David's Stone

24

Comments

  • Reply 20 of 74
    [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!
  • Reply 22 of 74
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,741member
    [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>
  • Reply 23 of 74
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    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.
  • Reply 24 of 74
    [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.
  • Reply 25 of 74
    [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.
  • Reply 26 of 74
    johnsonwaxjohnsonwax Posts: 462member
    [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.
  • Reply 27 of 74
    cdong4cdong4 Posts: 194member
    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.
  • Reply 28 of 74
    [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...
  • Reply 29 of 74
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    [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! )
  • Reply 30 of 74
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    [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>
  • Reply 31 of 74
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [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.
  • Reply 32 of 74
    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>
  • Reply 33 of 74
    jrgjrg Posts: 58member
    [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>
  • Reply 34 of 74
    t_vort_vor Posts: 25member
    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.
  • Reply 35 of 74
    warpdwarpd Posts: 204member
    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!!
  • Reply 36 of 74
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    <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.
  • Reply 37 of 74
    iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    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?
  • Reply 38 of 74
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    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>
  • Reply 39 of 74
    iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    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.
  • Reply 40 of 74
    iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    Sorry, I wasn't clear on my earlier post. What I meant by "leave it to connectix so not every one has it" was that it wouldn't come on every mac and it would be an additional cost to get it. This is what is happening now. Windows developers don't assume that every mac person can run their software on VPC, because not every mac person has VPC. The only difference would be that VPC would run MUCH faster since it would be using a processor with the same instruction set and graphics cards.
Sign In or Register to comment.