Here's the WWDC hardware connection: Regardless of whether or not Apple shows or announces any 970-based hardware, if the 970 is coming, then there will be plenty of information and advice (and possibly entire sessions) on how to make sure your apps work (or work better) in a 64 bit OS and/or on a 64-bit chip.
There were even hints of this at last year's WWDC, as some of the APIs introduced there (or shortly after) included 64-bit tidbits (e.g. "<a href="http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/ReleaseNotes/Foundation.html"; target="_blank">Someday</a>, your class's code may run on a machine with a processor with a 64-bit native word size." Hmmm...)
So, if you're at WWDC, just play "64-bit bingo" by making a note of every time a presenter talks about 64-bit APIs and data formats that seem somewhat unnecessary in a 32 bit world. (The game's over if they actually show or announce anything, of course
<strong>And why did they reschedule QT Live for WWDC? It wouldn't be because they want a bigger crowd to announce something major to would it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Im sure it couldn't be anything as simple as AAPL showing mercy for the cash-strapped developer community in these tough times....
Not a bad idea and maybe it's just me... but as each day goes by I have less and less need/desire for a VPC type environment. Funny I didn't always feel this way (under os 9 I really wanted it) but as each day goes by and the quality AND volume of X apps (both Aqua and Unix) the less I desire WinApps...
In fact... I think now more than ever there are MORE x86 users interested/curious in being able to run OS X than there are OS X users interested in running Windows.
If Apple included a VPC-like program on every Mac, that would be a very bad thing. Why? Because then Apple would have to pay a Window's license fee. So Microsoft would get revenue from nearly every computer sold at retail! It's much, much better to seperate the emulation from the OS.
if Apple included VPC on every Mac, they would not be required to include Windows. They could include Linux, Marklar (Mac OS X Intel ;-), OS/2, whatever runs on Intel. However, the compatbility would be there for anyone who still had their Windows disk and wanted to move over to the Mac, or test the Intel-on-Mac waters.
if Apple included VPC on every Mac, they would not be required to include Windows. They could include Linux, Marklar (Mac OS X Intel ;-), OS/2, whatever runs on Intel. However, the compatbility would be there for anyone who still had their Windows disk and wanted to move over to the Mac, or test the Intel-on-Mac waters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that would mean if they wanted to use the emulater to run Windows then all they have to do is buy it...thus helping Microsoft.
This also gives Apple an excuse to not pay much attention to detail to Mac OS X because "hey if Windows has it and they have that option of loading it on their new Mac...why implament it in Mac OS X?"
Anyway...I agree with John here...
Another quote from the link John provided:
[quote]On the other hand, it isn't harmful either, and writing the code to understand 64-bit today while you're making changes may allow you to avoid upgrading it in the future (as long as you deal with it properly at decode time).
<strong>That is enough to confirm us of the 970 </strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless, of course, Motorola actually does have a top-secret 64-bit G5 waiting in the wings. Or if Apple is going to switch to AMD's new x86-64 architecture.
Unless, of course, Motorola actually does have a top-secret 64-bit G5 waiting in the wings. Or if Apple is going to switch to AMD's new x86-64 architecture.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
A switch to AMD would be much bigger than a switch to the 970. I would have expected an anouncement about AMD support in their financial meeting, this afterall would be a major switch in thier buisness, where the 970 is an evolution to the same platform. Apple could talk about 64 bit suppprt via the 970 without giving an timeline for the switch (it is afterall a PowerPC chip), where I would imagine that they would require them to outline to developers and investors a timeline and the chip that they will move to.
But that would mean if they wanted to use the emulater to run Windows then all they have to do is buy it...thus helping Microsoft.
This also gives Apple an excuse to not pay much attention to detail to Mac OS X because "hey if Windows has it and they have that option of loading it on their new Mac...why implament it in Mac OS X?" </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't think helping or hurting M$ is the issue. It's Dell, HP and Gateway that we are after. We want market share and EQUAL respect from programdevelopers and website DEVELOPERS! I'm sure we would if we were in the teens at least 13% + in market share because then we'd only be a drop away from 1/4 of the market share. However, we need to gain and we haven't gained in how many years? So obviously, I think Apple needs more aggrssion if they plan to obtain some $ points. Princing is starting to get better. iApps are winning praise. The iPod is the trojan horse and the 970 could be the king.
That fine, we have all the major elements to guarantee victory, excpet, however, that ace in the whole. That sure fire item to get Apple over the hump and into every market there is from homer users to coporate and power users. Then, we need to appeal to ever computer user not using macs.
What are the reasons for not switching?
1) Price
2) speed/specs
3) Unfamiliarity with OSX ( have to learn new OS)
4) Familiar with windows
5) Myths (compatibility, macs are only for graphics, etc)
6) Have to replace sotware
Well I think
1) well on it's way to being nicely priced
2) 970 will help
3) Needs to be marketed how easy the OS is
4) Needs to be told how crappy windows is, wait, everyone knows that
5) Being done. Apple needs to makes ome damn commercials showing PEOPLE ACTUALLY USING THE FRICKING COMPUTER!
6) Emulation built in or there should be a switch program, switch to mac and with Adobe, Intuit, Macromedia etc, a upgrade price to get the mac version if you own the pc version.
5) Myths (compatibility, macs are only for graphics, etc)
6) Have to replace sotware
Well I think
1) well on it's way to being nicely priced
2) 970 will help
3) Needs to be marketed how easy the OS is
4) Needs to be told how crappy windows is, wait, everyone knows that
5) Being done. Apple needs to makes ome damn commercials showing PEOPLE ACTUALLY USING THE FRICKING COMPUTER!
6) Emulation built in or there should be a switch program, switch to mac and with Adobe, Intuit, Macromedia etc, a upgrade price to get the mac version if you own the pc version.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's my twist on the solutions:
1) True, Apple is getting a little better especially in the monitor realm, but they don't have a "generic-use" desktop for the masses - the iMac is just too expensive for most people to buy into, when they can get similar hardware from a clone maker for $599.
2) 970; end of story as far as speed.
3) Apple needs to stick OS X in people's faces. Any venue, any where, any time. It can sell itself, it is really that good!
4) I don't think you will ever get over the familiarity issue with Windows for Joe-user. I still catch myself every day, when trying to help an end user over the phone, figure out where Microsoft decided to put a particular function. Of course, I am forced to use Windows 2000 for support of their enterprise apps which don't function in XP. Think about THAT for a minute. I think you win people over by showing ease of use. And then, refer back to #3 for repetitiveness!
5) Actually using the OS? What a concept! Brilliant; like I said stick OS X so far up the peoples.....well stick it in their face, and they will come.
6) Replacing software isn't an issue if you look at the licensing practices of Microsoft of late. Their fees went up what, 30% in the past year.
In addition to those I would add two more:
7) Current investment in Windows knowledge and server applications.
7 Answer) A tough one! Maybe the toughest here. You would have to have a damn good reason to rip out a large investment in a MS SQL-based app or in an Exchange mail system. Managers and higher ups just don't like to bet the farm on any one company, except Microsoft. In time, I think this may change though when shown the costs in black and white. Let's face it, unlimited licensing of the Mac OS X server is DIRT CHEAP compared to Windows 2000 server.
8) Fear of small corporations! This sickens me but it is quite expensive to convert from one platform to another. I know. Our corporation dropped our corporate Novell licensing for servers, databases and email and went with Microsoft. The final cost? Our $600,000 corporate yearly fee went away, true. But we had to spend over $25,000,000 (yes, you read that right!) to do it. That would take over 41 years to recoupe. Do you think a manager would keep his job if he told his superior that they wanted to get rid of all the Microsoft licensing in the company and go with Apple instead? I just don't think it is a good decision at this point, and I am one of their biggest advocates where I work!
Fear of shedding the Microsoft blanket is too risky for most business managers to fathom.
But even though I could show a less expensive, more productive way of doing the same tasks with OS X, managers would still balk at the idea. That, my friends is the toughest sell of all.
But I think a dose of solution #3, with a bath of solution #3, with a diet of #3, and a....well, you get my drift. Ram OS X down people's throats through advertising, business demos, expos (not just mac-centric Macworlds!), etc will do a lot of the convincing for Apple.
Except that the "Sneak Peek" at the XServe might serve to stop people buying other Blades, not Apple machines.
A sneak peek at the 970 could dry up sales of the PowerMac line until next January or so when the machines are actually released.
I don't see a single compelling reason for Apple to demo the 970 to the general audience of developers except to satisy us rumourmongers. Somehow, with Steve in charge, I doubt that's enough .
Comments
There were even hints of this at last year's WWDC, as some of the APIs introduced there (or shortly after) included 64-bit tidbits (e.g. "<a href="http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/ReleaseNotes/Foundation.html"; target="_blank">Someday</a>, your class's code may run on a machine with a processor with a 64-bit native word size." Hmmm...)
So, if you're at WWDC, just play "64-bit bingo" by making a note of every time a presenter talks about 64-bit APIs and data formats that seem somewhat unnecessary in a 32 bit world. (The game's over if they actually show or announce anything, of course
<strong>And why did they reschedule QT Live for WWDC? It wouldn't be because they want a bigger crowd to announce something major to would it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Im sure it couldn't be anything as simple as AAPL showing mercy for the cash-strapped developer community in these tough times....
<strong>
Not a bad idea and maybe it's just me... but as each day goes by I have less and less need/desire for a VPC type environment. Funny I didn't always feel this way (under os 9 I really wanted it) but as each day goes by and the quality AND volume of X apps (both Aqua and Unix) the less I desire WinApps...
In fact... I think now more than ever there are MORE x86 users interested/curious in being able to run OS X than there are OS X users interested in running Windows.
Dave
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Apple included a VPC-like program on every Mac, that would be a very bad thing. Why? Because then Apple would have to pay a Window's license fee. So Microsoft would get revenue from nearly every computer sold at retail! It's much, much better to seperate the emulation from the OS.
<strong>
It looks like that has been done, but Windows users are not walking toward the bright light.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They have been blinded by the bright light...that's why they are so dazed and confused!
:cool:
if Apple included VPC on every Mac, they would not be required to include Windows. They could include Linux, Marklar (Mac OS X Intel ;-), OS/2, whatever runs on Intel. However, the compatbility would be there for anyone who still had their Windows disk and wanted to move over to the Mac, or test the Intel-on-Mac waters.
<strong>discstickers,
if Apple included VPC on every Mac, they would not be required to include Windows. They could include Linux, Marklar (Mac OS X Intel ;-), OS/2, whatever runs on Intel. However, the compatbility would be there for anyone who still had their Windows disk and wanted to move over to the Mac, or test the Intel-on-Mac waters.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that would mean if they wanted to use the emulater to run Windows then all they have to do is buy it...thus helping Microsoft.
This also gives Apple an excuse to not pay much attention to detail to Mac OS X because "hey if Windows has it and they have that option of loading it on their new Mac...why implament it in Mac OS X?"
Anyway...I agree with John here...
Another quote from the link John provided:
[quote]On the other hand, it isn't harmful either, and writing the code to understand 64-bit today while you're making changes may allow you to avoid upgrading it in the future (as long as you deal with it properly at decode time).
<hr></blockquote>
hmmmm <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
EVAR!!!
<strong>Apple has said in the past that they have never and will never announce new hardware at WWDC.
EVAR!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are not saying that they will announce it, just talk about the technologies for the developers...
Plus they have announced new hardware at WWDC...the Lombard PowerBook (bronze keyboard)...this was in 1999
<strong>Apple will probably just do a brief preview of 10.3 64-bit edition to prepare developers for the 64-bit change.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is enough to confirm us of the 970
<strong>That is enough to confirm us of the 970
Unless, of course, Motorola actually does have a top-secret 64-bit G5 waiting in the wings. Or if Apple is going to switch to AMD's new x86-64 architecture.
<strong>
Unless, of course, Motorola actually does have a top-secret 64-bit G5 waiting in the wings. Or if Apple is going to switch to AMD's new x86-64 architecture.
A switch to AMD would be much bigger than a switch to the 970. I would have expected an anouncement about AMD support in their financial meeting, this afterall would be a major switch in thier buisness, where the 970 is an evolution to the same platform. Apple could talk about 64 bit suppprt via the 970 without giving an timeline for the switch (it is afterall a PowerPC chip), where I would imagine that they would require them to outline to developers and investors a timeline and the chip that they will move to.
<strong>
But that would mean if they wanted to use the emulater to run Windows then all they have to do is buy it...thus helping Microsoft.
This also gives Apple an excuse to not pay much attention to detail to Mac OS X because "hey if Windows has it and they have that option of loading it on their new Mac...why implament it in Mac OS X?" </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't think helping or hurting M$ is the issue. It's Dell, HP and Gateway that we are after. We want market share and EQUAL respect from programdevelopers and website DEVELOPERS! I'm sure we would if we were in the teens at least 13% + in market share because then we'd only be a drop away from 1/4 of the market share. However, we need to gain and we haven't gained in how many years? So obviously, I think Apple needs more aggrssion if they plan to obtain some $ points. Princing is starting to get better. iApps are winning praise. The iPod is the trojan horse and the 970 could be the king.
That fine, we have all the major elements to guarantee victory, excpet, however, that ace in the whole. That sure fire item to get Apple over the hump and into every market there is from homer users to coporate and power users. Then, we need to appeal to ever computer user not using macs.
What are the reasons for not switching?
1) Price
2) speed/specs
3) Unfamiliarity with OSX ( have to learn new OS)
4) Familiar with windows
5) Myths (compatibility, macs are only for graphics, etc)
6) Have to replace sotware
Well I think
1) well on it's way to being nicely priced
2) 970 will help
3) Needs to be marketed how easy the OS is
4) Needs to be told how crappy windows is, wait, everyone knows that
5) Being done. Apple needs to makes ome damn commercials showing PEOPLE ACTUALLY USING THE FRICKING COMPUTER!
6) Emulation built in or there should be a switch program, switch to mac and with Adobe, Intuit, Macromedia etc, a upgrade price to get the mac version if you own the pc version.
<strong>Apple has said in the past that they have never and will never announce new hardware at WWDC.
EVAR!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
are you dumb?
they have released major hardware in the past at WWDC
<strong>What are the reasons for not switching?
1) Price
2) speed/specs
3) Unfamiliarity with OSX ( have to learn new OS)
4) Familiar with windows
5) Myths (compatibility, macs are only for graphics, etc)
6) Have to replace sotware
Well I think
1) well on it's way to being nicely priced
2) 970 will help
3) Needs to be marketed how easy the OS is
4) Needs to be told how crappy windows is, wait, everyone knows that
5) Being done. Apple needs to makes ome damn commercials showing PEOPLE ACTUALLY USING THE FRICKING COMPUTER!
6) Emulation built in or there should be a switch program, switch to mac and with Adobe, Intuit, Macromedia etc, a upgrade price to get the mac version if you own the pc version.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's my twist on the solutions:
1) True, Apple is getting a little better especially in the monitor realm, but they don't have a "generic-use" desktop for the masses - the iMac is just too expensive for most people to buy into, when they can get similar hardware from a clone maker for $599.
2) 970; end of story as far as speed.
3) Apple needs to stick OS X in people's faces. Any venue, any where, any time. It can sell itself, it is really that good!
4) I don't think you will ever get over the familiarity issue with Windows for Joe-user. I still catch myself every day, when trying to help an end user over the phone, figure out where Microsoft decided to put a particular function. Of course, I am forced to use Windows 2000 for support of their enterprise apps which don't function in XP. Think about THAT for a minute. I think you win people over by showing ease of use. And then, refer back to #3 for repetitiveness!
5) Actually using the OS? What a concept! Brilliant; like I said stick OS X so far up the peoples.....well stick it in their face, and they will come.
6) Replacing software isn't an issue if you look at the licensing practices of Microsoft of late. Their fees went up what, 30% in the past year.
In addition to those I would add two more:
7) Current investment in Windows knowledge and server applications.
7 Answer) A tough one! Maybe the toughest here. You would have to have a damn good reason to rip out a large investment in a MS SQL-based app or in an Exchange mail system. Managers and higher ups just don't like to bet the farm on any one company, except Microsoft. In time, I think this may change though when shown the costs in black and white. Let's face it, unlimited licensing of the Mac OS X server is DIRT CHEAP compared to Windows 2000 server.
8) Fear of small corporations! This sickens me but it is quite expensive to convert from one platform to another. I know. Our corporation dropped our corporate Novell licensing for servers, databases and email and went with Microsoft. The final cost? Our $600,000 corporate yearly fee went away, true. But we had to spend over $25,000,000 (yes, you read that right!) to do it. That would take over 41 years to recoupe. Do you think a manager would keep his job if he told his superior that they wanted to get rid of all the Microsoft licensing in the company and go with Apple instead? I just don't think it is a good decision at this point, and I am one of their biggest advocates where I work!
Fear of shedding the Microsoft blanket is too risky for most business managers to fathom.
But even though I could show a less expensive, more productive way of doing the same tasks with OS X, managers would still balk at the idea. That, my friends is the toughest sell of all.
But I think a dose of solution #3, with a bath of solution #3, with a diet of #3, and a....well, you get my drift. Ram OS X down people's throats through advertising, business demos, expos (not just mac-centric Macworlds!), etc will do a lot of the convincing for Apple.
<strong>
Except when they announce hardware like the xServe maybe???</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was only a 'Sneak Peek' at XServe, the real announcement came later at a special Apple Event.
<strong>
That was only a 'Sneak Peek' at XServe, the real announcement came later at a special Apple Event.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Still, it bodes well for a sneak peak at 970 hardware.
A sneak peek at the 970 could dry up sales of the PowerMac line until next January or so when the machines are actually released.
I don't see a single compelling reason for Apple to demo the 970 to the general audience of developers except to satisy us rumourmongers. Somehow, with Steve in charge, I doubt that's enough
<strong>Except that the "Sneak Peek" at the XServe might serve to stop people buying other Blades, not Apple machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[pedantic mode]
The Xserve is not a blade... its a 1U rack server...
[/pedantic mode]
Apart from that, good points...
Blark