OS/2 had a specific Windows support mechanism, and attempted to treat it equally. That isn't the case here, and I'm really tired of seeing OS/2 continually trotted out as why Apple is going to die.
It simply doesn't wash as a comparison.
It washes as a comparison if an something like WINE becomes pervasive. It would be suicide for Apple to do something like a redbox for Windows compatibility, but if someone releases a seamless oss Windows environment for OSX, then the options for developers becomes: 1)Port my Windows app to MacOSX, costing me time and money for a fraction of the marketplace or 2)ship this 'emulator' or point users to where they can get it, costing me nothing and allowing Windows and Mac users to use my app or 3)not to anything.
Bottom line: some developers will do what is cheapest. Sure, they may lose UI purists on the Mac side, but being dominant or a must-have app, they will sell some into the Mac market also. Anything that can be viewed as a barrier can be used as an excuse when looking for reasons to cut costs.
I think you and I both agree that a return of yellowbox is the ideal situation for Apple now. From my view, it is a necessity.
And yet KDE, Qt, etc, get new developers all the time.
In my academic experience, on both sides of the fence, profs (the good ones at least) don't teach proprietary APIs, they teach principles. Java is used more than anything for that, or C++ and gcc.
Agree 100%
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Win32 specific teaching is rare.
Agree, depending on the context. At university comp sci level, yes, good teachers do not teach platforms, they teach concepts. But, at the community college and business school level (Devry?) they teach Win32. Hell, you are lucky if they get beyond Visual Studio for that matter. They teach tools not concepts. They teach syntax not theory.
That's because those are trade schools, not colleges, no matter what they're calling themselves. They train in you how to use a specific set of tools to do specific jobs. *shrug*
To me, that's like being worried about the future of TCP/IP because those same schools teach how to become a MS Certified Network Engineer. \
That's because those are trade schools, not colleges, no matter what they're calling themselves. They train in you how to use a specific set of tools to do specific jobs. *shrug*
To me, that's like being worried about the future of TCP/IP because those same schools teach how to become a MS Certified Network Engineer. \
With an army of people coming out of those schools and CompSci enrollment now on the decline, some devs shops may opt to go with the available resources.
My employer has lots of BMath and CompSci grads, but we recently have been hiring MCSD/MCAD and encourging staff to become certified. We get to claim Gold Partner status and I think MS provides us with some funding based on the % of MS certifieds we have (this may be in the form of large license discounts). Meanwhile, we contract out any Mac development, because it would be cost-prohibative to hire Mac developers permanently. In one of our main target markets, we enjoy 80-90% saturation and have for 20+ years. A very small fraction of that market requires Mac support and then only with a couple components of the product. We used to do Mac dev in house, but it just isn't worth it anymore. Changing the CPU in Macs doesn't make it more attractive. And if our Windows apps could run unmodified on Macs, the powers that be would do it in a second.
Cocoa for Windows would be revolutionary. It would attract some Windows developers, but if my Cocoa app could now automatically run on Windows, it makes it that much easier to develop apps for both platforms.
In fact, I bet like Marklar, there is a secret Cocoa for Windows project... even if some of it is Rosetta based for now.
Cocoa for Windows would be revolutionary. It would attract some Windows developers, but if my Cocoa app could now automatically run on Windows, it makes it that much easier to develop apps for both platforms.
In fact, I bet like Marklar, there is a secret Cocoa for Windows project... even if some of it is Rosetta based for now.
It would be revolutionary, and yet completely retro at the same time.
You wont be able to dual boot into Windows. Unless I am mistaken, Apple would continue to use Openfirmware. This model would be similar to the quad Opeteron Sun servers.
I think the move is also due to IBM moving out of the mass market as they believe the future of the PC is bleak. Next gen consoles offer all the functionality you want out of a home PC (almost). It will continue to evolve into a home appliance and entertainment solution with the home PC becoming more and more irrelevant. There isn't much room for growth in the corporate sectors as we seem to have evolved out of the new Windows OS = new PC mode. IT is now a commodity and it no longer gives you the edge over your competitors, so businesses won't invest big in IT. In this scenario, Apple has to come up with a new application for computers in your home to justify a purchase.
If they are focusing on the corporate world (movie making, etc.), then they need all the horsepower they can get to compete with linux cluster farms (Dreamworks).
WINE support or anything else of that kind by Apple will be the death blow for them, it will mean a lot of developers will stop porting their apps to OS X, and the Apps won't run as fast as on Windows, so eventaully people will move to windows cause they are running WINDOWS apps
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
OS/2 had a specific Windows support mechanism, and attempted to treat it equally. That isn't the case here, and I'm really tired of seeing OS/2 continually trotted out as why Apple is going to die.
It simply doesn't wash as a comparison.
It washes as a comparison if an something like WINE becomes pervasive. It would be suicide for Apple to do something like a redbox for Windows compatibility, but if someone releases a seamless oss Windows environment for OSX, then the options for developers becomes: 1)Port my Windows app to MacOSX, costing me time and money for a fraction of the marketplace or 2)ship this 'emulator' or point users to where they can get it, costing me nothing and allowing Windows and Mac users to use my app or 3)not to anything.
Bottom line: some developers will do what is cheapest. Sure, they may lose UI purists on the Mac side, but being dominant or a must-have app, they will sell some into the Mac market also. Anything that can be viewed as a barrier can be used as an excuse when looking for reasons to cut costs.
I think you and I both agree that a return of yellowbox is the ideal situation for Apple now. From my view, it is a necessity.
Originally posted by Kickaha
And yet KDE, Qt, etc, get new developers all the time.
In my academic experience, on both sides of the fence, profs (the good ones at least) don't teach proprietary APIs, they teach principles. Java is used more than anything for that, or C++ and gcc.
Agree 100%
Originally posted by Kickaha
Win32 specific teaching is rare.
Agree, depending on the context. At university comp sci level, yes, good teachers do not teach platforms, they teach concepts. But, at the community college and business school level (Devry?) they teach Win32. Hell, you are lucky if they get beyond Visual Studio for that matter. They teach tools not concepts. They teach syntax not theory.
To me, that's like being worried about the future of TCP/IP because those same schools teach how to become a MS Certified Network Engineer.
Originally posted by Kickaha
That's because those are trade schools, not colleges, no matter what they're calling themselves. They train in you how to use a specific set of tools to do specific jobs. *shrug*
To me, that's like being worried about the future of TCP/IP because those same schools teach how to become a MS Certified Network Engineer.
With an army of people coming out of those schools and CompSci enrollment now on the decline, some devs shops may opt to go with the available resources.
My employer has lots of BMath and CompSci grads, but we recently have been hiring MCSD/MCAD and encourging staff to become certified. We get to claim Gold Partner status and I think MS provides us with some funding based on the % of MS certifieds we have (this may be in the form of large license discounts). Meanwhile, we contract out any Mac development, because it would be cost-prohibative to hire Mac developers permanently. In one of our main target markets, we enjoy 80-90% saturation and have for 20+ years. A very small fraction of that market requires Mac support and then only with a couple components of the product. We used to do Mac dev in house, but it just isn't worth it anymore. Changing the CPU in Macs doesn't make it more attractive. And if our Windows apps could run unmodified on Macs, the powers that be would do it in a second.
In fact, I bet like Marklar, there is a secret Cocoa for Windows project... even if some of it is Rosetta based for now.
Originally posted by Xool
Cocoa for Windows would be revolutionary. It would attract some Windows developers, but if my Cocoa app could now automatically run on Windows, it makes it that much easier to develop apps for both platforms.
In fact, I bet like Marklar, there is a secret Cocoa for Windows project... even if some of it is Rosetta based for now.
It would be revolutionary, and yet completely retro at the same time.
I think the move is also due to IBM moving out of the mass market as they believe the future of the PC is bleak. Next gen consoles offer all the functionality you want out of a home PC (almost). It will continue to evolve into a home appliance and entertainment solution with the home PC becoming more and more irrelevant. There isn't much room for growth in the corporate sectors as we seem to have evolved out of the new Windows OS = new PC mode. IT is now a commodity and it no longer gives you the edge over your competitors, so businesses won't invest big in IT. In this scenario, Apple has to come up with a new application for computers in your home to justify a purchase.
If they are focusing on the corporate world (movie making, etc.), then they need all the horsepower they can get to compete with linux cluster farms (Dreamworks).
In 5 years time you either buy an OSX machine (from Apple) or a Longhorn machine (from Sony, Dell, .....). You choose what you are comfortable with.
You buy a copy of Photoshop Elements to edit your holiday pictures and load it onto either machine.
It works natively on the Longhorn box, but on the OSX box an invisible software layer sits between the OS and the application.
The software works on either OS, and because the emulation layer will be so "thin", there will be no visible peformance differences.
OS specific interfaces (ie Aqua) will also be emulated.
No more compatibility complaints from Windows users wanting to switch.
Much more software avaible to Mac users (especially games).
This will mean real growth in Mac market share, and Apple know this.
so it's the most MORONIC move Apple could make