MS _had_ a "backup" plan at one point in time when Windows NT 3.5.1 came out. It ran publicly on x86, MIPS and Alpha, and also SPARC and PPC but I don't believe the latter two ever got release. However MS saddled the chip makers with much of the duty of porting. In particular the only version that lasted any substantial period of time was the Alpha version which left Digital with the majority of the porting work. They had an interesting translation technology at the time called FX!32 which cached commonly emulated code paths, perhaps in the same way Rosetta does. This allowed them to run x86 Windows NT binaries on the much faster Alpha platform.
Of course history gave sway, Alpha/NT was eventually dropped, Compaq bought Digital, HP bought Compaq, much of the Alpha technology ended up at Intel, much of the engineers ended up at AMD and these technologies ended up appearing in some form in the Itanium, and in the bus technologies of AMDs chips.
Along the way MS muddled things up in NT4, 2000, XP and likely made their code less portable. (Except in the more embedded verisons such as what is in the Xbox and in the Windows CE/PocketPC/Windows Powered/Whatever it is called things --- which run(/ran) on quite a variety of chips, although mainly on (Intel) Xscales (based on ARM, not compatible with x86) these days. So their backup plan probably would be more bumpy than Apple's transition.
Of course should a PPC that's 2 or 3 times faster than the fastest x86 come out, I'm sure anyone could jump ship --- even all the emulation penalties would be worth it.
Steve stated that they seriously considered the Intel-platform as an option. Now, we know why.
At the time, the IBM G5 processor was an excelent choice, with excelent speeds, and excelent preformance. If steve jobs could take a great choice like that with a future roadmap, and not have to make a transition, then he deffinatly would have done that, and thats what he did. Now that the IBM has issues ...e.g. performance and power consumption, Apples only choice is Intel (or AMD but they choose Intel).
i agree that the transition has been considered seriously for a long time. but there was another point holding it back until now. i think they probably wanted to make sure that the g5 was really going to be a failure but they also needed to make sure that MOST of their audience was completely divested of classic. it would be too much to ask of their users to endure two changes concurrently, while the second change makes the first change's "transition tool" obsolete.
And, they needed to get as many developers as possible migrated to Cocoa. Cocoa makes a move like this a no-brainer. Carbon? Well, those guys are going to have a lot more work to do.
(You guys were *told* Cocoa was the future, you were *told* to try and get over to it as soon as you could... sheesh.)
i agree that the transition has been considered seriously for a long time. but there was another point holding it back until now. i think they probably wanted to make sure that the g5 was really going to be a failure but they also needed to make sure that MOST of their audience was completely divested of classic. it would be too much to ask of their users to endure two changes concurrently, while the second change makes the first change's "transition tool" obsolete.
Maybe so, but I remember thinking it was a failure (being a bit dramitic) when it first came out. I went to the local Apple store an booted up Photoshop. Same boot time. Created a file, converted from RBG to CMYK - not impressed. Saved a multi-layered large file as PSD - save time was not impressive. Tried web surfing - felt the same as the old Macs.
About a month ago, I thought I'd try the latest dual 2.7 G5s at the store, and they finally seemed up to the perceived speed I expected long ago. Where was that kick we got switching from 604e to G3? Now THAT was a processor upgrade. Not since have we seen such a dramitic boost in perceived system performance. G3 to G4 - just add Altivec. G4 to G5... little better. I'll go out on a limb here and just state that the current G5 should still be named G3. The G4 and G5 did not deserve their names with respect to the percentage of performance they provided beyond that of their replacement processors at the time.
If IBM had not been so optimistic and promised Apple the moon, the Intel switch probably would have happened when the G4 ran out of steam. One has to wonder if IBM intentionally overstated the potential of the G5 to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. If Steve Jobs seems humbled, it's probably because he's kicking himself for not doing the switch pre-G5 as the transition would be mostly done by now.
OSX has always felt like an average port of an PC game to the Mac. You know, it runs OK, but nothing like it should. OSX always felt glue-like, and the Finder performance sucks. To think that the PPC version of the Finder is actually the translated hack of the Intel version gives me hope that the Apple engineers/coders are indeed not morons. It makes no sense that Apple could do such an elegant job with Final Cut Pro and yet botch the Finder performance so badly.
Maybe so, but I remember thinking it was a failure (being a bit dramitic) when it first came out. I went to the local Apple store an booted up Photoshop. Same boot time. Created a file, converted from RBG to CMYK - not impressed. Saved a multi-layered large file as PSD - save time was not impressive. Tried web surfing - felt the same as the old Macs.
About a month ago, I thought I'd try the latest dual 2.7 G5s at the store, and they finally seemed up to the perceived speed I expected long ago. Where was that kick we got switching from 604e to G3? Now THAT was a processor upgrade. Not since have we seen such a dramitic boost in perceived system performance. G3 to G4 - just add Altivec. G4 to G5... little better. I'll go out on a limb here and just state that the current G5 should still be named G3. The G4 and G5 did not deserve their names with respect to the percentage of performance they provided beyond that of their replacement processors at the time.
If IBM had not been so optimistic and promised Apple the moon, the Intel switch probably would have happened when the G4 ran out of steam. One has to wonder if IBM intentionally overstated the potential of the G5 to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. If Steve Jobs seems humbled, it's probably because he's kicking himself for not doing the switch pre-G5 as the transition would be mostly done by now.
OSX has always felt like an average port of an PC game to the Mac. You know, it runs OK, but nothing like it should. OSX always felt glue-like, and the Finder performance sucks. To think that the PPC version of the Finder is actually the translated hack of the Intel version gives me hope that the Apple engineers/coders are indeed not morons. It makes no sense that Apple could do such an elegant job with Final Cut Pro and yet botch the Finder performance so badly.
Fingers crossed.
You people really need to watch Steve Job's presentation. In that presentation and in interviews since then, he made it clear that Apple's switch to Intel is about Intel's and IBM's roadmaps for the future--2006, 2007, and beyond--not IBM's promises in the past. IBM's plans for the PPC's future do not meet Apple's projected needs.
You people really need to watch Steve Job's presentation. In that presentation and in interviews since then, he made it clear that Apple's switch to Intel is about Intel's and IBM's roadmaps for the future--2006, 2007, and beyond--not IBM's promises in the past. IBM's plans for the PPC's future do not meet Apple's projected needs.
I distinctly remember Steve mentioning his broken promise of 3GHz. Why mention that if the past isn't influencing the decision? What you said about the future roadmap is true, but it's not the entire picture. What's he supposed to say in interviews? Is he to whine about the past or point to the future? He's just being a good CEO, I think.
I distinctly remember Steve mentioning his broken promise of 3GHz. Why mention that if the past isn't influencing the decision? What you said about the future roadmap is true, but it's not the entire picture. What's he supposed to say in interviews? Is he to whine about the past or point to the future? He's just being a good CEO, I think.
Of course Jobs mentioned the yet to be realized 3 GHz G5. He didn't dwell on it. Having watched the entire presentation and everything that followed, it is clear the decision to switch to Intel is about the future and not some adolescent revenge about real or perceived slights in the past.
Of course Jobs mentioned the yet to be realized 3 GHz G5. He didn't dwell on it. Having watched the entire presentation and everything that followed, it is clear the decision to switch to Intel is about the future and not some adolescent revenge about real or perceived slights in the past.
Yeah, roadmap is the keyword here all around.
The most funny term was (imho) of course: brain transplant.
An expression he used to describe the transition from
Comments
Of course history gave sway, Alpha/NT was eventually dropped, Compaq bought Digital, HP bought Compaq, much of the Alpha technology ended up at Intel, much of the engineers ended up at AMD and these technologies ended up appearing in some form in the Itanium, and in the bus technologies of AMDs chips.
Along the way MS muddled things up in NT4, 2000, XP and likely made their code less portable. (Except in the more embedded verisons such as what is in the Xbox and in the Windows CE/PocketPC/Windows Powered/Whatever it is called things --- which run(/ran) on quite a variety of chips, although mainly on (Intel) Xscales (based on ARM, not compatible with x86) these days. So their backup plan probably would be more bumpy than Apple's transition.
Of course should a PPC that's 2 or 3 times faster than the fastest x86 come out, I'm sure anyone could jump ship --- even all the emulation penalties would be worth it.
Originally posted by RolandG
Steve stated that they seriously considered the Intel-platform as an option. Now, we know why.
At the time, the IBM G5 processor was an excelent choice, with excelent speeds, and excelent preformance. If steve jobs could take a great choice like that with a future roadmap, and not have to make a transition, then he deffinatly would have done that, and thats what he did. Now that the IBM has issues ...e.g. performance and power consumption, Apples only choice is Intel (or AMD but they choose Intel).
(You guys were *told* Cocoa was the future, you were *told* to try and get over to it as soon as you could... sheesh.)
Originally posted by Telomar
*cough* Xbox *cough*
Originally posted by admactanium
i agree that the transition has been considered seriously for a long time. but there was another point holding it back until now. i think they probably wanted to make sure that the g5 was really going to be a failure but they also needed to make sure that MOST of their audience was completely divested of classic. it would be too much to ask of their users to endure two changes concurrently, while the second change makes the first change's "transition tool" obsolete.
Maybe so, but I remember thinking it was a failure (being a bit dramitic) when it first came out. I went to the local Apple store an booted up Photoshop. Same boot time. Created a file, converted from RBG to CMYK - not impressed. Saved a multi-layered large file as PSD - save time was not impressive. Tried web surfing - felt the same as the old Macs.
About a month ago, I thought I'd try the latest dual 2.7 G5s at the store, and they finally seemed up to the perceived speed I expected long ago. Where was that kick we got switching from 604e to G3? Now THAT was a processor upgrade. Not since have we seen such a dramitic boost in perceived system performance. G3 to G4 - just add Altivec. G4 to G5... little better. I'll go out on a limb here and just state that the current G5 should still be named G3. The G4 and G5 did not deserve their names with respect to the percentage of performance they provided beyond that of their replacement processors at the time.
If IBM had not been so optimistic and promised Apple the moon, the Intel switch probably would have happened when the G4 ran out of steam. One has to wonder if IBM intentionally overstated the potential of the G5 to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. If Steve Jobs seems humbled, it's probably because he's kicking himself for not doing the switch pre-G5 as the transition would be mostly done by now.
OSX has always felt like an average port of an PC game to the Mac. You know, it runs OK, but nothing like it should. OSX always felt glue-like, and the Finder performance sucks. To think that the PPC version of the Finder is actually the translated hack of the Intel version gives me hope that the Apple engineers/coders are indeed not morons. It makes no sense that Apple could do such an elegant job with Final Cut Pro and yet botch the Finder performance so badly.
Fingers crossed.
Originally posted by inslider
Maybe so, but I remember thinking it was a failure (being a bit dramitic) when it first came out. I went to the local Apple store an booted up Photoshop. Same boot time. Created a file, converted from RBG to CMYK - not impressed. Saved a multi-layered large file as PSD - save time was not impressive. Tried web surfing - felt the same as the old Macs.
About a month ago, I thought I'd try the latest dual 2.7 G5s at the store, and they finally seemed up to the perceived speed I expected long ago. Where was that kick we got switching from 604e to G3? Now THAT was a processor upgrade. Not since have we seen such a dramitic boost in perceived system performance. G3 to G4 - just add Altivec. G4 to G5... little better. I'll go out on a limb here and just state that the current G5 should still be named G3. The G4 and G5 did not deserve their names with respect to the percentage of performance they provided beyond that of their replacement processors at the time.
If IBM had not been so optimistic and promised Apple the moon, the Intel switch probably would have happened when the G4 ran out of steam. One has to wonder if IBM intentionally overstated the potential of the G5 to make a quick buck at Apple's expense. If Steve Jobs seems humbled, it's probably because he's kicking himself for not doing the switch pre-G5 as the transition would be mostly done by now.
OSX has always felt like an average port of an PC game to the Mac. You know, it runs OK, but nothing like it should. OSX always felt glue-like, and the Finder performance sucks. To think that the PPC version of the Finder is actually the translated hack of the Intel version gives me hope that the Apple engineers/coders are indeed not morons. It makes no sense that Apple could do such an elegant job with Final Cut Pro and yet botch the Finder performance so badly.
Fingers crossed.
You people really need to watch Steve Job's presentation. In that presentation and in interviews since then, he made it clear that Apple's switch to Intel is about Intel's and IBM's roadmaps for the future--2006, 2007, and beyond--not IBM's promises in the past. IBM's plans for the PPC's future do not meet Apple's projected needs.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You people really need to watch Steve Job's presentation. In that presentation and in interviews since then, he made it clear that Apple's switch to Intel is about Intel's and IBM's roadmaps for the future--2006, 2007, and beyond--not IBM's promises in the past. IBM's plans for the PPC's future do not meet Apple's projected needs.
I distinctly remember Steve mentioning his broken promise of 3GHz. Why mention that if the past isn't influencing the decision? What you said about the future roadmap is true, but it's not the entire picture. What's he supposed to say in interviews? Is he to whine about the past or point to the future? He's just being a good CEO, I think.
Originally posted by inslider
I distinctly remember Steve mentioning his broken promise of 3GHz. Why mention that if the past isn't influencing the decision? What you said about the future roadmap is true, but it's not the entire picture. What's he supposed to say in interviews? Is he to whine about the past or point to the future? He's just being a good CEO, I think.
Of course Jobs mentioned the yet to be realized 3 GHz G5. He didn't dwell on it. Having watched the entire presentation and everything that followed, it is clear the decision to switch to Intel is about the future and not some adolescent revenge about real or perceived slights in the past.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Of course Jobs mentioned the yet to be realized 3 GHz G5. He didn't dwell on it. Having watched the entire presentation and everything that followed, it is clear the decision to switch to Intel is about the future and not some adolescent revenge about real or perceived slights in the past.
Yeah, roadmap is the keyword here all around.
The most funny term was (imho) of course: brain transplant.
An expression he used to describe the transition from
Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Boom.
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Yeah, roadmap is the keyword here all around.
The most funny term was (imho) of course: brain transplant.
An expression he used to describe the transition from
Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Boom.