....My time is worth something, too, but apparently the almighty Steve doesn't give a rat's ass....Who the hell's going to be supporting any software for PPC Macs 7 years from now? ...
(Some snips made in above quote)
If your time is worth much at all, you won't be using the same computer in 7 years, will you?
On another tack: The Intel "knock-off" minis that were shown last week - were these there to drop hints about Apple's move? Will they be the kit used in the Transition developers' machines?
if (IF) IBM deliver on the G5 development, is it possible that PPC and x86 will both be treated as 1st class Mac citizens? Say, have a PPC-based PowerMac range and Intel-based mobile/mini range?
Not at all. Weren't you aware that there's even a Windows version of VirtualPC? Why? Because there are some great advantages to being able to run one or more alternate virtual machines as separate simulataneous processes on one real machine, without needing to boot between one and the other. Windows users use VirtualPC to run different versions of Windows and/or Linux simulataneously.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this x86 move, but VirtualPC isn't high among my concerns. In fact, VirtualPC should kick ass being able to run x86 code directly.
No, I wasn't aware of that! Thanks.
MS didn't buy VPC because it runs on the Mac, though that was a plus. It bought it for the virtualization capabilities of running more than one copy of MS's own server software on an unburdened server, usually one with several cpu's.
It no longer permits the running of Linux. That lasted until the first MS owned upgrade.
I wonder if I'll be able to run old Classic apps on an x86 Mac, with the x86 emulating a PPC emulating a 68040?
From the sound of it, we will. Which would be really funny. I remember loading up VPC 4 in Classic, running Windows 95, running a DOS shell, running an old MacOS 6 emulator, all in OS X on my iMac DV. Now, add Rosetta on top of that...
From the sound of it, we will. Which would be really funny. I remember loading up VPC 4 in Classic, running Windows 95, running a DOS shell, running an old MacOS 6 emulator, all in OS X on my iMac DV. Now, add Rosetta on top of that...
That goes beyond fat binaries into practically obese binaries.
No I think OpenFirmware will stay around, basically as the system IO for booting, etc. Beyond that, however, is how those hacking tools will affect the Rosetta emulator. That is the big concern I have. I have dealt with fucking spyware/malware/viruses at work for the past 5 years and it is a tough battle. I don't want to have to dick with that crap at home too.
In most cases...not at all. The actual binary code of most applications these days is a fairly small percentage of that 10MB example.
Sorry, I should clarify that I meant *download* size, not memory footprint, as that should remain largely unchanged. But if what you say is true, that the actual binary is a very small fraction, the other chunk taken up by graphic files, help files, etc, then it probably wouldn't grow all that much then. Just thinking of the 56k users
I'm not keen on supporting another platform. That's one of the reasons some developers even bother with such a small market: its relatively easy to support.
Notice that there isn't a way to test x86 binaries on PowerPC hardware. That means I'll have to buy new hardware, and since it will be Apple hardware (not generic) it will be just as expensive.
And what happens when I have a x86 Mac and want to use a library written for PowerPC?
First, a great many folks are assuming that this was a choice; I suspect that it was not. IBM has had 4 years (development on the 970 started in 2001) to make a mobile processor for Apple and has been unable to do it. Similarly they have been unable to improve the desktop processor at anywhere near the rate they expected. Just conjecture, but my guess is that IBM decided that the R&D to redesign the PPC for Apple was not worth it, especially when they look to be selling a couple hundred million of the things to the gaming industry. Either that, or Apple couldn't foot the bill or wait for a redesign. After the G4 debacle Apple kept Marklar alive as a last ditch effort if the IBM deal went south, which it appears to have.
Second, although it seems insane for Apple to make this announcement a year before hardware is due, again they didn't have a choice. They need time for developers to make the necessary changes to OSX applications so that the transition, when it occurs will be as smooth as possible. If they had released developer kits without an announcement it would have been about 10 ms before the whole world knew anyway, so suck it up and let everyone know.
My take, Apple has played its hand as best it can with the cards its been dealt. Unfortunately, they're looking at Aces and Eights.
A News.com story quotes Apple marketing VP Phil Shiller about Mac/Windows interoperability on PCs:
Also on Monday, Jobs said the next version of OS X, called Leopard, will be released in late 2006 or early 2007, which he said was the same timeframe as Microsoft's next Windows update, dubbed Longhorn. Microsoft has said Longhorn will be released by late 2006. After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
Long as my primary applications run, I don't know why anyone would care what happens.
Are we going to see Intel's "arms" getting pulled in both directions like a child in a custody battle? "We should have the faster chips first!" "No WE should!"
Ummm Phil S already said that the x86 Macs will be able to run Windows. There is little reason why they wouldnt. However I expect Apple will be making every effort to ensure that OSX runs much faster on the same box than Win XP.
Comments
Originally posted by AppleRISC
....My time is worth something, too, but apparently the almighty Steve doesn't give a rat's ass....Who the hell's going to be supporting any software for PPC Macs 7 years from now? ...
(Some snips made in above quote)
If your time is worth much at all, you won't be using the same computer in 7 years, will you?
On another tack: The Intel "knock-off" minis that were shown last week - were these there to drop hints about Apple's move? Will they be the kit used in the Transition developers' machines?
if (IF) IBM deliver on the G5 development, is it possible that PPC and x86 will both be treated as 1st class Mac citizens? Say, have a PPC-based PowerMac range and Intel-based mobile/mini range?
Originally posted by inslider
Originally posted by shetline
Not at all. Weren't you aware that there's even a Windows version of VirtualPC? Why? Because there are some great advantages to being able to run one or more alternate virtual machines as separate simulataneous processes on one real machine, without needing to boot between one and the other. Windows users use VirtualPC to run different versions of Windows and/or Linux simulataneously.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this x86 move, but VirtualPC isn't high among my concerns. In fact, VirtualPC should kick ass being able to run x86 code directly.
No, I wasn't aware of that! Thanks.
MS didn't buy VPC because it runs on the Mac, though that was a plus. It bought it for the virtualization capabilities of running more than one copy of MS's own server software on an unburdened server, usually one with several cpu's.
It no longer permits the running of Linux. That lasted until the first MS owned upgrade.
Originally posted by shetline
I wonder if I'll be able to run old Classic apps on an x86 Mac, with the x86 emulating a PPC emulating a 68040?
From the sound of it, we will. Which would be really funny. I remember loading up VPC 4 in Classic, running Windows 95, running a DOS shell, running an old MacOS 6 emulator, all in OS X on my iMac DV. Now, add Rosetta on top of that...
Originally posted by Tidris
The keynote is playing here:
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
Damn that's good quality. Now if only someone could find away to actually download this historic keynote for posterity.
Originally posted by pnbarnes
Does anyone know if Apple will be posting the QT file of the keynote or if it is available anywhere else? I'd love to see it. Thanks!
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
OOPS! Hadn't gotten this far in the thread yet.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Not really. OpenFirmware is to a Mac what BIOS is to a PC.
Again, no Open Firmware on x86.
Originally posted by Kesh
From the sound of it, we will. Which would be really funny. I remember loading up VPC 4 in Classic, running Windows 95, running a DOS shell, running an old MacOS 6 emulator, all in OS X on my iMac DV. Now, add Rosetta on top of that...
That goes beyond fat binaries into practically obese binaries.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
No I think OpenFirmware will stay around, basically as the system IO for booting, etc. Beyond that, however, is how those hacking tools will affect the Rosetta emulator. That is the big concern I have. I have dealt with fucking spyware/malware/viruses at work for the past 5 years and it is a tough battle. I don't want to have to dick with that crap at home too.
Nope. No OF.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
In most cases...not at all. The actual binary code of most applications these days is a fairly small percentage of that 10MB example.
Sorry, I should clarify that I meant *download* size, not memory footprint, as that should remain largely unchanged. But if what you say is true, that the actual binary is a very small fraction, the other chunk taken up by graphic files, help files, etc, then it probably wouldn't grow all that much then. Just thinking of the 56k users
Since Apple will be a small customer for anyone who provides its CPU's, they should have more than one vendor.
Going down this path Apple will have to straddle Power and x86 for awhile, maybe becoming integrated into the platform may be a strength.
Use Power processor and x86 processors in machines where appropriate for that machine and its task.
Notice that there isn't a way to test x86 binaries on PowerPC hardware. That means I'll have to buy new hardware, and since it will be Apple hardware (not generic) it will be just as expensive.
And what happens when I have a x86 Mac and want to use a library written for PowerPC?
Originally posted by shetline
I wonder if I'll be able to run old Classic apps on an x86 Mac, with the x86 emulating a PPC emulating a 68040?
Did you never run a PPC Mac emulating a 68040 emulating an Aplle II 6502 running a programm on that build-in 16bit software cpu?
First, a great many folks are assuming that this was a choice; I suspect that it was not. IBM has had 4 years (development on the 970 started in 2001) to make a mobile processor for Apple and has been unable to do it. Similarly they have been unable to improve the desktop processor at anywhere near the rate they expected. Just conjecture, but my guess is that IBM decided that the R&D to redesign the PPC for Apple was not worth it, especially when they look to be selling a couple hundred million of the things to the gaming industry. Either that, or Apple couldn't foot the bill or wait for a redesign. After the G4 debacle Apple kept Marklar alive as a last ditch effort if the IBM deal went south, which it appears to have.
Second, although it seems insane for Apple to make this announcement a year before hardware is due, again they didn't have a choice. They need time for developers to make the necessary changes to OSX applications so that the transition, when it occurs will be as smooth as possible. If they had released developer kits without an announcement it would have been about 10 ms before the whole world knew anyway, so suck it up and let everyone know.
My take, Apple has played its hand as best it can with the cards its been dealt. Unfortunately, they're looking at Aces and Eights.
What are the chances that we could see an APPLE computer that could also boot into windows or Linux?
Ideally, APPLEs would be able to boot windows, but other computer companies' computers wouldn't be able to boot into macOS...
your thoughts please.
From Macintouch Report
A News.com story quotes Apple marketing VP Phil Shiller about Mac/Windows interoperability on PCs:
Also on Monday, Jobs said the next version of OS X, called Leopard, will be released in late 2006 or early 2007, which he said was the same timeframe as Microsoft's next Windows update, dubbed Longhorn. Microsoft has said Longhorn will be released by late 2006. After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
Long as my primary applications run, I don't know why anyone would care what happens.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Are we going to see Intel's "arms" getting pulled in both directions like a child in a custody battle? "We should have the faster chips first!" "No WE should!"
All vendors could get the chip at the same time
Originally posted by neumac
Two thoughts:
First, a great many folks are assuming that this was a choice; I suspect that it was not.
Yep.
Today's keynote is the public face of Apple's CPU trainwreck with Steve standing on the mess claiming we meant to do this...
Originally posted by Tuttle
Yep.
Today's keynote is the public face of Apple's CPU trainwreck with Steve standing on the mess claiming we meant to do this...
Kinda like that cat that runs into the sliding glass door, then tries to casually walk away....
"I meant to do that!"