at one time. Hopefully, they will/have changed their strategy.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #24 of 75
Please calm down. You'll get this thread locked.

JYD didn't say anything that deserved that kind of response. He asked a good question, and I bet his conclusion is partially correct. No need to be upset. Macs are still kick ass in my book.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #25 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>Please calm down. You'll get this thread locked.

JYD didn't say anything that deserved that kind of response. He asked a good question, and I bet his conclusion is partially correct. No need to be upset. Macs are still kick ass in my book.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I apologize for the severity of my response, but you'll notice by my not modifying it that I stand by it. Had it been anyone else but JYD I likely would have let it slide. But I lost it because of his *continuous* comments on the "superiority" of the x86/P4 and his statements that "Apple is doomed!"

The x86/PPC debate is old and will never die, because the architecture differences are very like engine differences: a Japanese I-4 is very different than an American V8, and each have plusses and minuses, and some parts are good in one and not another, and vice versa. Each person can have their own opinion for sure, but the debate never ends.

So I lash out at JYD for his foregone conclusion that Wintel machines are superior. It's like an American with a Viper and an Accord telling the Honda Club all about how much more powerful his Viper is...then when they get mad, he hides behind his Accord and says he likes to drive it more because its more comfortable. This is what I get from JYD who claims he loves his G4/400 but then talks nothing but trash.

Maybe I love Apple too much...who knows. But I believe in something more than just speed, which isn't a truly measurable value anyway.
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
post #26 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:
<strong>

What if they do run better on Windows? This shouldn't be a problem. You could argue that Windows verions of apps run better on Windows than Mac versions run on Macs today. The only difference is that the developers only have to write once with Cocoa.

Regardless, this shouldn't be an issue. If Apple wanted to, they could handicap the Windows versions of the API's. I don't see this being a real benefit, as the main reason for Cocoa on Windows, would be concurrent apps and streamlined development for devs. And handicapping the Windows versions would keep devs from considering Cocoa for thier Apps. Full, un-handicapped API's on Windows could only help Apple and Mac developers right now.
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks for some logic Tulkas. Sad, but still even today the #1 reason not to switch to a Mac is...survey says..."No software!" and this would definately help alleviate this problem. Devs would be encouraged to use Cocoa, which would not only help OS X, but would help everyone at the same time. Apple def wouldn't "handicap" the Windows APIs, but I think there'd be a lot more streamlining in the OS X APIs to keep an edge.
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
post #27 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>Could Apple port the cocoa API to Windows??? It seems like too much proprietary knowledge of Windows would be required for such a port. But if it could be done, that would be the way to go. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Cocoa already has been ported. Or, more correctly, as of 2 years ago had been ported, though the additions over that time may not have maintained parity. (It's my understanding that Apple still maintains the x86 codebase and compatibility, though we should NOT take this as a sign of an impending product. It's easier to maintain than to create at a later date, and I highly doubt that Apple has bothered to keep it sync'd to XP.)

[quote]<strong>Except the problem is, what if a Cocoa app runs BETTER on Windows than on OS X? What then? What if Apple ports Cocoa to Windows, but because of Wintel hardware superiority, ALL Cocoa apps are faster on Windows? That would be a disaster....and possibly the reason Apple won't port Cocoa to Windows.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They don't run better on Windows - never did. Problem is that, well, Windows really does suck to a certain degree (this was NT, so XP really hasn't progressed matters that much) and running everything through the Windows filter doesn't help.

Three main things prevent Apple from doing this:

1) Apple needs the resources to build out Mac OS X and Carbon rather than supporting Cocoa on XP which may not have a lot of developers, but would still eat up a ton of resources.
2) Until Mac OS X is up to speed, Cocoa apps on XP might well run faster since so much of OS X is not well optimized. Witness the boost from 10.0.x to 10.1.x, which pales with what you'll see from 10.1.5 to 10.2.
3) Most importantly, introducing Cocoa for XP would herald cries of Apple hedging on OS X and move the focus of developers and the media from OS X where it should be.

It'd be a great thing to have, but not yet. Not until market share is clearly on the upswing and sustainable, and developers are looking for something new that they can't get from MS. Patience all.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #28 of 75
if things do go to cocoa cross platform softwares, apple still needs to stress the strong software/hardware intergration etc and stability and so forth, and even developing on them further.
post #29 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax:
<strong>

3) Most importantly, introducing Cocoa for XP would herald cries of Apple hedging on OS X and move the focus of developers and the media from OS X where it should be.

It'd be a great thing to have, but not yet. Not until market share is clearly on the upswing and sustainable, and developers are looking for something new that they can't get from MS. Patience all.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Marvelous point. I think that this is very key to Apple right now. Just look at the WWDC. Apple publicly announced that attendees would get a sneak peek at Jaguar, and made a big deal about it, and during the keynote, Steve put OS 9 down (to developers) and the rest of the conference was OS X centered--getting devs to work on Cocoa and X in general rather than thinking of other platforms.

With time...
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
sudo rm -rf /*/*microsoft*
REMOVE ALL TRACES!
Reply
post #30 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by The All Knowing 1:
<strong>

Just shut your f***ing mouth for once.

I am so tired of this bullcrap. I shoulda known this post was coming. Go copulate your precious P4 and leave us alone. God knows it'll keep you warm enough!</strong><hr></blockquote>

What is your problem? Seriously, you are a very mean-spirited person who rarely has anything beyond personal insults to contribute. Even your screen name is obnoxious.."The all-knowing one". How incredibly arrogant. Your the type of person I do everything to avoid in real life...

Also I don't see the problem with the Pentium 4 running so hot. If Apple released a 2 GHz G5 that ran even hotter, not one person here would complain about the temperature as long as it was properly cooled (as if Apple wouldn't test it to make sure it doesn't overheat! )
post #31 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by The All Knowing 1:
<strong>


The x86/PPC debate is old and will never die, because the architecture differences are very like engine differences: a Japanese I-4 is very different than an American V8, and each have plusses and minuses, and some parts are good in one and not another, and vice versa. Each person can have their own opinion for sure, but the debate never ends.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Your engine analogy is wrong. There isn't anything comparable to torque in a CPU. Economy doesn't really matter for a CPU either, although it's nice that the G4 is low wattage, I don't think many people here would complain if Apple introduced a 2 GHz G5 that used 80 watts, as long as it was fast.

Benchmarks prove that Powermacs are slower than comparable Wintels at many important tasks, including 3d modeling and compositing, and multimedia. These are benchmarks, not opinions. They are also important for the markets that Apple is interested in.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/</a>

True, a dual G4 is faster at a few things, but not by very much, and overall the G4 is a much slower CPU. If you think otherwise, then back up your opinions with some bechnmarks. Here's an analogy for you: Apple has expressed interest in auto racing, so they come to a race not with a Viper, but with an Accord. Everyone laughs at them.

Does this matter to me? No, because the OS is more important to me than raw performance figures. But I don't do 3d modeling for a living, either. For my needs, a G4 400 is fine, although I'll probably get a GHz upgrade card when they come down in price a bit.

What DOES matter to me is Apple's continued health as a company. For Apple to gain marketshare, they need competitive hardware. I WANT Apple to gain marketshare, because if they do then my G4 400 becomes a better machine. More software becomes available, and Apple has more money to spend on OS X development.

For someone with a screen name of "all knowing one", you sure have a very narrrow view of the world. I'm also a bit creeped out by your obsession with me. You even know what kind of computer I use. That's downright scary, but at least I don't use any important email addys here, otherwise you'd probably be emailing with all sorts of creepy sh!t.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
post #32 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>

Your engine analogy is wrong. There isn't anything comparable to torque in a CPU. Economy doesn't really matter for a CPU either, although it's nice that the G4 is low wattage, I don't think many people here would complain if Apple introduced a 2 GHz G5 that used 80 watts, as long as it was fast. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Plenty of people would complain if they got 2 hours of battery life on their laptops.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #33 of 75
How Apple can increase its market ?

It must have competitive (best) hardware at lower price to fight against Interl/AMD/Win/DELL/HP (i.e. 7460,DDR...G5, price 10% less).

When this hardware is availalble launch OSX on Intel/AMD.

IF Mac will be the best platform for multimedia (with iXXX apps and iXXXX digital devices) and Intel/AMD OSX computer will be used for other apps THEN Apple will increase its market and macs won't die.

Or maybe Win running on Mac under OSX...

:confused:

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]</p>
post #34 of 75
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax:
<strong>

They don't run better on Windows - never did. Problem is that, well, Windows really does suck to a certain degree (this was NT, so XP really hasn't progressed matters that much) and running everything through the Windows filter doesn't help.

Three main things prevent Apple from doing this:

1) Apple needs the resources to build out Mac OS X and Carbon rather than supporting Cocoa on XP which may not have a lot of developers, but would still eat up a ton of resources.
2) Until Mac OS X is up to speed, Cocoa apps on XP might well run faster since so much of OS X is not well optimized. Witness the boost from 10.0.x to 10.1.x, which pales with what you'll see from 10.1.5 to 10.2.
3) Most importantly, introducing Cocoa for XP would herald cries of Apple hedging on OS X and move the focus of developers and the media from OS X where it should be.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, the major thing about moving Cocoa to Windows XP now is no imaging model! Display Postscript is a comfortable fit inside the GDI in Windows. You get a blank window using normal API's in Windows and then hand that space to a Postscript interpreter to render the image inside the window.

Not so with Quartz, which is conceptually different to the GDI/Postscript because the ultimate image is a composite of all the images below.

Quartz, love it or not can't be done in Windows without major rocket science ( and probably having the Windows source). Cocoa (or more correctly Core Services) is built assuming Quartz. I bet they can't be seperated easily.

[quote]
<strong>
It'd be a great thing to have, but not yet. Not until market share is clearly on the upswing and sustainable, and developers are looking for something new that they can't get from MS. Patience all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
post #35 of 75
amorph:
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>
In other words, like I said, it's legal.</strong><hr></blockquote>

no reverse engineering (lets take this sucker apart to see what makes it tick) is illegal. reengineering (starting from scratch using a public set of specifications) is legal.


everybody else:
sorry for the off topic discussion. i'll stop now.
post #36 of 75
One danger that I see with this "emulation" be it software or hardware, is that as stated, it would negate the need for developers to create Mas OSX versions of their Applications. (MS included) All MS would have to do is find some way to kill the emulation, either legaly or through some kind of technical process, and Apple would be screwed. There would be no current Mac versions of appz, and the windows versions would no longer function. Tantamount to suicide if you ask me, which of course, nobody did. Or ever does, for that matter!!
post #37 of 75
<strong>How Apple can increase its market ?

It must have competitive (best) hardware at lower price to fight against Interl/AMD/Win/DELL/HP (i.e. 7460,DDR...G5, price 10% less).</strong>

OT

However, Apple has only one chance. The can't win on hardware price. Realistlically they can't win on performance beacuse office workstations don't need it. The only way they could win is by having a compattible office suite that had virtulally no cost or update fees.

MS licencing fees are becoming a major issue for school and governments many are looking at open source. The biggest cost of IT is software not hardware, Microsofts soft underbelly is SOFTWARE. Attack the licencing structure and win customers by offering a long term cost reductions.
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #38 of 75
I'm very surprised that nobody has mentioned David's stone being a developer application that is a true turn-key solution to compiling MacOS X apps from Win code. Yes, I know such developer apps exist, but don't they still require quite a bit of work and tweaking to get a MacOSX application ported?

IF, Wintel developers could port their Windows apps to OSX in house with very little man-hours and have the product be solid, couldn't this be a big deal for MacOSX software avaliabilty? Possibly the app could even translate drivers as well for hardware? If the biggest problem the Mac faces is the lack of software, this would seem to be a pretty big deal.

Why wouldn't a software company want to pick up extra sales if the cost of bringing the appliation to the Mac was a matter of less than a week worth of man-hours?

It seems that this would be more reasonable from a Windows deveopers view than having to re-train and re-tool to develop software using Cocoa and writing apps for OSX that would also run on Windows. Apple needs to go after the Wintel centric developers and get them to port/write versions for the mac. I think it would be a tough sale to get them to switch developer envirenments even if the envirenment has advantages and compiled for Windows as well. I don't think you could get most to get away from MS developer tools.

So what's needed is a turnkey superduper set of porting tools that takes MS developed applications and almost instantly turns them into fully functioning good MacOSX applications.

Crazy?
post #39 of 75
Yep, licensing has made bill very rich, and the current schemes are designed purely to exploit M$ monopoloy and public/business insecurity about 'Standards'.

I remember when Office was pretty bad about new version file compatibility with old versions. How hard is it to keep the .doc format intact from one generation to the next?

Office is just ridiculously priced, if I couldn't get education price or site licence priveledges I simply wouldn't use it. I suspect many schools and business will soon be in the same boat. Apple has hardware money they can use to develop a killer office suit that does a few nifty things.

1.) Maintains near as possible to flawless M$ Office file compatibility.

2.) Simultaneously works natively in Open formats or at the least encourages file formats with better cross platform deployment/intentions/consortiums/working groups. RTF and PDF text, flash based presentation... etc etc Files that will just open and work in a number of programs. AS LITTLE PIDDLING PROPRIETARY BS AS POSSIBLE.

3.) FREE, EXPANDABLE, and FLEXIBLE. Take your basic AppleWorks suite. Why not have 'i' and 'Pro' versions. The basic 'i' version comes with every machine, with perhaps a pro 'WRITE/word' component on every machine. Students, families, business, everyone can use a full featured word processor. The rest of the components, DataBase, Speadsheet, Presentation, project manager, can be seperately upgraded as needs dictate.

Provide an open (plug-in) architecture so that people can turn your suit into anything from a typicl business suite a a pro-level web page generating tool.

Just like iMovie, iPhoto and iTunes, keep the timely updates useful and cheap, and always preserve file interoperability.

I would contract out a team, or perhaps bring in a few guys to do nothing but maintain file formatt interoperability with M$ and Apple's selection of Open formats.

So lets say you set up an office with a few hundred computers. You can get some PC's cheap and heap on the licences (which will shortly require you to update them at a fee) every year or so. You could decide that's not worth it and lease the windowsPC's with all the software you need and write off portions of the expense -- it's expensive too, but at least the machines (repair, licence audits, upgrades) are no longer your problem.

OR,

You could put a couple of hundred eMacs into your office each with a full compliment of neccessary licences and a tradition/commitment from Apple to maintain seamless cross platform/cross-generational file interoperability for the next 3-5 years.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #40 of 75
Also, what if David's Stone is a full version of Jaguar ported and running on an Athlon, with propriety ROMS so that you couldn't run MacOSX on generic PC boxes. However, you could run Windows in "emulation" mode which would hardly be requiring emulation... so you'd be getting a Mac/Windows machine with the Windows side only taking a 5-10% hit on OSX overhead (running Windows as an Application, like VPC).

How many calls do most applications make directly to the processor?

If they did get Jaguar running on an Athlon, what would be required of the MacOSX appliations to run on that platform? Recompiling? Could Apple write a solid recompiler that would recompile current MacOSX applications so they would run on this new Athlon based instruction set? Again, Apple would just be mostly swapping CPUs, you would still be required to purchase Apple's hardware to run OSX. It's just that the CPU would be an Athlon and capable of running a program like VPC much MUCH MUCH faster. And if Apple is scared that then Windows developers wouldn't make MacOS X applications because of the ability for Macs to run Windows applications... Apple could leave the emulator to Connectix show not everyone has it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › David's Stone